BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion
 
GetBMWParts
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      06-30-2013, 02:19 PM   #243
Mr Tonka
Tonka.... Mr. Tonka
 
Drives: Exceptionally well :)
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Tampa, FL

Posts: 1,183
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ahmed View Post
Not to go off topic or anything.. but can anyone here prove God exists?
Can you prove God doesn't exist?
__________________
-Joe


"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." — Frédéric Bastiat
Mr Tonka is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-30-2013, 08:59 PM   #244
kmarei
Major General
 
kmarei's Avatar
 
Drives: 1988 E30 M3 Evo II
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Reston, VA

Posts: 6,480
iTrader: (33)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by grimlock
Why would god need to make something rythme to make people believe?
I don't believe god needs to make people believe..
It's not rhyming
It's so the text in the book can't be changed
Because if you change any of the words, you mess up the system
And the numbers don't add up anymore
__________________
This user has been banned from the 4 series forum because he doesn't sing its merits like the admins want us all to

kmarei is offline   Egypt
0
Reply With Quote
      07-01-2013, 12:10 AM   #245
scorcherjf
Captain
 
scorcherjf's Avatar
 
Drives: 2008 135i
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: NJ

Posts: 769
iTrader: (2)

Garage List
2008 135i  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmarei View Post
It's not rhyming
It's so the text in the book can't be changed
Because if you change any of the words, you mess up the system
And the numbers don't add up anymore
So when Rashad Khalifa didn't count 2 Noble Verses from the Quran because they weren't a multiple fo 19... what does this mean?

As for whether we can prove that God does or does not exist... faith is an integral part of most religions (or all of them?) and I think it would be diminished if there was a real answer and not everyone would believe it anyway. It's just like asking someone to prove or disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster. It just can't and won't be done.
__________________
scorcherjf is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      07-01-2013, 09:02 AM   #246
grimlock
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: F10 N52B30@255PS
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Hong Kong

Posts: 1,808
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scorcherjf View Post
As for whether we can prove that God does or does not exist... faith is an integral part of most religions (or all of them?) and I think it would be diminished if there was a real answer and not everyone would believe it anyway. It's just like asking someone to prove or disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster. It just can't and won't be done.
I've accepted more or less there will be no answer or proof, just (hopefully) increasing amounts of certainty.. as the Chinese President said "There is only better, never the best."
We can only find solace that our lives are headed in the right direction.. if we are where we wanted to be, where would we want to be then? Thankfully (?) life is not that long we should have this problem.

Life = an intermediate problem to be solved
don't dream about paradise or bitch about how sucky everything is
grimlock is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      07-01-2013, 11:44 AM   #247
PINeely
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: 2009 E90 N54
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Jackson, MS

Posts: 1,548
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Tonka View Post
Can you prove God doesn't exist?
Exactly, neither can presently be proven. That's why it is called a "faith."
__________________
PINeely is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      07-01-2013, 02:33 PM   #248
Mr Tonka
Tonka.... Mr. Tonka
 
Drives: Exceptionally well :)
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Tampa, FL

Posts: 1,183
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scorcherjf View Post

As for whether we can prove that God does or does not exist... faith is an integral part of most religions (or all of them?) and I think it would be diminished if there was a real answer and not everyone would believe it anyway. It's just like asking someone to prove or disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster. It just can't and won't be done.
You are correct in one respect, that God's existence will never be scientifically proven by humans.

But it isn't just like asking someone to prove or disprove the existence of the FSM. It's much closer to asking someone to prove or disprove love. Or maybe what makes up human though.

Love for instance is something that the majority of the people on the planet will agree to have felt, done, received or experienced at some point in their lives. Weather it be romantically, paternally, brotherly or even through a deep friendship, nearly all humans have experienced this. Never the less, love can not be scientifically proved or disproved by humans.

You can even forget about love and ask science to define a rational thought, how it happens within our brain. Outside of neurons and other measurable items, it can't be done. Humans can't measure the difference between to very similar thoughts. How is this possible? To have thoughts and feelings that are inexplicable through science?

Faith is and integral part of life, it's an integral part of scientific life as well. If you believe a scientific theory you are placing faith in that theory. Because theoretically, we all have brains, but as defined by science, until we pop open Shah's head, we won't know with absolute certainty that he does in fact have a brain. As described before, that's how science works. It's always evolving as things are learned. But there are very few, if any, things that science has proven to be conclusive 100% of the time. Science is a collection of theories. Some of which have been accepted as truth, by means of faith.
__________________
-Joe


"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." — Frédéric Bastiat
Mr Tonka is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      07-01-2013, 03:03 PM   #249
OldArmy
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 2007 Z4 3.0si
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Central Virginia

Posts: 523
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Tonka View Post
You are correct in one respect, that God's existence will never be scientifically proven by humans.
Might get pretty sporty if she shows up in person and tells us we all got it wrong.
OldArmy is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      07-01-2013, 07:47 PM   #250
schoy
Private First Class
 
Drives: Melbourne Red E90 M3
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: SD

Posts: 126
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Tonka View Post
You are correct in one respect, that God's existence will never be scientifically proven by humans.

But it isn't just like asking someone to prove or disprove the existence of the FSM. It's much closer to asking someone to prove or disprove love. Or maybe what makes up human though.

Love for instance is something that the majority of the people on the planet will agree to have felt, done, received or experienced at some point in their lives. Weather it be romantically, paternally, brotherly or even through a deep friendship, nearly all humans have experienced this. Never the less, love can not be scientifically proved or disproved by humans.

You can even forget about love and ask science to define a rational thought, how it happens within our brain. Outside of neurons and other measurable items, it can't be done. Humans can't measure the difference between to very similar thoughts. How is this possible? To have thoughts and feelings that are inexplicable through science?

Faith is and integral part of life, it's an integral part of scientific life as well. If you believe a scientific theory you are placing faith in that theory. Because theoretically, we all have brains, but as defined by science, until we pop open Shah's head, we won't know with absolute certainty that he does in fact have a brain. As described before, that's how science works. It's always evolving as things are learned. But there are very few, if any, things that science has proven to be conclusive 100% of the time. Science is a collection of theories. Some of which have been accepted as truth, by means of faith.
+1. One more thing to add: Every scientific theory and observation is based on a number of assumptions (and if you want to get philosophical and/or metaphysical, an infinite number of assumptions). When one accepts a scientific "fact", he/she is, in the end, also accepting that the underlying assumptions are true, by faith.
schoy is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      07-01-2013, 09:51 PM   #251
AndreyT
Captain
 
AndreyT's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 335i Sedan, Sport
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Northern California

Posts: 938
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Tonka View Post
You are correct in one respect, that God's existence will never be scientifically proven by humans.
It is a demagogic statement. There no context in which the matter of "proving God's existence scientifically" can arise in any shape or form. Science can either confirm the existence of God or disprove God's existence. "Proving God's existence scientifically" just doesn't make any sense. "Proving existence of something" is only possible in abstract sciences, like mathematics, with regard to abstract concepts. It is not applicable to the area of natural sciences that deal with supposedly objective phenomena.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Tonka View Post
Or maybe what makes up human though.
That is not related to faith at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Tonka View Post
Love for instance is something that the majority of the people on the planet will agree to have felt, done, received or experienced at some point in their lives.
Bad analogy.

The matter of proving or disproving the existence of God implies some sort of objective agreement between different people on what God is. With love it is not nearly as important. Nobody cares to define what love is when they claim to have experienced it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Tonka View Post
Weather it be romantically, paternally, brotherly or even through a deep friendship...
George Plimpton: Okay, your word is whether [weather].
Sun Moon: Um, which one? Could you use it in a sentence?
George Plimpton: Certainly…'I don't know whether the weather will improve.'

(The Simpsons, Season 14, Episode 12 "I'm Spelling As Fast As I Can")

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Tonka View Post
You can even forget about love and ask science to define a rational thought, how it happens within our brain. Outside of neurons and other measurable items, it can't be done. Humans can't measure the difference between to very similar thoughts. How is this possible? To have thoughts and feelings that are inexplicable through science?
This just doesn't make sense. Once scientific methods reach the capacity and precision required to analyze the human brain, the answer to these questions will be obtained. It is a purely quantitative barrier. We are not going to overcome it any time soon though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Tonka View Post
Faith is and integral part of life, it's an integral part of scientific life as well. If you believe a scientific theory you are placing faith in that theory.
That is absolutely false. This is nonsense is just mechanically repeated by trolls in internet forums, who completely ignore any explanations.

Scientific theory require no faith at all. Scientific theory is judged by purely objective criteria, the most important of which is the predictive power of the theory.

Believing in a scientific hypothesis might require educated faith. But the moment a hypothesis becomes a theory it no longer relies on any faith. Anything that is referred by science as a theory is substantially proven to be true by objective evidence. Otherwise, it wouldn't be called a theory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Tonka View Post
But there are very few, if any, things that science has proven to be conclusive 100% of the time. Science is a collection of theories. Some of which have been accepted as truth, by means of faith.
False. Once a hypothesis becomes a theory, its evolution is the evolution of its area of applicability. At every stage of that evolution the scientist has a very good idea of the bounds of that applicability. Within those bounds the theory is known to be true, or, if it is approximate in some way, it is known how accurate it is. Outside those bounds the theory simply does not apply. Scientists will not forcefully take the theory outside those bounds on pure faith.

Every time someone tries to bring "faith" into it is a well-uses demagogic trick, when someone takes some scientific theory, claims that the theory is absolute and then disproves that absoluteness. That way this classic demagogic trick (known as "straw man fallacy") is used to "demonstrate" that the absolute applicability of scientific theories is a matter of faith. In reality, scientists always have a good idea where the theory is applicable and where it is not, never claiming any sort of absoluteness.
AndreyT is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      07-01-2013, 09:59 PM   #252
Mr Tonka
Tonka.... Mr. Tonka
 
Drives: Exceptionally well :)
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Tampa, FL

Posts: 1,183
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreyT View Post
It is a demagogic statement. There no context in which the matter of "proving God's existence scientifically" can arise in any shape or form. Science can either confirm the existence of God or disprove God's existence. "Proving God's existence scientifically" just doesn't make any sense. "Proving existence of something" is only possible in abstract sciences, like mathematics, with regard to abstract concepts. It is not applicable to the area of natural sciences that deal with supposedly objective phenomena.



That is not related to faith at all.



Bad analogy.

The matter of proving or disproving the existence of God implies some sort of objective agreement between different people on what God is. With love it is not nearly as important. Nobody cares to define what love is when they claim to have experienced it.



George Plimpton: Okay, your word is whether [weather].
Sun Moon: Um, which one? Could you use it in a sentence?
George Plimpton: Certainly…'I don't know whether the weather will improve.'

(The Simpsons, Season 14, Episode 12 "I'm Spelling As Fast As I Can")



This just doesn't make sense. Once scientific methods reach the capacity and precision required to analyze the human brain, the answer to these questions will be obtained. It is a purely quantitative barrier. We are not going to overcome it any time soon.



That is absolutely false. This is nonsense is just mechanically repeated by trolls in internet forums, who completely ignore any explanations.

Scientific theory require no faith at all. Scientific theory is judged by purely objective criteria, the most important of which is the predictive power of the theory.

Believing in a scientific hypothesis might require educated faith. But the moment a hypothesis becomes a theory it no longer relies on any faith. Anything that is referred by science as a theory is substantially proven to be true by objective evidence. Otherwise, it wouldn't be called a theory.



False. Once a hypothesis becomes a theory, its evolution is the evolution of its area of applicability. At every stage of that evolution the scientist has a very good idea of the bounds of that applicability. Within those bounds the theory is known to be true, or, if it is approximate in some way, it is known how accurate it is. Outside those bounds the theory simply does not apply. Scientists will not forcefully take the theory outside those bounds on pure faith.

Every time someone tries to bring "faith" into it is a well-uses demagogic trick, when someone takes some scientific theory, claims that the theory is absolute and then disproves that absoluteness. That way this classic demagogic trick (known as "straw man fallacy") is used to "demonstrate" that the absolute applicability of scientific theories is a matter of faith. In reality, scientists always have a good idea where the theory is applicable and where it is not, never claiming any sort of absoluteness.
Thanks for you opinion.
__________________
-Joe


"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." — Frédéric Bastiat
Mr Tonka is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      07-01-2013, 10:20 PM   #253
i dunno
Lieutenant
 
Drives: a pair of legs
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: San Francisco, CA

Posts: 408
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2008 E92 328i  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Tonka View Post
You are correct in one respect, that God's existence will never be scientifically proven by humans.

But it isn't just like asking someone to prove or disprove the existence of the FSM. It's much closer to asking someone to prove or disprove love. Or maybe what makes up human though.

Love for instance is something that the majority of the people on the planet will agree to have felt, done, received or experienced at some point in their lives. Weather it be romantically, paternally, brotherly or even through a deep friendship, nearly all humans have experienced this. Never the less, love can not be scientifically proved or disproved by humans.

You can even forget about love and ask science to define a rational thought, how it happens within our brain. Outside of neurons and other measurable items, it can't be done. Humans can't measure the difference between to very similar thoughts. How is this possible? To have thoughts and feelings that are inexplicable through science?

Faith is and integral part of life, it's an integral part of scientific life as well. If you believe a scientific theory you are placing faith in that theory. Because theoretically, we all have brains, but as defined by science, until we pop open Shah's head, we won't know with absolute certainty that he does in fact have a brain. As described before, that's how science works. It's always evolving as things are learned. But there are very few, if any, things that science has proven to be conclusive 100% of the time. Science is a collection of theories. Some of which have been accepted as truth, by means of faith.
I don't think that proving the existence love is the same as proving the existence of God. The observation of love certainly is limited by our current understanding of neuroscience and technology, but that doesn't mean it can't be proven. For now, we know there's lots of hormones involved in the biological mechanism of love. Testosterone, estrogen, dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin, etc. are all involved in the chemical process, and MRI scans can be used to investigate active brain regions. Sure, there's still lots more to learn about the how the human brain works, but with technological advances and novel approaches, what makes you so sure that we'll never be able to solve the mysteries behind human thought and emotion? It's a pretty exciting field if you ask me.

Proving the existence of God doesn't have the same observable processes and can't be approached with the scientific method. There's no empirical data that can be collected to support, imply, or disprove the existence of God. That's why its called faith. It's believed without physical proof. Scientific theories may not be directly observable in a historical context, but analyzing evidence in the present time could explain how past events occurred. For example, a lot of people argue about early evolution, but by examining ecology, geology, virology, genetics, etc., you can find support for speciation that happened over a long period of time and is still happening today. There's nothing in this physical realm that can do the same for the existence of God.

However, faith and science aren't mutually exclusive. It's very possible and completely reasonable to believe in a higher power and still seek to unravel the physical world one molecule at a time. Religion and faith answer "why" questions. Why do we exist? Because God loved the world and made us. Science answers "how" questions. How did we get here? Maybe the early conditions of Earth promoted the chemical synthesis of amino acids. We also don't need to open heads to see if someone has a brain. Any scanner can show you that a brain is there.

Last edited by i dunno; 07-02-2013 at 12:20 PM.
i dunno is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      07-01-2013, 10:37 PM   #254
schoy
Private First Class
 
Drives: Melbourne Red E90 M3
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: SD

Posts: 126
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreyT View Post
Bad analogy.

The matter of proving or disproving the existence of God implies some sort of objective agreement between different people on what God is. With love it is not nearly as important. Nobody cares to define what love is when they claim to have experienced it.
2 questions out of curiosity:
1) Have you ever experienced love?
2) Have you ever experienced God?
schoy is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      07-01-2013, 10:47 PM   #255
AndreyT
Captain
 
AndreyT's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 335i Sedan, Sport
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Northern California

Posts: 938
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by schoy View Post
2 questions out of curiosity:
1) Have you ever experienced love?
2) Have you ever experienced God?
1) Yes. 2) No.
AndreyT is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      07-01-2013, 11:14 PM   #256
grimlock
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: F10 N52B30@255PS
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Hong Kong

Posts: 1,808
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by schoy View Post
2) Have you ever experienced God?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreyT View Post
2) No.
grimlock is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      07-01-2013, 11:39 PM   #257
AndreyT
Captain
 
AndreyT's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 335i Sedan, Sport
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Northern California

Posts: 938
iTrader: (0)

^ Quite fitting, I'd say...

AndreyT is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      07-02-2013, 08:25 AM   #258
Nkc
Captain
 
Nkc's Avatar
 
Drives: E89-Z4 35i, E36-MZ3, E82 1M
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Vancouver/Hong Kong

Posts: 662
iTrader: (0)

__________________
E89 Z4-35i DCT --- E36-Z3 M-Roadster --- E82-1M
Current BMW's
Nkc is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      07-02-2013, 09:01 AM   #259
scorcherjf
Captain
 
scorcherjf's Avatar
 
Drives: 2008 135i
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: NJ

Posts: 769
iTrader: (2)

Garage List
2008 135i  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreyT View Post
Scientific theory require no faith at all. Scientific theory is judged by purely objective criteria, the most important of which is the predictive power of the theory.
^ This.

Science requires no faith, only verifiable evidence to support or deny theories. Faith is defined as "complete trust and confidence in someone or something" which is the polar opposite of the foundation of science.

It's not his opinion, your opinion, or my opinion. It is what it is regardless of what anyone thinks or believes. There is no analogy to be made between faith in religion and faith in science.
__________________
scorcherjf is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      07-02-2013, 12:07 PM   #260
i dunno
Lieutenant
 
Drives: a pair of legs
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: San Francisco, CA

Posts: 408
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2008 E92 328i  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by schoy View Post
+1. One more thing to add: Every scientific theory and observation is based on a number of assumptions (and if you want to get philosophical and/or metaphysical, an infinite number of assumptions). When one accepts a scientific "fact", he/she is, in the end, also accepting that the underlying assumptions are true, by faith.
Within the scientific community, nothing is just a "fact." Theories are never absolute facts; they're an agreed upon common consensus based on the knowledge at hand. They're open to change with the proper evidence and always address the extent of their scope. If you ever read an article from a peer reviewed scientific journal, there's usually a section after the Results called the Discussion. In this section, the results from the experiment are interpreted to discuss its impact on its respective field, limitations of the resulting conclusion, issues in the experiment that need to be dealt with in the future, etc. It's never a black or white this is this and that is that. It's more like this is what we know for now, and this is what we have to do in order to find out more.

People always mistakenly think that science is about saying this is true and this is false. Science is about being skeptical of everything. It works through curiosity, inquisition, and heavy scrutiny from other skeptics. Be humble, explore, learn, and question even your deepest convictions. Don't let any answer be good enough. Always strive for more.

Last edited by i dunno; 07-02-2013 at 12:21 PM.
i dunno is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      07-02-2013, 02:38 PM   #261
grimlock
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: F10 N52B30@255PS
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Hong Kong

Posts: 1,808
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by schoy View Post
1) Have you ever experienced love?
grimlock is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      07-02-2013, 02:51 PM   #262
AndreyT
Captain
 
AndreyT's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 335i Sedan, Sport
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Northern California

Posts: 938
iTrader: (0)

Ugh... No, this

AndreyT is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      07-02-2013, 02:53 PM   #263
Ahmed
Private First Class
 
Ahmed's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 C63 AMG
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Bahrain

Posts: 130
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
1999 BMW M5  [0.50]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Tonka View Post
Can you prove God doesn't exist?
How can I prove something doesn't exist or didn't happen? Only those that claim something exists or happened must prove!
__________________
2013 Mercedes Benz C63 AMG
2009 Lexus GS460

Ahmed is offline   Bahrain
0
Reply With Quote
      07-02-2013, 04:59 PM   #264
Mr Tonka
Tonka.... Mr. Tonka
 
Drives: Exceptionally well :)
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Tampa, FL

Posts: 1,183
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by i dunno View Post
Within the scientific community, nothing is just a "fact." Theories are never absolute facts; they're an agreed upon common consensus based on the knowledge at hand. They're open to change with the proper evidence and always address the extent of their scope. If you ever read an article from a peer reviewed scientific journal, there's usually a section after the Results called the Discussion. In this section, the results from the experiment are interpreted to discuss its impact on its respective field, limitations of the resulting conclusion, issues in the experiment that need to be dealt with in the future, etc. It's never a black or white this is this and that is that. It's more like this is what we know for now, and this is what we have to do in order to find out more.

People always mistakenly think that science is about saying this is true and this is false. Science is about being skeptical of everything. It works through curiosity, inquisition, and heavy scrutiny from other skeptics. Be humble, explore, learn, and question even your deepest convictions. Don't let any answer be good enough. Always strive for more.
Exactly my point. Along with the fact that as you pointed out, many people view scientific theories as if they are facts to support their arguments.


To other points...

I get what was said about faith not being part of science... for the scientists. However, when it comes to the masses, faith plays a major role in laymen science. My comparison of faith in religion as well as science was towards those masses. Those taking theories as fact without having lifted a finger to research the findings that they blindly believe after hearing about it on MSN home page. One could argue that believing single paragraph explanations of in-depth experimentation that has been years in the making which is ultimately inconclusive, as truth; is faith.

While the definition of faith has been posted, Hebrews defines it as being sure of the things we hope for and certain of the things we do not see. A little more philosophic in nature, but the latter part is not dissimilar to what websters says. Faith is ultimately the act of believing or trusting something that has not been or can't be proved. According to websters, faith is also defined as trusting someone. One might have faith in their employees to always do the right thing. One might have faith in their wife to be true to him. As well, believing that our universe started with a big bang means that your trusting the findings and assumptions that Hubble, Einstein, Lemaitre and others have published; thereby having faith in their theories. Surely the millions of people who are intellectually incapable of comprehending and postulating such in depth theories and possibilities while believing them to be true are relying on faith, no?

Similarly, even with something more physical and technology based; someone who has never observed nano technology yet believes it exists, has faith in that technology. Now i know you're going to say like a brain, there are devices that allow us to see these things that we can't see with the naked eye. I understand that, but ultimately people who believe in this technology without having seen these things, or used microscopes to view them are taking what has been handed out by the media, textbooks, papers, articles, wikipedia, etc... to be true, by faith. Use trust if the word faith scares you, but it's still faith.
__________________
-Joe


"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." — Frédéric Bastiat
Mr Tonka is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:52 PM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST