What is hope...is there a difference between hope and faith

@InfraBlue,

I read your post before.
You don't understand the use of the term objective, sorry to have to say.
According to your dictionary the noun has to do with an objective. An apple, table, bicycle... is not an objective.
Notice the use of the mirror or lens. They are objective because they aid, in reaching the goal.
The goal may be to determine if the apple is real or fake; if the table is wood or metal; etc.
That's why we say objective evidence, and so forth.
I think you need to ask around, and really try to understand this thing.
My belief about something is subjective. So is yours.
Something that is thought to be objective, like a conclusion, may be subjective because of a fault in the instrument or method ... like carbon dating... The assumptions can render the evidence subjective.

1 Reply

@Jiggy,

Quote:

Asking me for evidence for God is meaningless, if you only want what "science" considers evidence.

Agreed, what additional evidence do you recommend that the atheists and agnostics consider?

1 Reply

@Jiggy,

You have the definition of the word “objective” straight from the dictionary, and still don’t understand.

1 Reply

@nacredambition,

Thanks for asking.
I think it's safe to say, 90% of children grew up with some kind of toy.

https://m.gifmania.co.uk/Objects-Animated-Gifs/Animated-Toys/Lego/Lego-Helicopter-77194.gif

https://blog.tldnr.org/images/2020/lap-counter-endless.gif

Even while young, we realized that those toys had parts that were put together.
Sometimes we tried to pull them apart. My brother took them apart, and put them back together. He grew up with an engineering mind.
As we grew older, we observe, and even work upon things like these...

https://img1.picmix.com/output/stamp/normal/5/3/0/6/1356035_2b69b.gif

Which one of us though, would say, 'No planning went into these. No one built them. They really don't have any purpose."
Yet, when we see these...

https://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/591d9262b50e2.gif

https://i.makeagif.com/media/11-27-2015/sEGNww.gif

We say the opposite. "No planning was required. No one built them. There are not purposely designed.
I have a hard time understanding that logic, as it seems to me, reason was somehow removed, and replaced with a belief which not only contradicts what we know from observation and experience, but what is the most reasonable conclusion.

Of course, I am all for proof, and "proven" science, but we don't have that where an explanation for design and purpose is concerned.
Natural selection doesn't explain it. Natural selection seem to be more of a magician, or fairy, that waves a wand when anything is needed.

I don't get the whole reverse thinking.
So, I think for one thing, we need to give consideration to what we know, from our experience, and observation - intelligent minds right now, are working in labs to replicate nature. They build robots, based on the "molecular machines, and factories" at work in nature."
They plan. They build. Certain requirements must be met for their designs to work.
That's what we see in nature.
I see design, and I don't see it as reasonable to dismiss a designer. Even if we don't know who the designer is.
There are a lot of things we see too.
This is but one small bit of the evidence I think we need to consider.
For every cause, there is an effect. For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything. Hebrews 3:4

How do we determine if that conclusion is correct? That's another question that can be answered, but it is not answered with a method in science.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

I have no doubt you will repeat that, regardless. Can you explain it? I think you haven't demonstrated that you can.

2 Replies

@Jiggy,

What would you like explained?

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

It's okay. I don't want you to explain that an objective thing is a thing that exists independent of or external to the mind, Therefore an apple is an objective thing since it exists independent of or external to the mind,
I'm fine. Hearing that a million times won't convince me you understand what objective means.
We're good. See you perhaps on another topic. Smile

1 Reply

@Jiggy,

Heh, you don't accept a dictionary definition. OK.

0 Replies

@Jiggy,

Quote:

Natural selection doesn't explain it. Natural selection seem to be more of a magician, or fairy, that waves a wand when anything is needed.

Therefore birds can't have evolved from dinosaurs.

God is a much better explanation than a magician or fairy that waves his magic wand when anything is needed.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Quote:

Leadfoot Quote:
Otherwise, I must ask you for the different factors that make one event 'random' and the other 'chance'.

hightor replied:
In this case, "random" is being used as an adjective and "chance" as a noun.

I introduced the term. Are you telling me that InfraBlue (or anyone else) gets to choose which one I mean when when I use it?

Try harder.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

Life itself is a force. It is as "accidental" as the other forces of nature. I speculate that it's been in existence around the same time as the others.

You certainly do speculate. May the Force be with you.

1 Reply

@Jiggy,

Quote:

They stick to science beliefs, and anything else is moot. So expect nothing other than, "That is not the current science belief'. Though they are not going to admit they are beliefs.

My main complaint is they claim to stick to science, but when pressed they revert to things like 'the life force'. Wonder what the scientific symbol is for that.

I have to constantly remind them to pick a side.

0 Replies

@Jiggy,

Jiggy wrote:

Thanks for asking.
I think it's safe to say, 90% of children grew up with some kind of toy.

Even while young, we realized that those toys had parts that were put together.
Sometimes we tried to pull them apart. My brother took them apart, and put them back together. He grew up with an engineering mind.
As we grew older, we observe, and even work upon things like these...

Which one of us though, would say, 'No planning went into these. No one built them. They really don't have any purpose."
Yet, when we see these...

We say the opposite. "No planning was required. No one built them. There are not purposely designed.
I have a hard time understanding that logic, as it seems to me, reason was somehow removed, and replaced with a belief which not only contradicts what we know from observation and experience, but what is the most reasonable conclusion.

Of course, I am all for proof, and "proven" science, but we don't have that where an explanation for design and purpose is concerned.
Natural selection doesn't explain it. Natural selection seem to be more of a magician, or fairy, that waves a wand when anything is needed.

I don't get the whole reverse thinking.
So, I think for one thing, we need to give consideration to what we know, from our experience, and observation - intelligent minds right now, are working in labs to replicate nature. They build robots, based on the "molecular machines, and factories" at work in nature."
They plan. They build. Certain requirements must be met for their designs to work.
That's what we see in nature.
I see design, and I don't see it as reasonable to dismiss a designer. Even if we don't know who the designer is.
There are a lot of things we see too.
This is but one small bit of the evidence I think we need to consider.
For every cause, there is an effect. For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything. Hebrews 3:4

Really?

So in effect you are saying "If it exists...IT MUST HAVE BEEN "BUILT."

Can you not see the absurdity of that?

Are you so blind that you cannot see that such an assertion...logically contradicts itself?

With that silly comment, you open yourself to the most basic rebuttal available to anyone not committed to a "God did it" explanation:

WHO OR WHAT BUILT THE GOD?

And why do you refer to it as "God"...rather than "a god."

Why are you so sure there is a god...and that the "god" must be the one described in the Bible? Or described in any "holy book?'

Quote:

How do we determine if that conclusion is correct? That's another question that can be answered, but it is not answered with a method in science.

You assert that it can be answered...

...and you also assert that it cannot be answered with a method in science?

What are you suggesting here?

How, then, can it be answered?

By simply making a blind guess...and insisting that the blind guess IS CORRECT?????

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

I introduced the term. Are you telling me that InfraBlue (or anyone else) gets to choose which one I mean when when I use it?

You're not really that important. My comment speaks for itself. You introduced random as an adjective. I'm using chance as a noun. Random events occur by chance.

Quote:

Try harder.

Why? You're the one who misinterpreted my comment.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

You’re starting to sound like Humpty Dumpty.

0 Replies

@nacredambition,

Quote:

Therefore birds can't have evolved from dinosaurs.

Apparently, in our minds they can. In fact we can create a story about almost anything.
Why do you reject a story that includes a creator, or designer?
Can you show me a dinosaur becoming a bird? If you do, I will believe it.
Isn't that what you ask of us... show us God, and we would believe there is a God?

Is there evidence for dinosaurs evolving to birds? To those who believe there is.
Is there evidence that God created? To those who believe there is.
This is my point, from the beginning. We both depend on faith.

The question is, which faith does not lead to disappointment?

Perhaps you can tell me though, as I am really interested in hearing from an Atheist, or Agnostic, why you accept this inferences of the evolutionary history and relationships, and reject inferences of a creator?
Why would one accept what people refer to as just-so-stories, over what years of experience through observation has shown them. That does not seem to be consistence. Do you find it is?

We have scientists doing simulations in order to demonstrate what may have happened in the past, or what may currently be happening.
Oftentimes, they are conflicting opinions from the results, but the point is, they try to do experiments that they consider "repeatable", and "observable".
So, is there any reason why scientists have not done what they claim happened over a period of millions of years?
For example, in the same way they build replicas of design in nature, can they not replicate 3 million years of evolutionary change, in a lifetime?

They have worked with the fastest evolving organisms on the planet - E. coli, and all they have after many years, is E. coli.
They have shown that mutations can alter an organism. They can give a fly six, eight, a dozen eyes, or none, and grow a leg on the head, but can they make an entirely new species, with all their functioning parts?
We often hear, small changes add up, but the ideas attributed to the evolution theory don't seem to be adding up.

Quote:

God is a much better explanation than a magician or fairy that waves his magic wand when anything is needed.

When anything is needed, no.
A designer is a better explanation for design, and more than being an explanation, it was stated as a fact, thousands of years ago, that God created the universe.
It was only discovered recently, that the universe came into existence.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Yes sir.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa

Quote:

So in effect you are saying "If it exists...IT MUST HAVE BEEN "BUILT."

I don't recall saying that. No.

Quote:

Can you not see the absurdity of that?

Yes. I do. I really don't know why you thought it.

Quote:

Are you so blind that you cannot see that such an assertion...logically contradicts itself?

With that silly comment, you open yourself to the most basic rebuttal available to anyone not committed to a "God did it" explanation:

The "silly" comment was made by you. Not me.

Quote:

WHO OR WHAT BUILT THE GOD?

And why do you refer to it as "God"...rather than "a god."

Why are you so sure there is a god...and that the "god" must be the one described in the Bible? Or described in any "holy book?'

You assert that it can be answered...

...and you also assert that it cannot be answered with a method in science?

What are you suggesting here?

How, then, can it be answered?

By simply making a blind guess...and insisting that the blind guess IS CORRECT?????

I will say though, that what you seem to be suggesting is that 1) you don't believe in Causality, and 2) you think it's absurd.
How can I reason with you then...
The big question has been raised, "What caused the Big Bang?"
So, if you go back to the cause, which they don't know, and you realize, that whatever cause that was, it produced an effect, if you went further into the past, would you think that there has to be a never ending cause?
That makes sense to you?

I think one would have to believe they know everything, in order to think that a cause must be explained by a never ending continuous regression of causes.
I don't believe I know everything, so I can accept that there is an ultimate cause which is not an effect.
I don't have to use logic or reason to accept that. I accept there are some things that humans can never understand.

1 Reply

@Jiggy,

Jiggy wrote:

@Frank Apisa

Quote:
So in effect you are saying "If it exists...IT MUST HAVE BEEN "BUILT."

I don't recall saying that. No.

I did not say you said it...I said you suggested it.

Read your comments. YOU DID SUGGEST IT.

Quote:

Quote:
Can you not see the absurdity of that?

Yes. I do. I really don't know why you thought it.

I thought it because you suggested it.

Quote:

Are you so blind that you cannot see that such an assertion...logically contradicts itself?

Quote:
With that silly comment, you open yourself to the most basic rebuttal available to anyone not committed to a "God did it" explanation:

The "silly" comment was made by you. Not me.

You suggested it.

Quote:

WHO OR WHAT BUILT THE GOD?

And why do you refer to it as "God"...rather than "a god."

Why are you so sure there is a god...and that the "god" must be the one described in the Bible? Or described in any "holy book?'

You assert that it can be answered...

...and you also assert that it cannot be answered with a method in science?

What are you suggesting here?

How, then, can it be answered?

By simply making a blind guess...and insisting that the blind guess IS CORRECT?????

Quote:

I will say though, that what you seem to be suggesting is that 1) you don't believe in Causality, and 2) you think it's absurd.

I do not "believe in" causality or anything else. If you want to "believe in" things...please do so.

I accept that all things seem to have a cause...but I also accept that I am a human (an insignificant creature on a nondescript hunk of rock circling a nondescript star in a relatively nondescript galaxy in a vast universe)...and there are almost certainly LOTS of things I do not know or can even imagine.

You ought to give that a try, sometime, Jiggy.

Quote:

How can I reason with you then...

Simply be reasonable.

Quote:

The big question has been raised, "What caused the Big Bang?"
So, if you go back to the cause, which they don't know, and you realize, that whatever cause that was, it produced an effect, if you went further into the past, would you think that there has to be a never ending cause?
That makes sense to you?

That certainly appears to be the case...but, as an insignificant creature on a nondescript hunk of rock circling a nondescript star in a relatively nondescript galaxy in a vast universe, I recognize that "what appears to be the case" is not always "the case." For instance, the sun appears to travel around the Earth...but that is not "the case."

Quote:

I think one would have to believe they know everything, in order to think that a cause must be explained by a never ending continuous regression of causes.

I am not interested in what you "believe"...because you almost certainly are also an insignificant creature on a nondescript hunk of rock circling a nondescript star in a relatively nondescript galaxy in a vast universe.

Quote:

I don't believe I know everything, so I can accept that there is an ultimate cause which is not an effect.

I am not interested in what you "believe"...because you almost certainly are also an insignificant creature on a nondescript hunk of rock circling a nondescript star in a relatively nondescript galaxy in a vast universe.

And if you were being nearly as reasonable as you seem to think you are being you would settle for, "I have no idea of how everything got started...if it got started."

But...you have made a blind guess that there is a god that started it...and made further blind guesses about the nature of that god. So...you dismiss anything that calls your blind guesses into question.

Okay...that is your right. I actually enjoy discussing your insistence that your blind guesses are correct...with you.

Quote:

I don't have to use logic or reason to accept that. I accept there are some things that humans can never understand.

On that we are five by five.

I too accept that.

But I refrain from making blind guesses about that unknown...and you do not.

0 Replies

@Jiggy,

Jiggy wrote:

It was only discovered recently, that the universe came into existence.

It HAS NOT BEEN DISCOVERED that the universe came into existence. We are almost certain that the thing we humans call "the universe" (which may be but a tiny piece of THE ACTUAL UNIVERSE) did come into existence a while back via a supposed Big Bang...which has not really been explained.

Science is almost as much in the dark about the truth of EXISTENCE as is religion.

Science, at least, is attempting to find an answer.

Religion is just inventing an answer...and pretending it makes sense.

0 Replies

What is hope...is there a difference between hope and faith

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know