@ Kay 17 >>> what's the beef >>> the guy (Kierkegaard) was smart

@ nuclear boy >>> catch ur drift >>> but let's not mistake grammar & jargon for intelligence

nuclearboy:

@Uyi:

The VAST difference in grammar and intelligence is really amusing. University professor versus area-boy. The guy no know him mate 

see this bushman. i see you've resorted to e-stalking my posts. weirdo

i'm not one to flaunt my academic qualifications to faceless online creeps, but smh @ people who attended underfunded strike and corruption riddled nigerian academic institutions spending all their time co-signing eachother online in order to feel better about their poverty stricken selves. i told you, you need to get your jobless azz offline and go look for a real job so that in future you don't dump all the blame of your uselessness on home trouble or some imaginary devil

i'm in europe now making dollars under the US government and you're there in naija soaking garri trying to prove and compete with people you don't know online on who can spout the best grammar and vocabs. ewu suffer-head

An abridgment of my comments

>>> comment 21

>>> comment 27

>>> comment 29

>>> comment 30

>>> comment 50

@ Kay 17 & Mudley >>> take note of comments 30 & 50 >>> they are cruxes of my argument

Mudley313:

i'm in europe now making dollars under the US government

Undoutably Stupid government >>> you mean

oh! the so-typical Mudley antics of attacking e-personality instead of tackling the issues raised. stick to the damn 'topic' >>> Will you?

i really want to hear u out >>> why do you think faith and reason are both incompatible ? >>> cuz i think they are CONTIGENTLY compatible (in some cases they are , some times they aren't)

Uyi Iredia:

Undoutably undoubtedly silly government >>> you mean

not even half as silly as the corruption riddled sham of a government you guys have in your lawless and semi-failed state back in naija

oh! the so-typical Mudley antics of attacking e-personality instead of tackling the issues raised. stick to the damn 'topic' >>> Will you?

tell that to your fellow e-christian faith defender nuclearboy who derails threads with assumptous personality attacks and namecallings just to make him feel better about his frustrated unable-to-find-a-job self. i've been banned twice already on this forum due to his likes, it's why i try to avoid all these unecessary e-confrontations with losers at life that invariably leads no where

i really want to hear u out >>> why do you think faith and reason are both incompatible ? >>> cuz i think they are CONTIGENTLY compatible (in some cases they are , some times they aren't)

i see you genuinely want to discuss this subject (unlike that Arrow nuclearboy) and would just advice you to concentrate on your studies and possibly take some elective history classes in the course of your studies instead of relying on google and wikipedia in trying to buttress your point cos most times it makes one deviate from the issues at hand (like that your black death insinuation as a cause for intellectual decline during the middle ages). i have already provided you with a few opinions of mine on why faith (based on mostly absurd religious dogmas) and reason cannot be said to be compatible

same was of Singapore >>> does Lee Kuan Yeu ring a bell?

i sort of did that >>> when I told him (reminding myself as well) not to mistake good vocabulary for intelligence

I study such electives >>> the lecturer who teaches it. well    easy-going but somewhat melancholic (spends a quarter of most lectures bemoaning how unserious students are). A queer opinion since most of my course-mates hate his style of lecturing >>> the probability of bias remains cuz I attend a Christian university (or Christian Mission Institution sic) hence i read books from the library & a good number of them have web links (i give kudos to them for not being biased in that aspect though_trust me)

Also you highly undermine my ability to use Google & Wikipedia as tools for study >>>I ain't taking your 'yabbing' of my school lightly >>> if you could factor in all the socio-political obstacles in Nigerian situation you would think twice & twice more b4 yapping >>> not many (if at all any) university can boast of a superlative library with good e-library & internet facilities (it's not yet uhuru sha)

@Genetic Garbage:

Your home govt may have failed in your estimation. Such as you brought it upon her with your mentality. But I have not failed and still offer you that job I mentioned earlier.

The US govt may be your successful paradise contrary to world view. Whichever it is, you remain a failure even there.

It may interest you that people succeed in spite of circumstances rather than because of them - come to Nigeria and you'll commit suicide seeing what we do here. For us, making false claims to collect social security (yep - us dollars) is not success. And neither are other scams

@Rhino3dm
Your introduction on faith was fair enough,especially recognising the fact that the topic is broad. Heberew 11 gave a straight definition .

Hebrews 11:1
1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Faith can also be defined The response of our spirit to the word of God.we can say also that it is seen the unseen and acting by it. Trust in the word of God is great ingredient of faith.

Uyi Iredia:

Finally >>> Uyi calls out to the little child hiding in the dark cave of ignorance (the type talked about in Plato's allegory of the caves) >>> Mudley, Mudley, come out & reason

Kay 17:

I will define faith as a blind step. Who agrees?

^I disagree.

As always you guys shape your arguments in such a way as to assert that faith is anti-reason: that Faith operates void of proof. Not so. Faith is predicated on evidence. Science is also predicated on evidence. Theories are conjectures proposed to explain phenomena in the real world. These models or explanations of reality are presented in verbal form in less quantitative fields and as mathematical relationships in others. Both faith and science provide models for reality. By and large Faith and Science coexist peacefully side by side (e.g the self-evident fact of gravity is non-controversial in whether from the perspective of Faith or Science) but where the clash often occurs is in relation to questions of origins and endings and existential meaning that have philosophical underpinnings and speak to the nature of man. Being self-inquiring beings, we ask ourselves: Who are we? Where do we come from? Why are we here? And how does it all end? Or to put it more poetically:
[center]
[table][tr][td]

Edgar Allan Poe:
Take this kiss upon the brow!
And, in parting from you now,
Thus much let me avow-
You are not wrong, who deem
That my days have been a dream;
Yet if hope has flown away
In a night, or in a day,
In a vision, or in none,
Is it therefore the less gone?
All that we see or seem
Is but a dream within a dream.

I stand amid the roar
Of a surf-tormented shore,
And I hold within my hand
Grains of the golden sand-
How few! yet how they creep
Through my fingers to the deep,
While I weep- while I weep!
O God! can I not grasp
Them with a tighter clasp?
O God! can I not save
One from the pitiless wave?
Is all that we see or seem
But a dream within a dream?

[/td]
[td]

Alexander Pope: Know then thyself, presume not God to scan
The proper study of Mankind is Man.
Placed on this isthmus of a middle state,
A Being darkly wise, and rudely great:
With too much knowledge for the Sceptic side,
With too much weakness for the Stoic's pride,
He hangs between; in doubt to act, or rest;
In doubt to deem himself a God, or Beast;
In doubt his mind or body to prefer;
Born but to die, and reas'ning but to err;
Alike in ignorance, his reason such,
Whether he thinks too little, or too much;
Chaos of Thought and Passion, all confus'd;
Still by himself, abus'd or disabus'd;
Created half to rise and half to fall;
Great Lord of all things, yet a prey to all,
Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurl'd;
The glory, jest and riddle of the world.

[/td][/tr][/table]
[/center]
Unfortunately Science, with it's deterministic model does not provide the answers to these questions. Faith on the other hand (whether Biblical or otherwise), does provide answers to these questions that confront us on this plane of existence. Whether these are the right answers is a matter of examining the historical and textual evidence.

Those on this thread who make the argument that Medieval Christianity blanketed Europe with a dark pall of ignorance fail to present the full picture. A large part of the descent of Europe into the Dark Ages was as a result of the Fall of the Roman Empire and the loss of Pax Romana. The destruction of the Library of Alexandria with its repository of ancient knowledge also contributed to the decline of learning. Nonetheless, Medieval Christianity also kept alive the banked fires of science by preserving the few ancient manuscripts in its monasteries. Indeed the early roots of modern science are found in what was then called "natural theology" and "natural philosophy". A considerable number of those in the vanguard of scientific progress were men and women who also believed in the existence of God.

Although the laws of motion and universal gravitation became Newton's best-known discoveries, he warned against using them to view the Universe as a mere machine, as if akin to a great clock. He said, "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."

Faith goes beyond Science in providing an explanation of phenomena that Science's deterministic model cannot explain: angels, demons, hobgoblins etc. For thousands of years, Faith has described encounters with beings from other dimensions of reality than this one. Isn't it interesting that only now is Science beginning to consider that other dimensions exist through quantum & string theories &c.

Here's a thought: Imagine the dismay, when after the gruelling climb and slog, Science arrives at the summit of the mountain aiming to plant the flag of conquest only to find Faith already sitting at the top waiting to welcome it!

@ Joagbaje

Your reference to the Bible seems to me to be a part of the problem. I've seen this sort of response as some sort of definition of faith.

Hebrews 11:1
1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

If we were to broaden "seen" to imply something like "perceive" or "detect", then I hope the problem becomes clearer. What I mean is, how can you speak of evidence with regards to what one has not detected or perceived in any way?

aletheia:


^I disagree.

As always you guys shape your arguments in such a way as to assert that faith is anti-reason: that Faith operates void of proof. Not so. Faith is predicated on evidence.

The sort of evidence used by faith seems to me to rely on some sort of authority.

aletheia:

Science is also predicated on evidence. Theories are conjectures proposed to explain phenomena in the real world.

Theories are ranked far above conjectures. Conjectures can be considered as similar to hypothesis.

aletheia:

These models or explanations of reality are presented in verbal form in less quantitative fields and as mathematical relationships in others. Both faith and science provide models for reality. By and large Faith and Science coexist peacefully side by side (e.g the self-evident fact of gravity is non-controversial in whether from the perspective of Faith or Science) but where the clash often occurs is in relation to questions of origins and endings and existential meaning that have philosophical underpinnings and speak to the nature of man. Being self-inquiring beings, we ask ourselves: Who are we? Where do we come from? Why are we here? And how does it all end? Or to put it more poetically:

This is not quite correct. They do clash often. e.g when we consider gravity, we understand that people and chariots do not float away from the surface of the earth. Another example: considering the principle of buoyancy, humans and metal objects do not float on water in certain configurations. Yet some choose to accept stuff like this on faith when these events seem to me to be evidence to the contrary.

aletheia:

. . .
Unfortunately Science, with it's deterministic model does not provide the answers to these questions. Faith on the other hand (whether Biblical or otherwise), does provide answers to these questions that confront us on this plane of existence. Whether these are the right answers is a matter of examining the historical and textual evidence.

But if some of these answers do not seem to make sense considering the evidence before us, why should they be considered to be true?

aletheia:

Those on this thread who make the argument that Medieval Christianity blanketed Europe with a dark pall of ignorance fail to present the full picture. A large part of the descent of Europe into the Dark Ages was as a result of the Fall of the Roman Empire and the loss of Pax Romana. The destruction of the Library of Alexandria with its repository of ancient knowledge also contributed to the decline of learning. Nonetheless, Medieval Christianity also kept alive the banked fires of science by preserving the few ancient manuscripts in its monasteries. Indeed the early roots of modern science are found in what was then called "natural theology" and "natural philosophy". A considerable number of those in the vanguard of scientific progress were men and women who also believed in the existence of God.

Belief in the existence of God was the norm in those times even among their scientists this is understandable considering the possible harm one could come to for believing otherwise. But, with more and better information, we can see people at least among the elite scientists that the belief in God is not quite necessary to make progress.

aletheia:

Faith goes beyond Science in providing an explanation of phenomena that Science's deterministic model cannot explain: angels, demons, hobgoblins etc. For thousands of years, Faith has described encounters with beings from other dimensions of reality than this one. Isn't it interesting that only now is Science beginning to consider that other dimensions exist through quantum & string theories &c.

Some of those strange beliefs especially those that are well defined, have been put to rest at least among the less gullible. I'm not sure what you mean by other dimensions here. Do you mean alternate universes or extra dimensions?

aletheia:

Here's a thought: Imagine the dismay, when after the gruelling climb and slog, Science arrives at the summit of the mountain aiming to plant the flag of conquest only to find Faith already sitting at the top waiting to welcome it!

This would be an interesting thought. But I really do wonder what sort of conquest it would be that faith arrives at.

aletheia:

Here's a thought: Imagine the dismay, when after the gruelling climb and slog, Science arrives at the summit of the mountain aiming to plant the flag of conquest only to find Faith already sitting at the top waiting to welcome it!

and on top of that mountain could be allah in his paradise of 72 virgins or yahweh with his son/himself yeshua at his right hand side with the rest of the christian folks stroking both their over-bloated egos with eternal praise and worshiping or even people waiting in purgatory or zeus chilling with the other greek gods and goddesses. you guys can put all the spin you want to it but faith (in obviously absurd religious dogmas and beliefs) and reason/rational thought/science/reality are irreconcilably mutually exclusive

thehomer:

The sort of evidence used by faith seems to me to rely on some sort of authority.

Science is also guilty of relying on authority figures too! Witness the many controversies between opposing theories in the history of science. Examples would be the acrimonious disagreements between the theories of abiogenesis and biogenesis; and the ptolemaic and copernician views of the cosmos.

thehomer:

Theories are ranked far above conjectures. Conjectures can be considered as similar to hypothesis.

Your are just quibbling over words. One of the definitions for the word theory is hypothesis or conjecture depending on the context (you can look it up here:). Whether theories, hypotheses or conjectures: we are discussing models of reality. Is there any theory that is not a conjecture (i.e. one that fully explains and predicts phenomena in it's field)? Are theories not discarded when they no longer provide a good fit for the data. When they become discarded, do they revert to the status of conjecture?

thehomer:

This is not quite correct. They do clash often. e.g when we consider gravity, we understand that people and chariots do not float away from the surface of the earth. Another example: considering the principle of buoyancy, humans and metal objects do not float on water in certain configurations. Yet some choose to accept stuff like this on faith when these events seem to me to be evidence to the contrary.

I disagree. I believe this is the narrative that you have chosen to believe: that Faith is the antithesis of Science. This narrative requires you to believe that Faith and Science are engaged in a titanic struggle for supremacy. But if you had paid more than passing attention to my words; you will see that I wrote:

By and large Faith and Science coexist peacefully side by side (e.g the self-evident fact of gravity is non-controversial in whether from the perspective of Faith or Science) but where the clash often occurs is in relation to questions of origins and endings and existential meaning that have philosophical underpinnings and speak to the nature of man.

By this I mean that Faith and Science do coexist peacefully side by side in the course of daily mundane existence, a point I tried to illustrate by referring to the self-evident fact of gravity. Faith is similar to Science in that it tries to extrapolate from what it knows to that which it doesn't known.

thehomer:

But if some of these answers do not seem to make sense considering the evidence before us, why should they be considered to be true?

And what is the evidence before you? It is the same evidence that Faith uses to arrive at the acknowledgment of the existence of God. Perhaps your Scientific Model requires rejigging.

thehomer:

Belief in the existence of God was the norm in those times even among their scientists this is understandable considering the possible harm one could come to for believing otherwise. But, with more and better information, we can see people at least among the elite scientists that the belief in God is not quite necessary to make progress.

Depends on what you define as progress. In any case, alot of scientists do believe in the existence of God---thereby undermining your argument that Faith and Science must needs be in conflict.

thehomer:

Some of those strange beliefs especially those that are well defined, have been put to rest at least among the less gullible. I'm not sure what you mean by other dimensions here. Do you mean alternate universes or extra dimensions?

My exact words were: "Faith goes beyond Science in providing an explanation of phenomena that Science's deterministic model cannot explain: angels, demons, hobgoblins etc. For thousands of years, Faith has described encounters with beings from other dimensions of reality than this one. Isn't it interesting that only now is Science beginning to consider that other dimensions exist through quantum & string theories &c."
Which strange well-defined beliefs have been laid to rest? Care to enlighten us? By other dimensions of reality I refer to quantum and string theories of the nature of "Life, the Universe and Everything."

thehomer:

This would be an interesting thought. But I really do wonder what sort of conquest it would be that faith arrives at.

No conquest. . .just using some mountaineering metaphors. Mountaineers traditionally plant flags on the summit of mountains they have scaled (or vanquished). My point was that after climbing to the top of the Mountain of knowledge, so to speak; Science may find to its dismay that Faith had preceded it to the top.

Mudley313:

and on top of that mountain could be allah in his paradise of 72 virgins or yahweh with his son/himself yeshua at his right hand side with the rest of the christian folks stroking both their over-bloated egos with eternal praise and worshiping or even people waiting in purgatory or zeus chilling with the other greek gods and goddesses. you guys can put all the spin you want to it but faith (in obviously absurd religious dogmas and beliefs) and reason/rational thought/science/reality are irreconcilably mutually exclusive

^^Your opinion. Others including myself will beg to differ. Be a gentleman, you don't have to be rude or insulting about putting your opinions across. That's often what triggers the verbal spats you have with others on this forum. This is supposed to be a conversation in which different people rub minds and hopefully learn from each other. We may disagree but at least we can be civil to each other. Not so?

aletheia:

Science is also guilty of relying on authority figures too! Witness the many controversies between opposing theories in the history of science. Examples would be the acrimonious disagreements between the theories of abiogenesis and biogenesis; and the ptolemaic and copernician views of the cosmos.

Which one do we currently see as correct and why? We see the Copernician view as correct not because of who he was but because it fits with observation.

aletheia:

Your are just quibbling over words. One of the definitions for the word theory is hypothesis or conjecture depending on the context (you can look it up here:). Whether theories, hypotheses or conjectures: we are discussing models of reality. Is there any theory that is not a conjecture (i.e. one that fully explains and predicts phenomena in it's field)? Are theories not discarded when they no longer provide a good fit for the data. When they become discarded, do they revert to the status of conjecture?

If you wish to go by that, then it seems to me you're equivocating because, the word theory as used in science is quite different and at times opposite from its use in common English. How can one know when all phenomena possible are explained in a field? If it is discarded, then it was wrong.

aletheia:

I disagree. I believe this is the narrative that you have chosen to believe: that Faith is the antithesis of Science. This narrative requires you to believe that Faith and Science are engaged in a titanic struggle for supremacy.

I see things more as faith being believing something based on poor or no evidence while science is more of the best method that we currently have of acquiring knowledge.

aletheia:

But if you had paid more than passing attention to my words; you will see that I wrote:

By this I mean that Faith and Science do coexist peacefully side by side in the course of daily mundane existence, a point I tried to illustrate by referring to the self-evident fact of gravity. Faith is similar to Science in that it tries to extrapolate from what it knows to that which it doesn't known.

Again a core difference is the method by which that previous knowledge to be used for extrapolation is acquired. You're broadening what you mean by faith from just the religious beliefs to the fact that one cannot foresee the future and so logically expects certain events to occur or recur.
But, given my examples, do you think that a person who held such beliefs is correct?

aletheia:

And what is the evidence before you? It is the same evidence that Faith uses to arrive at the acknowledgment of the existence of God. Perhaps your Scientific Model requires rejigging.

Consider the evidence we have of animal physiology, do you think that one who believes that animals e.g donkeys speaking would be in the best position to convince another of the existence of some God?

aletheia:

Depends on what you define as progress. In any case, alot of scientists do believe in the existence of God---thereby undermining your argument that Faith and Science must needs be in conflict.

I never argued that they need to be in conflict.

aletheia:

My exact words were: "Faith goes beyond Science in providing an explanation of phenomena that Science's deterministic model cannot explain: angels, demons, hobgoblins etc. For thousands of years, Faith has described encounters with beings from other dimensions of reality than this one. Isn't it interesting that only now is Science beginning to consider that other dimensions exist through quantum & string theories &c."
Which strange well-defined beliefs have been laid to rest? Care to enlighten us?

I think beliefs in sun gods, chicken pox gods and similar entities have been laid to rest.

aletheia:

By other dimensions of reality I refer to quantum and string theories of the nature of "Life, the Universe and Everything."

Ok. But I think with respect to string theory, the dimensions are spatial.

aletheia:

No conquest. . .just using some mountaineering metaphors. Mountaineers traditionally plant flags on the summit of mountains they have scaled (or vanquished). My point was that after climbing to the top of the Mountain of knowledge, so to speak; Science may find to its dismay that Faith had preceded it to the top.

This of course requires a great leap of faith.

thehomer:

Which one do we currently see as correct and why? We see the Copernician view as correct not because of who he was but because it fits with observation.

But for the time it was accepted the Ptolemaic model with it's epicycles provided a working and predictable model of the universe as it was then known. If you acquaint yourself with the history of science you will realize that "established" theories are often accorded an authority seemingly writ in stone; hence the conflicts that arise when newer theories seek to displace older ones.

thehomer:

If you wish to go by that, then it seems to me you're equivocating because, the word theory as used in science is quite different and at times opposite from its use in common English. How can one know when all phenomena possible are explained in a field? If it is discarded, then it was wrong.

I not sure I quite understand your last sentence above. Most models of reality propounded by Science are incomplete. . .which is why newer theories arise seeking to reconcile the differences. Consider this example: Einstein arrived at his theory of gravity after seeing that the Newtonian model could not explain discrepancies in the orbit of Mercury.

A discrepancy in Mercury's orbit pointed out flaws in Newton's theory. By the end of the 19th century, it was known that its orbit showed slight perturbations that could not be accounted for entirely under Newton's theory, but all searches for another perturbing body (such as a planet orbiting the Sun even closer than Mercury) had been fruitless. The issue was resolved in 1915 by Albert Einstein's new theory of general relativity, which accounted for the small discrepancy in Mercury's orbit.

thehomer:

I see things more as faith being believing something based on poor or no evidence while science is more of the best method that we currently have of acquiring knowledge.

Science is as it were confined to a box. The saying: "To a man with a hammer, the whole world is a nail." Science may be the best method for acquiring knowledge about the physical universe, but  it falls short when considering phenomena that transcends the physical dimension or come from outside it. Indeed the tools at the disposal of science cannot account for events that cannot be explained in purely physical terms. Examples of this abound. Here is one: a friend of mine was due to travel. A couple of weeks before his journey, three different individuals in different locations and unbeknownst to each other dreamt that he was involved in a ghastly car accident while undertaking the trip. While travelling he was involved in an accident, fatal to a pedestrian and he barely escaped with his life. How does Science begin to explain this?

www.nairaland.com/attachments/203634_atheist_dilemma_gifd9a6f31e7a246547538f9bf64a0cd35f
^^
Faith is belief based on evidence. The dissonance between Faith and Science is that often Science has a priori refused to admit the evidence. . .and to concede that the tools at its disposal are limited.

Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

thehomer:

Again a core difference is the method by which that previous knowledge to be used for extrapolation is acquired. You're broadening what you mean by faith from just the religious beliefs to the fact that one cannot foresee the future and so logically expects certain events to occur or recur.
But, given my examples, do you think that a person who held such beliefs is correct?

You cannot forsee the future, but logically don't you expect the sun to rise tomorrow based on your prior observations. aren't you extrapolating into the future? Similarly, having observed God's interaction in human history, it is logically for me to believe that he will act again in the future.

thehomer:

Consider the evidence we have of animal physiology, do you think that one who believes that animals e.g donkeys speaking would be in the best position to convince another of the existence of some God?

I believe you refer to Balaam's donkey. This is one specific singular act of a donkey speaking human speech---though Science does admit that animals communicate with each other. This was a remarkable supernatural act of God hence it was recorded. Where Science stumbles is to proclaim the non-existence of God and therefore strait-jacket itself when it comes to explaining miracles. Christians don't go around claiming that donkeys speak human language but we recognize that with God all things are possible and so it is not any surprise if He caused the donkey to speak or the dead to rise. Faith confers a freedom that Science lacks.

thehomer:

I never argued that they need to be in conflict.

Forgive me, but I thought that was what you meant by this:

thehomer:

This is not quite correct. They do clash often.

thehomer:

I think beliefs in sun gods, chicken pox gods and similar entities have been laid to rest.

Are you sure? There are still some who believe in such or similar entities. I think you can only make that statement when majority of the humans in existence no longer believe in the existence of God or gods. And that you know is not going to happen soon. 

thehomer:

This of course requires a great leap of faith.

This is not such a snide remark as you suppose.
But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.

So you see it is no surprise if Faith flies to the summit of the Mountain while Science is still grappling with ropes, crampons and pitons, stuck on a ledge halfway up the ascent. 

What exactly is aletheia trying to than suggest? Are you suggesting that faith is on a higher level than science?. . . . . .Faith is just what it is, its a belief in things that are not grounded on facts or based on reality that's is why it is called faith if it is factual the need for faith will be eliminated, for example, you believe that Jonah survived inside a fish for 3 days not because it has any thing to do with reality but because your faith accepts it. . . . .

aletheia:


I believe you refer to Balaam's donkey. This is one specific singular act of a donkey speaking human speech---though Science does admit that animals communicate with each other. This was a remarkable supernatural act of God hence it was recorded.

This is NOT true, its is not a remarkable act of any God, it's just a story and it ends there, animals do not speak human language. . . .If we are to go by your faith statement then we can also believe that prophet Mohammed made a try to shed tears and cry profusely. . . .why is it that animals and trees talk or cry only in mythical ancient stories and NOT in reality? I know very well that you do not believe that Mohammed was able to make a tree cry, but you some how believe through faith that Balaam's donkey spoke the Hebrew language. . . . . . .

Where Science stumbles is to proclaim the non-existence of God and therefore strait-jacket itself when it comes to explaining miracles.

an you give me a clear example of a miracle, CLEAR case of miracle is what I am expecting from you, for example God healing an amputee and restoring his/her amputated limbs back. . . . . .All faith based miracles are either fraudulent or subjective and amount to NOTHING. . . . .If you have any example of a clear cut miracle then pls bring it on lets examine it. . . . . .Sciences is yet to see the name or signature of any God written in any where. . . . . .Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. . . . . .

Christians don't go around claiming that donkeys speak human language but we recognize that with God all things are possible and so it is not any surprise if He caused the donkey to speak or the dead to rise. Faith confers a freedom that Science lacks.

Faith encourages delusion am sorry to say, people give credence to such nonsense mythical writings to their own detriment. . . . .Pastor Enouch once Adeboye LIED that he drove for over 200km on an empty tank, he alluded to the bible when telling his lies, he claimed that there is nothing that his God can not do, his said his God made a man to run faster than a horse and also made a donkey to speak like a human in the bible as such he knew his God will make him travel for more than 200km on an empty tank. . . . Many people that believed in the biblical story also believed in his baseless story because of the believe that there is nothing God can not do which it self is a FALSE statement. . . .NO God can heal an amputee and restore his/her amputated limbs back. No God can do that. . . .No God can make any body Fly from point A to point B. . . .So enough of this God can do all things mantra which itself is FALSE. . . . . . .

@ mazaje & homer >>> SSMH (Seriously Shaking My Head) at you two

i see you guys have rigidly determined to obviate faith (in effect) by continuously connoting & denoting it with
religion >>> furthermore you ignored my argument that you atheists (tend to) equate reason with logical empericism

Faith encourages delusion*1 am sorry to say, people give credence to such nonsense mythical writings*2 to their own detriment. . . . .Pastor  Enouch once Adeboye LIED that he drove for over 200km on an empty tank, he alluded to the bible when telling his lies, he claimed that there is nothing that his God can not do, his said his God made a man to run faster than a horse and also made a donkey to speak like a human in the bible*3 as such he knew his God will make him travel for more than 200km on an empty tank. . . . Many people that believed in the biblical story also believed in his baseless story because of the believe that there is nothing God can not do which it self is a FALSE statement. . . .NO God can heal an amputee and restore his/her amputated limbs back. No God can do that. . . .No God can make any body Fly from point A to point B. . . .So enough of this God can do all things mantra which itself is FALSE. . . . . . .

*1 >>> sorry 4 what   The same therefore applies to reason.

*2 >>> I'm tired of repeating this >>> mythical or fictional works have verisimilitude >>> they incorporate elements of reality
     >>> u naively discount this when u brush off The Bible as a fictional work

*3 >>>  and u 'believe' evolution is a theory sustained conjecture >>> given evolutionary rubrics >>> a donkey speaking
     is likely >>> the moment a donkey that can speak is found i'll bet my left balls that evolutionists will point to it as an example
     >>> of natural selection at work & a plausible pointer to how man could have evolved speech

This is NOT true, its is not a remarkable act of any God, it's just a story and it ends there, animals do not speak human language*1 . . . .If we are to go by your faith statement then we can also believe that prophet Mohammed made a try to shed tears and cry profusely. . . .why is it that animals and trees talk or cry only in  mythical ancient stories and NOT in reality?*2 I know very well that you do not believe that Mohammed was able to make a tree cry, but you some how believe through faith that Balaam's donkey spoke the Hebrew language*3. . . . .

*1 >>> SMH >>> i will (on purpose) jabber your statement >>> man is an example of an animal that speaks human language
     >>> shouldn't take faith to believe >>> it is a reasonable argument >>> evidenced by how bees, parrots & other animals communicate

*2 >>> what if they do ? >>> what evidence do you have for this a priori >>> another (dogmatic) assertion which i scoff at

*3 >>> then by all means reconcile the Larmarckian, Darwinian & Neo-Darwinian schools of thought >>> u might win yourself a Nobel prize
     in Biology while you're at it >>> i reckon you are smart enough

If you have any example of a clear cut miracle then pls bring it on lets examine it*1. . . . . .Sciences is yet to see the name or signature of any God written in any where*2. . . . . .Absence of evidence is evidence of absence*3. . .

*1 >>> for an emperical examination perhaps >>> in the end your examination equates to a skeptical analysis

*2 >>>  so that means He doesn't exist >>> yeah right

*3 >>>  given d fact that your statement isn't evidenced >>> it can jolly well be dismissed

mazaje:

. . .Faith is just what it is, its a belief in things that are not grounded on facts or based on reality that's is why it is called faith if it is factual the need for faith will be eliminated, for example, you believe that Jonah survived inside a fish for 3 days  not because it has any thing to do with reality but because your faith accepts it. . . . .

This is just your own definition of faith. There are others who disagree.
So only an amputee receiving his limb back constitutes a miracle?
God can do all things, but He doesn't have to do it at your beck and call. In my various interactions with you: you have yet to convince me that you have actually investigated the evidence for Christian belief. So much of what you say seems to me to be regurgitated hearsay. Perhaps, you might care to enlighten me on your journey to a belief in the non-existence of God. At what point and why did you stop believing: that might make a better argument convincing me than calling me deluded.
If we are the cave-dwellers and you are the man who's been in the light, then show me how you left the cave.

mazaje:

. . .All faith based miracles are either fraudulent or subjective and amount to NOTHING. . . . .If you have any example of a clear cut miracle then pls bring it on lets examine it. . .

^For one who claims to be an avowed empiricist: your statements above show that you don,t believe what you profess again buttressing my assertion that so much of what you say is regurgitated hearsay.
You claim all faith-based miracles are fradulent or subjective. Have you subjected all of them to investigation and found it so?

mazaje:

. .Sciences is yet to see the name or signature of any God written in any where. . . Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. . .

^Really? Explain if you will: The fact that you exist. The Scientific model of which you are so enamoured states that absence of evidence. . .is most definitely not evidence of absence, but you disagree with it here based on your own personal suppositions. Even your hero Carl Sagan agrees with me on this point. See here

aletheia:

But for the time it was accepted the Ptolemaic model with it's epicycles provided a working and predictable model of the universe as it was then known. If you acquaint yourself with the history of science you will realize that "established" theories are often accorded an authority seemingly writ in stone; hence the conflicts that arise when newer theories seek to displace older ones.

"Seemingly" being the key word there. Also, how was the Ptolemaic model arrived at? Was it by a scientific method? The fact that it was widely accepted does not mean that the conclusion was arrived at scientifically.

aletheia:

I not sure I quite understand your last sentence above. Most models of reality propounded by Science are incomplete. . .which is why newer theories arise seeking to reconcile the differences. Consider this example: Einstein arrived at his theory of gravity after seeing that the Newtonian model could not explain discrepancies in the orbit of Mercury.

Yes Einstein's theory is more accurate but Newton's while not being as encompassing as Einstein's, is still very useful at some scales and is applied as needed.

aletheia:

Science is as it were confined to a box. The saying: "To a man with a hammer, the whole world is a nail."

That saying to me applies more to what you're saying because every "mystery" you see in the Bible or perceive on Earth to you demands a God as the best explanation.

aletheia:

Science may be the best method for acquiring knowledge about the physical universe, but  it falls short when considering phenomena that transcends the physical dimension or come from outside it. Indeed the tools at the disposal of science cannot account for events that cannot be explained in purely physical terms.

Ok. But then what is outside the Universe? How did you come to the conclusion that there is something outside the Universe when the Universe as it is is mind bogglingly huge.
When it comes to events that cannot be explained in physical terms, what makes you think faith gives a better or correct answer?

aletheia:

Examples of this abound. Here is one: a friend of mine was due to travel. A couple of weeks before his journey, three different individuals in different locations and unbeknownst to each other dreamt that he was involved in a ghastly car accident while undertaking the trip. While travelling he was involved in an accident, fatal to a pedestrian and he barely escaped with his life. How does Science begin to explain this?

Someone coming to me with such a story would have quite a number of questions to answer considering statistics and some things we know about humans.

Statistics such as the number of motor vehicle accidents that occur daily, the age groups most involved in them etc.
Then with humans, with confirmation bias and recall bias etc.
Some other questions like how specific were the dreams and how often their dreams even the very weird ones come true.
So to me, this is not so much a mystery as the fact that such occurrences may be expected to occur occasionally.

aletheia:

www.nairaland.com/attachments/203634_atheist_dilemma_gifd9a6f31e7a246547538f9bf64a0cd35f
^^
Faith is belief based on evidence. The dissonance between Faith and Science is that often Science has a priori refused to admit the evidence. . .and to concede that the tools at its disposal are limited.

If there were evidence, then faith would not be necessary.
Science has refused to consider prior faith as some sort of evidence in arriving at a conclusion.

aletheia:

You cannot forsee the future, but logically don't you expect the sun to rise tomorrow based on your prior observations. aren't you extrapolating into the future? Similarly, having observed God's interaction in human history, it is logically for me to believe that he will act again in the future.

Yes I am but it is not based on faith, but based on evidence such as the periodic rotation of the earth, the shape of the Earth etc that available to me.

aletheia:

I believe you refer to Balaam's donkey. This is one specific singular act of a donkey speaking human speech---though Science does admit that animals communicate with each other. This was a remarkable supernatural act of God hence it was recorded. Where Science stumbles is to proclaim the non-existence of God and therefore strait-jacket itself when it comes to explaining miracles. Christians don't go around claiming that donkeys speak human language but we recognize that with God all things are possible and so it is not any surprise if He caused the donkey to speak or the dead to rise. Faith confers a freedom that Science lacks.

If I said to you that a shepherd reported that his favourite sheep asked him to stop beating its fellow sheep, would you believe me? If no, why would you believe a donkey spoke and that God was behind that but not believe that I am reporting a true occurrence and that God was behind it too?
If you do, then I have some interesting stories for you.

What you consider a freedom of faith to me is just an excuse to believe something outrageous.

aletheia:

Forgive me, but I thought that was what you meant by this:Are you sure?

Yes. It is for this reason that a person can have some strange beliefs and still be able to present good scientific results.

aletheia:

There are still some who believe in such or similar entities. I think you can only make that statement when majority of the humans in existence no longer believe in the existence of God or gods. And that you know is not going to happen soon. 

Right now, majority of humans in existence do not think that the sun is a God neither do they think that chicken pox is a God.

aletheia:

This is not such a snide remark as you suppose.
But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.

So you see it is no surprise if Faith flies to the summit of the Mountain while Science is still grappling with ropes, crampons and pitons, stuck on a ledge halfway up the ascent. 

And which of them would actually produce materials and tools that we can work with?

Uyi Iredia:

@ mazaje & homer >>> SSMH (Seriously Shaking My Head) at you two

Why?

Uyi Iredia:

i see you guys have rigidly determined to obviate faith (in effect) by continuously connoting & denoting it with
religion >>> furthermore you ignored my argument that you atheists (tend to) equate reason with logical empericism

That is one of the definitions of the word. The definition I respond to depends on the context of its use.
What do you mean by logical empiricism?

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> sorry 4 what   The same therefore applies to reason.

*2 >>> I'm tired of repeating this >>> mythical or fictional works have verisimilitude >>> they incorporate elements of reality
     >>> u naively discount this when u brush off The Bible as a fictional work

How do you sort out by faith which is real and which isn't? How accurate do you wish to say the Bible is?

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>>  and u 'believe' evolution is a theory sustained conjecture >>> given evolutionary rubrics >>> a donkey speaking
     is likely >>> the moment a donkey that can speak is found i'll bet my left balls that evolutionists will point to it as an example
     >>> of natural selection at work & a plausible pointer to how man could have evolved speech

No evolution is a theory pretty much as general relativity is a theory. Are you being sarcastic here?

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> SMH >>> i will (on purpose) jabber your statement >>> man is an example of an animal that speaks human language
     >>> shouldn't take faith to believe >>> it is a reasonable argument >>> evidenced by how bees, parrots & other animals communicate

What point are you trying to make here?

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> what if they do ? >>> what evidence do you have for this a priori >>> another (dogmatic) assertion which i scoff at

And what claim are you making here? That you think it's reasonable to conclude that trees cry?

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> then by all means reconcile the Larmarckian, Darwinian & Neo-Darwinian schools of thought >>> u might win yourself a Nobel prize
     in Biology while you're at it >>> i reckon you are smart enough

Lamarck's view has been demonstrated not to be correct when it comes to inheritance of characteristics. Some of Darwin's original thoughts that were found not to be correct have been rejected leaving us with the current theory of evolution. So what's to reconcile here?

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> for an emperical examination perhaps >>> in the end your examination equates to a skeptical analysis

How do you wish to go about evaluating whether or not a miracle has actually occurred? Or would you just believe anyone who says so and claims it was God's hand?

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>>  so that means He doesn't exist >>> yeah right

That makes his existence very unlikely or as likely as that of Thor or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>>  given d fact that your statement isn't evidenced >>> it can jolly well be dismissed

But on the contrary, I think with regards to some phenomena or entities, the absence of evidence may as well be taken as the evidence of absence because, if whatever it is that you're looking for is not available, what do you expect to find other than its absence?

thehomer:

"Seemingly" being the key word there. Also, how was the Ptolemaic model arrived at? Was it by a scientific method? The fact that it was widely accepted does not mean that the conclusion was arrived at scientifically.

And what is the "scientific method"? Observation. Both the Ptolemaic & Copernician Models were arrived at by observation. As I said earlier: "Theories are conjectures proposed to explain phenomena in the real world. These models or explanations of reality are presented in verbal form in less quantitative fields and as mathematical relationships in others. Both faith and science provide models for reality." Perception shapes how we conceptualize models of reality. Consider that the earth beneath our feet is perceived by our senses as stationary. Juxtapose against this: the apparent daily motions of the sun and moon. Over a period of time, it is observed that there is a regularity to these apparent motions. In attempting to formulate a working model of reality as I perceive it; would I be wrong in assuming that the sun revolves around the earth (what the Ptolemaic Model assumes) if I didn't have other facts at my disposal? In case you don't know, the Ptolemaic Model was quite successful, lasting 1500 years and successfully predicting planetary motion and eclipses.

As an indication of exactly how good the Ptolemaic model is, modern planetariums are built using gears and motors that essentially reproduce the Ptolemaic model for the appearance of the sky as viewed from a stationary Earth. Source: http://www.polaris.iastate.edu/EveningStar/Unit2/unit2_sub1.htm

Faith and Science are actually not so disimilar, especially when you consider that some of the earliest observations of the cosmos and mathematical calculations were done by Babylonian priest-astrologers from the top of Mesopotamian ziggurats. That their influence is with us to this day is seen by the fact that we still subdivide our day into 24 hours and our circles into 360 degrees. Before Chemistry there was Alchemy: that quest to transmute lead into gold. . .a feat that today is acknowledged as possible. Daedalus dared dream of flying long before the Wright Brothers. So you see: Science often plays catch-up with Faith.

You had earlier said:

thehomer:

The sort of evidence used by faith seems to me to rely on some sort of authority.

Not realizing that so much of Science also relies on some sort of established authority---again not so disimilar to Faith. Consider your personal example perhaps: You believe that the earth orbits the sun, because you have been told it does, not because you yourself by independent observation and experimentation have independently verified it for yourself. Or that the universe began in a Big Bang or that you evolved from some sort of primordial slime (claims that you have not verified for yourself!). So how different is it then from Faith: you believe Science's claims because you were told what to believe. You may want to counter that by saying Science's claims are verifiable. . .but the question is: have you verified them for yourself?
Do you begin to see the double-standard employed here by you avowed empiricists. Faith makes claims. So does Science. But you accept the claims of Science because of some sort of established consensus and a priori assumptions while you reject the claims of Faith according to your arbitrary standards.

thehomer:

Yes Einstein's theory is more accurate but Newton's while not being as encompassing as Einstein's, is still very useful at some scales and is applied as needed.

The same way the Ptolemaic Model is still useful at some scales viz, modern planetariums (as pointed out above).

thehomer:

That saying to me applies more to what you're saying because every "mystery" you see in the Bible or perceive on Earth to you demands a God as the best explanation.

You misunderstand me. My view is the best explanation for everything known and unknown ("mysteries" or other unexplainable phenomena) is Jehovah God. (I am not a proponent of the 'God of gaps.' I believe in the Transcendent Personal Holy God Who created all that is and acted in history to redeem man from sin.)

thehomer:

Ok. But then what is outside the Universe? How did you come to the conclusion that there is something outside the Universe when the Universe as it is is mind bogglingly huge.

I said Science is as it were confined to a box. But you interpret the box as the universe. The truth is that we are confined within and part of a system and as such any inferences we can make about the system are limited, for we are not independent or apart from the system we purport to measure---you may want to consider the implications of the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiments.
What is outside the universe? The Prime Mover; the Uncaused Cause of the universe: My belief is God. The universe is bound in time. God lives in eternity: outside of time.

thehomer:

When it comes to events that cannot be explained in physical terms, what makes you think faith gives a better or correct answer?

For example Faith gives better answers than Science to things like Near Death Experiences and instances of precognition. After all doesn't Science limit itself to things it can measure with instruments at his disposal. Consider for example that you have a mind: Has Science been able to measure and quantify the mind?---Yet you do not doubt that your mind exists separate and apart from your body.

thehomer:

Someone coming to me with such a story would have quite a number of questions to answer considering statistics and some things we know about humans.

Statistics such as the number of motor vehicle accidents that occur daily, the age groups most involved in them etc.
Then with humans, with confirmation bias and recall bias etc.
Some other questions like how specific were the dreams and how often their dreams even the very weird ones come true.
So to me, this is not so much a mystery as the fact that such occurrences may be expected to occur occasionally.

^You say occasionally. Care to give me the odds or probability of three different individuals in different locations and unbeknownst to each other having detailed precognition of an accident that occurred some weeks later? All your talk about statistics, recall bias etc does not obscure the fact that it happened. . .your Science is at a loss to explain it and so it tries to dismiss it because it does not fit into and consequently undermines its model of reality. If Science was true to itself it would begin to examine the assumptions that underpin its current model of reality since there are instances of events that deviate from it.

thehomer:

If there were evidence, then faith would not be necessary.
Science has refused to consider prior faith as some sort of evidence in arriving at a conclusion.

Well that is the methodology that Science has chosen. It does not make True Faith any less valid. Your misconception is that you suppose that Faith can not be subjected to scrutiny. The Christian Faith has been subjected to scrutiny and yet it stands!

thehomer:

Yes I am but it is not based on faith, but based on evidence such as the periodic rotation of the earth, the shape of the Earth etc that available to me.

Again, your bias and misconception shows. You have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow not because you are already living in tomorrow but based on your personal evidence that the sun rose yesterday and historical evidence that it rose all other days prior to your birth. In the same way I have faith in God because of the evidence I see from nature, history and personal experience. Consider this appeal to one who was sceptical:

John 20:27  Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

They are other well-educated sceptics like you who investigated the claims about Jesus for themselves rather than relying on hearsay. You may want to read Josh McDowell and Farnk Morison.

thehomer:

If I said to you that a shepherd reported that his favourite sheep asked him to stop beating its fellow sheep, would you believe me? If no, why would you believe a donkey spoke and that God was behind that but not believe that I am reporting a true occurrence and that God was behind it too?
If you do, then I have some interesting stories for you.  

There is misconception of miracles among Christians that sadly has spilled over into the secular world. Miracles are not random gratuitous acts of God. They always occur in a specific place, at a specific time and for a specific purpose. To you it may appear absurd and implausible that a donkey will speak, but that is because by your Scientific Model, it wouldn't do so. Ask yourself this: where it is recorded that the donkey spoke; what was the purpose for it's speech? With God all things are possible----donkeys may speak and the dead can rise from the grave.

thehomer:

What you consider a freedom of faith to me is just an excuse to believe something outrageous.

But the Truth can sometimes be outrageous. Not so.

thehomer:

Right now, majority of humans in existence do not think that the sun is a God neither do they think that chicken pox is a God.

They may not believe in the sun god but there exist some who still believe in similar entities. Care to visit some aboriginal settlements or villages in some remote parts of Nigeria? Or what about those in our cities, even among our educated elite who still patronize shamans. Or what about those who practice wicca or worship gaea in the "developed" West? You see? When you generalize and are called out on that; you are forced to fall back to defend a narrower position (Classic debating tactic. )

thehomer:

And which of them would actually produce materials and tools that we can work with?

Man is not just body. He is also Soul and Spirit. It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. A study of the history of Science will show you that Faith has often been in the vanguard of Scintific progress. Consider this quote about Isaac Newton:

Wikipedia: Although the laws of motion and universal gravitation became Newton's best-known discoveries, he warned against using them to view the Universe as a mere machine, as if akin to a great clock. He said, "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."

aletheia:

But the Truth can sometimes be outrageous. Not so.

And it is these 'outrageous' things, especially on spiritual matters, that these our "intellectuals" struggle to come to terms with. I recently came across a short essay from which I take the extract below:

Bare unsanctified reason cannot shine in the realm of the Spirit. The natural man is
helpless before the Truth, though he may be mighty in the realm of the mind. He may
be an adept in chemistry and astronomy, skillful in physical science, philosophy, and
the arts; but be ignorant of God and spiritual matters.When he turns his superb and
keenly trained faculties upon the spiritual things , the Fatherhood of God, the
eternal Sonship of Christ, the virgin birth, the resurrection of Christ, the forgiveness
of sins, the prodigal come home, the peace that passeth understanding, the hope that
maketh not ashamed , he is up before a stone wall. His knowledge and ability cannot
help him. His brain may storm the citadel and swagger and threaten; but harder than
flint, and higher than the walls of Jericho or those of the city of Tyre, more
invulnerable than the gates of babylon and the eternal hills is the knowledge of the
things of God. They are higher and more impassable to the natural man than all the
above mentioned invincible things. "Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this
world?" . . . .

From http://www.gracegod.com/babes.pdf

aletheia:

And what is the "scientific method"? Observation. Both the Ptolemaic & Copernician Models were arrived at by observation. As I said earlier: "Theories are conjectures proposed to explain phenomena in the real world. These models or explanations of reality are presented in verbal form in less quantitative fields and as mathematical relationships in others.

It's not just observation.
You're equivocating if you're going to use conjectures in defining a scientific theory because like I said, conjectures belong in hypothesis.

aletheia:

Both faith and science provide models for reality." Perception shapes how we conceptualize models of reality. Consider that the earth beneath our feet is perceived by our senses as stationary. Juxtapose against this: the apparent daily motions of the sun and moon. Over a period of time, it is observed that there is a regularity to these apparent motions. In attempting to formulate a working model of reality as I perceive it; would I be wrong in assuming that the sun revolves around the earth (what the Ptolemaic Model assumes) if I didn't have other facts at my disposal? In case you don't know, the Ptolemaic Model was quite successful, lasting 1500 years and successfully predicting planetary motion and eclipses.

But then you may need to recall that in proposing a scientific theory, the principle of parsimony should be kept in mind. And mind you, we're not simply stating which theories are available or useful but the ones that best describe our observations, facts etc.

aletheia:

Faith and Science are actually not so disimilar, especially when you consider that some of the earliest observations of the cosmos and mathematical calculations were done by Babylonian priest-astrologers from the top of Mesopotamian ziggurats. That their influence is with us to this day is seen by the fact that we still subdivide our day into 24 hours and our circles into 360 degrees.

Again like I said, one can do good science by following the method while still believing some strange things. The fact that a person's science is right does not also mean that their extra beliefs are more valid.

aletheia:

Before Chemistry there was Alchemy: that quest to transmute lead into gold. . .a feat that today is acknowledged as possible. Daedalus dared dream of flying long before the Wright Brothers. So you see: Science often plays catch-up with Faith.

Yes it's possible but could the feats have been achieved by any of the means you mentioned without following the scientific method?

aletheia:

You had earlier said:
Not realizing that so much of Science also relies on some sort of established authority---again not so disimilar to Faith. Consider your personal example perhaps: You believe that the earth orbits the sun, because you have been told it does, not because you yourself by independent observation and experimentation have independently verified it for yourself.Or that the universe began in a Big Bang or that you evolved from some sort of primordial slime (claims that you have not verified for yourself!). So how different is it then from Faith: you believe Science's claims because you were told what to believe. You may want to counter that by saying Science's claims are verifiable. . .but the question is: have you verified them for yourself?

The beauty of the scientific method is that it is open for anyone to see how the results were arrived at. I do not have to go about verifying all facts presented to me otherwise, I'll never get any work done.

aletheia:

Do you begin to see the double-standard employed here by you avowed empiricists. Faith makes claims. So does Science. But you accept the claims of Science because of some sort of established consensus and a priori assumptions while you reject the claims of Faith according to your arbitrary standards.

Are you implying that verifiability is not important?
It is not a double standard. If the claims made by faith are valid, then verifying them should be very important to those making such claims. If I presented you with some outrageous claim, would you accept it as being true by faith or try to verify it in some way?

aletheia:

The same way the Ptolemaic Model is still useful at some scales viz, modern planetariums (as pointed out above).
You misunderstand me. My view is the best explanation for everything known and unknown ("mysteries" or other unexplainable phenomena) is Jehovah God. (I am not a proponent of the 'God of gaps.' I believe in the Transcendent Personal Holy God Who created all that is and acted in history to redeem man from sin.)

And why do you believe this? Is it because it is written down in a book and repeated over and over again or is it because there is something there that you can use to convince someone else that this view is actually correct?

aletheia:

I said Science is as it were confined to a box. But you interpret the box as the universe. The truth is that we are confined within and part of a system and as such any inferences we can make about the system are limited, for we are not independent or apart from the system we purport to measure---you may want to consider the implications of the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiments.

Since you've pointed out that our inferences are limited, then how can you go ahead and accept inferences made by relatively ignorant people several millennia ago?

aletheia:

What is outside the universe? The Prime Mover; the Uncaused Cause of the universe: My belief is God. The universe is bound in time. God lives in eternity: outside of time.

And how do you know this so well that you're willing to give such an incoherent answer?

aletheia:

For example Faith gives better answers than Science to things like Near Death Experiences and instances of precognition. After all doesn't Science limit itself to things it can measure with instruments at his disposal. Consider for example that you have a mind: Has Science been able to measure and quantify the mind?---Yet you do not doubt that your mind exists separate and apart from your body.

No faith does not give better answers. If anything, it gives wrong answers or non-answers.
No. My mind and I'm willing to bet minds in general require a body to exist.

aletheia:

^You say occasionally. Care to give me the odds or probability of three different individuals in different locations and unbeknownst to each other having detailed precognition of an accident that occurred some weeks later? All your talk about statistics, recall bias etc does not obscure the fact that it happened. . .your Science is at a loss to explain it and so it tries to dismiss it because it does not fit into and consequently undermines its model of reality. If Science was true to itself it would begin to examine the assumptions that underpin its current model of reality since there are instances of events that deviate from it.

I cannot give you odds since I do not have enough information to go with. How detailed was this precognition? How do you wish to explain this occurrence?
I do not know that it happened. All we have is your claim about some third party occurrence.
What suggestions do you have about examining these assumptions?

aletheia:

Well that is the methodology that Science has chosen. It does not make True Faith any less valid. Your misconception is that you suppose that Faith can not be subjected to scrutiny. The Christian Faith has been subjected to scrutiny and yet it stands!

You think it stands because you already believe it before hand. But then, you're wiling to provide some explanations with poor evidence of a donkey speaking.

aletheia:

Again, your bias and misconception shows. You have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow not because you are already living in tomorrow but based on your personal evidence that the sun rose yesterday and historical evidence that it rose all other days prior to your birth. In the same way I have faith in God because of the evidence I see from nature, history and personal experience.

Like I said, this is logical based on what we do know about the motions of the Earth and other facts.
What is this evidence that you see in nature and history.

aletheia:

Consider this appeal to one who was sceptical:

John 20:27  Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

They are other well-educated sceptics like you who investigated the claims about Jesus for themselves rather than relying on hearsay. You may want to read Josh McDowell and Farnk Morison.

If the body was good enough for Thomas, then it's good enough for me. So I may as well with to touch the holes too.

aletheia:

There is misconception of miracles among Christians that sadly has spilled over into the secular world. Miracles are not random gratuitous acts of God. They always occur in a specific place, at a specific time and for a specific purpose. To you it may appear absurd and implausible that a donkey will speak, but that is because by your Scientific Model, it wouldn't do so. Ask yourself this: where it is recorded that the donkey spoke; what was the purpose for it's speech? With God all things are possible----donkeys may speak and the dead can rise from the grave.

This is part of the main problems with faith. You simply believe it mainly because it is written in the Bible which you consider to be some sort of great authority.

aletheia:

But the Truth can sometimes be outrageous. Not so.

Yes it can.

aletheia:

They may not believe in the sun god but there exist some who still believe in similar entities. Care to visit some aboriginal settlements or villages in some remote parts of Nigeria? Or what about those in our cities, even among our educated elite who still patronize shamans. Or what about those who practice wicca or worship gaea in the "developed" West? You see? When you generalize and are called out on that; you are forced to fall back to defend a narrower position (Classic debating tactic. )

What generalization? I gave you specific examples that majority of people currently on earth do not believe in.

aletheia:

Man is not just body. He is also Soul and Spirit. It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. A study of the history of Science will show you that Faith has often been in the vanguard of Scintific progress. Consider this quote about Isaac Newton:

Do you have good evidence for this soul and spirit you wish to add in your definition of man? Are you ready to define and defend such concepts?
I also notice that you refused to answer whether or not you'll believe claims I make without my providing some sort of evidence.

Enigma:

And it is these 'outrageous' things, especially on spiritual matters, that these our "intellectuals" struggle to come to terms with. I recently came across a short essay from which I take the extract below:

I think we need to clarify something here. On our previous discussion, you need to recall that you claimed that your position was an intellectual one while refusing to meet up to the standards of it being considered intellectual, not I.

Faith na Person name ooooo e.g Faith Oyedepo of the Winner's Chapel

aletheia:

This is just your own definition of faith. There are others who disagree.
So only an amputee receiving his limb back constitutes a miracle?

Where did I say that?

God can do all things, but He doesn't have to do it at your beck and call.

Really? If you read the bible, you will see the God of the Jews doing everything at their beck and call, If they wanted their God to show them a sign that he was greater than all the other Gods, all the needed to do was pray to him and he will be at their service, example is the story of Elijah and the prophets of Baal. . . .Even Christians still tout miracles as evidence for the existence of their God. . . .

In my various interactions with you: you have yet to convince me that you have actually investigated the evidence for Christian belief.

What exactly are the evidence for the Christian belief?. . . .There is NON. . . . .That is why it is faith based. . . . .Do you have ANY evidence about the Christian belief to show me?. . . . . .

So much of what you say seems to me to be regurgitated hearsay. Perhaps, you might care to enlighten me on your journey to a belief in the non-existence of God. At what point and why did you stop believing: that might make a better argument convincing me than calling me deluded.
If we are the cave-dwellers and you are the man who's been in the light, then show me how you left the cave.

I have done so many times here those that know me here know my story, I don't want to go back to it again. . . . .

You claim all faith-based miracles are fradulent or subjective. Have you subjected all of them to investigation and found it so?

YES. . . . . . .

^Really? Explain if you will: The fact that you exist. The Scientific model of which you are so enamoured states that absence of evidence. . .is most definitely not evidence of absence, but you disagree with it here based on your own personal suppositions. Even your hero Carl Sagan agrees with me on this point. See here

That's Carl Sagan's opinion. . .Absence of evidence is still evidence of absence. . .If something exist then there must be evidence to show for its existence. . . . Its very simple. . . .

Uyi Iredia:

@ mazaje & homer >>> SSMH (Seriously Shaking My Head) at you two

i see you guys have rigidly determined to obviate faith (in effect) by continuously connoting & denoting it with
religion >>> furthermore you ignored my argument that you atheists (tend to) equate reason with logical empericism

When i talk about fate, i refer only to religious faith. . . . .

*2 >>> I'm tired of repeating this >>> mythical or fictional works have verisimilitude >>> they incorporate elements of reality
     >>> u naively discount this when u brush off The Bible as a fictional work

But that doesn't make them factual. . . .I dislike religion because of this, it takes some aspects of reality and give it an entire meaning of its own. . .That is what i call delusion and this is the heart of the whole delusion that religious people live under. They understand that people need comfort, so they deluded them into thinking that all their wrong-doings have been made better or that everything will be okay someday when they die or whatever. They just imagine an invisible friend who they tell people will make everything better and the problem is solved.

*3 >>>  and u 'believe' evolution is a theory sustained conjecture >>> given evolutionary rubrics >>> a donkey speaking
     is likely >>> the moment a donkey that can speak is found i'll bet my left balls that evolutionists will point to it as an example
     >>> of natural selection at work & a plausible pointer to how man could have evolved speech

I do not accept the evolutionary theory completely, some parts of it I accept but not all of it. . . . .The main point is that donkeys do not speak human language. . . . .If you know any donkey that does pls bring it on. . . .

*1 >>> SMH >>> i will (on purpose) jabber your statement >>> man is an example of an animal that speaks human language
     >>> shouldn't take faith to believe >>> it is a reasonable argument >>> evidenced by how bees, parrots & other animals communicate

Donkeys do not communicate with humans by speaking the human language, that is a fact any other statement is false. . . . .

Faith is believing or trusting so much that you can deny any other,

@ mazaje

*1 >>> that's a constrictive reference. Faith is much more broad than that.

*2 >>> but you've inadvertently give reality your own meaning by your statement. To demonstrate. What if reality is meaningless ?
>>> verisimilitude IMO makes their 'factuality' a possibility. A bold statement OMP (on my part).
>>> BTW u don't see gravity or energy do you. But i wager u wouldn't deny their existence. In light of this what's your take on pantheism ?

*3 & *4 >>> I concede.

Awards for most beautiful dodgers should be given to Alethia and Uyi! For Bleep sake, how does faith separate truth from lies? Like do dragons really live in empty spaces?

How does faith scrutinize religious claims like Mohammed dividing the moon, Hindu's gods. . . apart from your Christian faiths.

As to Alethia's box example, its total arbitrary, since an unjustified claim to truth is presented.

Until the contents of faith is explained then things will be simpler.

Kay 17:

Awards for most beautiful dodgers should be given to Alethia and Uyi! For bleep sake, how does faith separate truth from lies? Like do dragons really live in empty spaces?

How does faith scrutinize religious claims like Mohammed dividing the moon, Hindu's gods. . . apart from your Christian faiths.

As to Alethia's box example, its total arbitrary, since an unjustified claim to truth is presented.

Until the contents of faith is explained then things will be simpler.

all the above boils down to religious faith >>> still

BTW why do u refer to i & aletheia as beautiful dodgers ?

@ Uyi Iredia

You did not respond to my questions above.