 |  438731 | Jan 21, 9:35am | | By any way. Faith is not a virtue. It is foolish. |
|
|
|  habibcs | Jan 22, 5:27am | I think Faith is a virtue in many ways. You experience it. Just start observing. You don't need to observe on yourself to see its benefits/virtue.
In most common - logical way,
you may say it is foolish.
(I am not the expert in the topic by the way.. but I try) |
|
|
Sponsor |  emortis9 | Jan 23, 11:05am | Critical thinking is a virtue.
Not Faith. |
|
|
| | kingcaid | Jan 27, 10:15am | Isn't the whole of science based on faith? The whole of quantum mechanics based on Hisenberg's probability ?? .. did not Godel prove or in a way disprove that logic or maths cannot have a foundation that does not contradict its self? ...
so is it faith? that the sun will rise tomorrow or a fact ...
and then who is this GOD person anyway? why worry about him when we still haven't sorted out more basic problems of logic and science ..
anyway coming back to the question of the absence of evidence for existence of God : well we are here so is the universe .. so there must have been God .. but i can surely tell u . he dosen't give a F### about us !! |
|
|
Sponsor | | Vortexfugue | Jan 27, 12:30pm | Isn't the whole of science based on faith?
No. We start with axioms and frames. They are not faith. This should help. Science is testable and falsifiable, it does not rest on faith.
well we are here so is the universe .. so there must have been God
Why? How do you make the leap from universe to god? If you're going to pretend a god to always have existed, then why not a universe? |
|
|
| | habibcs | Jan 28, 1:26am | --
According to the most authentic and also most discussed theory the origin of the universe started with a massive explosion big bang and the initial condition which is mostly given is `zero volume infinite density' or (infinite)density=mass/(zero)volume (another singularity) , this theory is based on an assumption(which is quiet evident in normal life) that something has to originate from something and that something in the big bang case is mass and the fundamental forces associated with the process but the problem comes if this is so obvious then what about the origin of that something and so on..
This leads to a question what if the origin started from nothingness which was present for nothing (0/0). To understand the 0/0 singularity you can think "about something which is not there and you don't need it" so it can be said that "no mass or force(in the sense of present physics) was there and it wasn't required" then at some point in history of origin it originated from the absolute nothingness (0/0) and changed it to (m/0) and so the process of origination started...
--
If you seems to agree with the above text, then it hints the origination of the Mass or a Force.
You getting me?
May the Force be with you.. :P |
|
|
Sponsor | | emortis9 | Jan 28, 1:49am | 16)"this theory is based on an assumption(which is quiet evident in normal life) that something has to originate from something...)
What? That is not true at all.
We make no (educated)prediction about what happened or existed before the big bang...nor do we have any idea what caused the big bang.
The story behind the discovery of the big bang is amazing...the predictions included a little thing called "cosmic background radiation"...its really cool. I would suggest looking into it... |
|
|
| | kingcaid | Jan 28, 8:46am | 15) great link :) .. and an inspiring debate going on there too ...
i agree with you that we start with axioms and frames ... but then we do so with beliefs that they are true to all cases .. well we start with axioms and build a theory based on axioms and then prove axioms based on the consistency and repeatability and agreeability of the derived observations !! a type of cyclical logic .. Newtonian mechanics for example or Euclidean Geometry :) are such principals .. and we still believe in them :) coz they work really fine
now B. Russel argues .. as philosophers like to do .. that we are limited by our senses and especially language to accurately and comprehensively describe the natural phenomenon around us .. this includes scientific observations and thus can we depend on such axioms based on limited abilities of the human tempero-parietal cortex? |
|
|
|
You need to Sign-up for StumbleUpon to post to this forum
|
Philosophy of Religion → Discussion