Science is Based on Faith like Theism?

[rootseeker]

All of science is expected to be expressible mathematically. All of mathematics is rooted in axioms. Axioms are "self-evident". "Self-evident" is a deference to intuition outside of logic. Intuition is non-logical form of reasoning. God is sometimes said to be "self-evident" which is also a deference to intuition outside of logic. So to the degree that intuition is also faith, science is faith-based like theism. Furthermore, the degree to which God can be expressible mathematically, God is an entity of science.

[iambiguous]

No, that's just for you. You asked, and you got what you asked for. You're afraid to look at it. Hard cheese for you.

This encompasses theistic "faith" in a nutshell for some.

The only question is, "is he deluding himself as well"?

I'm not afraid to look at those videos. I looked at the one he proposed to Gary and reacted in depth to it. I invited IC to react to that. Nothing. I assured IC that I would in fact watch all of them provided he agreed to discuss them one by one with me on another thread.

Now, admittedly, I do come back again and again to IC about this. Why? Because there is in fact a part of me that truly does want to be a Christian again. And here is someone who flat out told me that his own faith was not just a leap. That beyond "the Bible is the word of the Christian God so that makes it true" tautology, he did have actual evidence that He did exist.

Why won't he explore that with me? Why, with so much at stake on both sides of the grave, doesn't he spend considerably more time trying to actually save souls here?

Look, I'll admit in turn that in regard to discussions he has had with others here, he seems rather intelligent and articulate. He's NOT LIKE others HERE.

So, why on Earth would he refuse to explore his evidence-based faith with me here or on the Christianity thread. It just makes no sense given the consequences that he himself notes for those who refuse to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior. Which in fact I once did myself.

[Immanuel Can]

Because there is in fact a part of me that truly does want to be a Christian again.

Yes, I'm sure that's true...it's why you won't look at the evidence: because you so long to be convinced.

Why won't he explore that with me?

Well, in any conversation, one has to have at least a modicum of belief in the sincerity of the other party. But what can you say about somebody who has the evidence he demanded, and won't even look at it. He can't be very serious about the question, can he?

To "explore" requires a person willing to investigate.

Call me when you've had a look at the videos. It will take you all of about an hour....less time than you've spent complaining that it would take you too much time.

[iambiguous]

Because there is in fact a part of me that truly does want to be a Christian again.

Yes, I'm sure that's true...it's why you won't look at the evidence: because you so long to be convinced.

Why won't he explore that with me?

Well, in any conversation, one has to have at least a modicum of belief in the sincerity of the other party. But what can you say about somebody who has the evidence he demanded, and won't even look at it. He can't be very serious about the question, can he?

To "explore" requires a person willing to investigate.

Call me when you've had a look at the videos. It will take you all of about an hour....less time than you've spent complaining that it would take you too much time.

Again, absolutely shameless.

As I noted before, forget about me here.

In discussing the "faith-based" evidence for the Christian God's existence by exploring all of the evidence with me, others whose souls are in jeopardy might be saved.

As for the "watch them all at once" bit, I discussed this as well. If I watch them all and then try to encompass my "overall" reaction to them, there are going to be things I leave out. Or I'll miss the most important evidence. Whereas if we watch and react in depth to each video that is far less likely to be the case.

Again, I truly do suspect that he himself knows the evidence is not really there. Think about it. Can you imagine anyone who did in all sincerity believe they had actual evidence for the existence of any God not dropping everything else and focusing entirely on bringing it to the attention of the world?

[Immanuel Can]

Again, absolutely shameless.

Don't worry...I feel none on account of what I've provided you. You have what you need: the only "shame" is being too terrified to look at it. That is indeed a "shame." But it has nothing much to do with me.

[iambiguous]

Again, absolutely shameless.

Don't worry...I feel none on account of what I've provided you. You have what you need: the only "shame" is being too terrified to look at it. That is indeed a "shame." But it has nothing much to do with me.

Okay, IC, how about this...

The first video: https://youtu.be/idDoRftSuRU

"So, you just became a Christian"

The entirely of this video revolves around the assumption that someone has chosen to become a Christian. The point of the video is not to offer demonstrable evidence that one ought to reject all of these paths...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...because they don't have demonstrable evidence and Christians do. No, it's that for whatever personal reason [which I root existentially in dasein] you have become a Christian.

Then the part where the distinction is made between the "productive Christian" and the "unproductive Christian". Reminding me of your own distinction between the true Protestant Christians and...Catholics?

And, as expected, the part about "evidence" revolving basically around this: "read the Christian Bible". Then find other productive Christians in order to study the Bible.

Then the video closes with a verse from the Bible:

"Do not fear for I am with you. Do not be dismayed, for I am your God. I will strengthen you and help you. I will uphold you by My righteous hand."

Isaiah 41:10

Then the second video, the "Meaning" video.

Okay, anything in this first video that would constitute evidence that the Christian God does exist? Other than the fact that because someone decides to become a Christian, that proves it?

[Immanuel Can]

Okay, anything in this first video that would constitute evidence that the Christian God does exist? Other than the fact that because someone decides to become a Christian, that proves it?

Imagine that! I actually thought you'd be reading the titles and deciding which ones were relevant, and which ones were not, based on your own interests. But it seems I was asking too much...

Keep going, then. If you're determined to work through them all, go ahead. Sooner or later you'll find something you can chew on. Other than that, let's not waste any more time.

[iambiguous]

Okay, anything in this first video that would constitute evidence that the Christian God does exist? Other than the fact that because someone decides to become a Christian, that proves it?

Imagine that! I actually thought you'd be reading the titles and deciding which ones were relevant, and which ones were not, based on your own interests. But it seems I was asking too much...

Keep going, then. If you're determined to work through them all, go ahead. Sooner or later you'll find something you can chew on. Other than that, let's not waste any more time.

Oklay, so the proof isn't in the first two videos.

As though if I [or anyone] watched all 17 of them and still found no such evidence that would make any difference at all to you.

I'll stick with my own belief that you are a disgrace to those Christians who insist that saving souls is by far the most important component of being a True Christian. And that "unproductive Christians" like you who claim to have found that proof but refuse to share it with the world don't know the first thing about the life of Jesus Christ Himself.

He was all about saving souls, wasn't He?

It's just that He himself offered no substantive proof that He existed beyond perhaps being a historical figure -- a Jew -- who preached the Gospel that He had picked up existentially back then. Not a single verse in either the Old or the New Testament that one can read and proclaim, "see I told you He existed!"

Instead, it's read the Bible and "take a leap of faith" to God. You, on the other hand, are, in my view, delusional enough to believe a leap of faith is only the beginning for the True Christian. That in fact through the social media -- YouTube! -- God is there for all to know! As real as the Pope in the Vatican!!

[Immanuel Can]

As though if I [or anyone] watched all 17 of them and still found no such evidence that would make any difference at all to you.

You don't have to watch them all. Just read the titles, select what addresses where you are at. Speak to that.

If you haven't lost the track, you remember that your original allegation was that there was no independent scientific evidence for God. The videos have lots of it. Pick what you're interested in, and view it. Then we can talk.

[iambiguous]

As though if I [or anyone] watched all 17 of them and still found no such evidence that would make any difference at all to you.

You don't have to watch them all. Just read the titles, select what addresses where you are at. Speak to that.

If you haven't lost the track, you remember that your original allegation was that there was no independent scientific evidence for God. The videos have lots of it. Pick what you're interested in, and view it. Then we can talk.

Let's just agree to disagree regarding whether you are in fact absolutely shameless here. I've watched the first two and there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a God, the God, the Christian God.

Hell, you won't even note the video that most persuaded you that He exists. Or note the most powerful segments from all the videos.


I challenge any here who do believe in God to defend someone who claims that there is independent scientific evidence for the existence of his God but refuses to disclose it. How is that not an absolute disgrace with so much at stake on both sides of the grave?

[Immanuel Can]

Let's just agree to disagree...

No, let's not. We just disagree. We're not agreeing, even about procedure. You want to make a superficial effort, dismiss, and walk off. And that's exactly what I'd expect of somebody who's just not serious.

So ante up, or don't...but don't whine. It's unbecoming.

[iambiguous]

Let's just agree to disagree...

No, let's not. We just disagree. We're not agreeing, even about procedure. You want to make a superficial effort, dismiss, and walk off. And that's exactly what I'd expect of somebody who's just not serious.

So ante up, or don't...but don't whine. It's unbecoming.

Chuckle, chuckle.

Still...

I challenge any here who do believe in God to defend someone who claims that there is independent scientific evidence for the existence of his God but refuses to disclose it. How is that not an absolute disgrace with so much at stake on both sides of the grave?

Or, okay...

I challenge any here who do believe in God to defend someone who claims that there is independent scientific evidence for the existence of his God but refuses to disclose it. How is that not an absolute disgrace with so much at stake on both sides of the grave?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Lose the ChatGPT stuff please. Here's my dirty protest:

When I rely on ChatGPT I always qualify "with reservations" which I forgot to do above.

I believe it would be very unintelligent and unwise not to take advantages of all the pros offered by ChatGPT and other AIs with the full awareness of its cons.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Scientists do rely on faith to some insignificant degrees...

Not "insignificant." Constant. Read Polanyi.

I am interested in your point, what is your argument for it.
To save time of me reading the whole book, show me some points in Polanyi's book to support your point.

I believe we need to define "what is faith" and "what is God" in this case, i.e.

• faith = strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

• The closest that the Bible comes to offering an exact definition is Hebrews 11:1 – “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” From this particular passage we see that the central feature of faith is confidence or trust.
  https://seminary.grace.edu/what-does-faith-mean/

Note what is faith is within a continuum of degrees from 0.1 to 99.999.

The critical element with the strongest weightage is empirical evidences based on observations, i.e. what can be seen, verifiable, justifiable, tested repeated with same results.
Scientists may apply some degree of faith in some of the processes but this is polished off via intersubjective consensus.

What is God within theism [based on 99.99% faith] is defined as that entity than which no greater can be conceived with the power of omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotent and whatever omni that is necessary for God; God is also claimed to be of absolute perfection and unconditionally real to the extent God created the Universe and sent messengers of his son to deliver messages with commands to humans.

As such, it is very unintelligent to conflate the use of faith as the same between science and theism.

[Immanuel Can]

Scientists do rely on faith to some insignificant degrees...

Not "insignificant." Constant. Read Polanyi.

I am interested in your point, what is your argument for it.
To save time of me reading the whole book, show me some points in Polanyi's book to support your point.

What am I, your "Reader's Digest"? I don't do book precis for people. I tell them where they information is, and let them read it and discuss it if they want. Polanyi's worth your time, if you can understand him.