-->
@Mopac
I am unwilling to submit to cult brainwashing based on the tenuous promise of "learning the truth".You are unwilling to go through the process to see things for yourself.
Be skeptical of atheism.
Posts
Total:
220
-->
@Mopac
Maybe use fancy Greek words that you don't really know the meaning of.
What does "five sigma" mean? It means that the results would occur by chance alone as rarely as a value sampled from a Gaussian distribution would be five standard deviations from the mean. The Excel function 1- normsdist(5) computes that the fraction of the normal distribution that is greater than five standard deviaitons from the mean. The value is 0.0000003, or 0.00003%, or about one in three and a half million. In other words, the one-tailed P value is less than 0.0000003. If the Higgs Boson doesn't exist, that is the chance that coincidences would align to give results as striking as they observed. And they obtained this level of evidence in two independent sets of experiments.
The standard of statistical signifcance in most fileds is that the two-tailed P is less than 0.05. About five percent of a Gaussian distribution is more than two standard deviations away from the mean (in either direction). So the conventional definition of statistical significance can be called a two-sigma threshold.
The tradition in particle physics is that the threshold to report “evidence of a particle,” is p<0.003 (three sigma), and the standard to report a “discovery” is p<0.0000003 (five sigma). [LINK]
-->
@Snoopy
Testing a hypothesis is not a "leap of faith"....and you are going to take a leap of faith in order to test the theory.
Testing a hypothesis is skepticism in action.
Religious faith is (100%) belief in something that cannot be tested (like going to heaven).
Scientific "faith" (high confidence) is belief in something that can be tested (like turning on a light switch).
There is a very real difference. Testable versus Untestable. Verifiable versus Unverifiable.
-->
@Snoopy
These limitations mitigate the confidence of the results. This confidence is Quantifiable. It's called "Sigma" and it NEVER REACHES 100%.Approaching this with an open mind, that sounds like glorified statistics. That is not how I understand science.
Please explain how you understand science.
-->
@3RU7AL
No trick of language can define god(sic) into existence.
It is no trick to clarify that when we say God we are specifically talking about The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. What is truly real. It can not be helped that your aversion to God has clouded your judgement, defiled your nous, and shut you out.
I am unwilling to submit to cult brainwashing based on the tenuous promise of "learning the truth".
In other words, you are scared that if you are properly educated, you might end up believing.
So you choose willful ignorance.
-->
@keithprosser
As you are an atheist, you aren't capable of understanding what is moral, so it wouldn't be fruitful to discuss morality with you. After all, God is integral to how we understand morality and cannot be detached from it.
Homosexuality, as well as all forms of sexual immorality to us are symptoms of idolatry.
-->
@3RU7AL
...and you are going to take a leap of faith in order to test the theory.Testing a hypothesis is not a "leap of faith".Testing a hypothesis is skepticism in action.Religious faith is (100%) belief in something that cannot be tested (like going to heaven).Scientific "faith" (high confidence) is belief in something that can be tested (like turning on a light switch).There is a very real difference. Testable versus Untestable. Verifiable versus Unverifiable.
Is testing a hypothesis science? As I see it the context here is an offshoot on the subtopic of faith, in which "faith in science" was brought up, which I assumed involved replicable scientific methodology. Now, its noteworthy that faith in science isn't atheism, nor atheistic.
Testing a hypothesis does conform with skepticism, but I wouldn't say that it is skepticism. One may test something in which they already know the result.
Religious faith is (100%) belief in something that cannot be tested (like going to heaven).
At first glance this looks unreasonable as you can't prove that all religions cannot be tested. Since you are unwilling to be open minded to other religions, I suppose you can only prove that your "religious faith" cannot be tested. I probably could have commented to this in your last reply, but what I am unclear on was not your formatting, which I can appreciate.
Scientific "faith" (high confidence) is belief in something that can be tested (like turning on a light switch).
Calculating a probability and showing your work with a margin of error isn't the same as holding conviction, going forth and turning on a light switch. We've established that much.
-->
@3RU7AL
These limitations mitigate the confidence of the results. This confidence is Quantifiable. It's called "Sigma" and it NEVER REACHES 100%.Approaching this with an open mind, that sounds like glorified statistics. That is not how I understand science.Please explain how you understand science.
I'll try to remember this.
-->
@Mopac
In other words, you are scared that if you are properly brainwashed, you might end up believing.
-->
@Snoopy
At first glance this looks unreasonable as you can't prove that all religions cannot be tested.
Please provide even a single example (counter-factual) of a religious belief that CAN be tested.
-->
@Snoopy
Scientific "faith" (high confidence) is belief in something that can be tested (like turning on a light switch).Calculating a probability and showing your work with a margin of error isn't the same as holding conviction, going forth and turning on a light switch. We've established that much.
So can we agree that "faith" might be the wrong word to use for "faith in science"?
-->
@3RU7AL
Calculating a probability and showing your work with a margin of error isn't the same as holding conviction, going forth and turning on a light switch. We've established that much.So can we agree that "faith" might be the wrong word to use for "faith in science"?
Thinking that he can is not faith. It appears I have assumed your meaning incorrectly.
-->
@3RU7AL
Dogma (The earth is flat), logic, and predictionsPlease provide even a single example (counter-factual) of a religious belief that CAN be tested.
-->
@3RU7AL
That certainly does not apply to me. It was because of the fact that I took my education seriously that I ended up accidently becoming a Christian.
I used to debate Christians in fact, and I was very good at it. I was certainly indoctrinated into relativism and what I would now describe as epistemological nihilism before I ever became a Christian.
I always have loved science. I cared about what was true.
Imagine my surprise when I found out that the faith I crusaded against for so long was at its core worship of The Truth!
I know it doesn't fit the atheistic narrative that anyone who believes in Christianity is somehow deficient, but that is of course an attitude that comes from a lack of charity. Charoty being something that is actually conducive to loving The Truth.
No, I used to be like many people here.
And I also realize that me pointing this out would never be convincing to someone who is in the type of mindset that I was in before becoming a Christian.
-->
@3RU7AL
A good scientist is faithful to the scientific method. A scientist who is not faithful to scientific methodology is hardly a scientist.
The idea that faith is wholly bad is a type of atheistic newspeak intended to make it harder to take Christianity as an example seriously.
-->
@Snoopy
Please provide even a single example (counter-factual) of a religious belief that CAN be tested.Dogma (The earth is flat), logic, and predictions
Are you suggesting that "the earth is flat" is a religious belief?
What religious belief do you hold (by faith) that is TESTABLE?
A) Jesus is the one true god
B) Heaven is where you go when you die
-->
@Mopac
Faith has no place in science.A good scientist is faithful to the scientific method. A scientist who is not faithful to scientific methodology is hardly a scientist.
Science is pure Quanta.
Faith is pure Qualia.
-->
@3RU7AL
I just provided a testable example as a dogma. I've dabbled in the language but I wouldn't typically say "religious beliefs" (others might) unless I'm speaking to an anti-intellectual reference, like ideological politics. Its a vague phrasing only suited to that sort of idea in my experience.
-->
@Snoopy
The statement, "the earth is flat" is a testable hypothesis and does not rely on "faith".
-->
@Mopac
@3RU7AL
@Snoopy
Faith in science is the belief that science is the best way to discover what is true and what is false.
I call that faith because we cannot know that science - as we understand it - is always going to work as a means of discovering truth. If there is a god then one day we might come to an end of what we can learn about, say, the origin of life because life is a 'divine miracle'. But if one has faith in science you don't think that will ever happen. We might come up against a brick wall because of our mental limitations, but not because 'a miracle happened'. If I knew we would never find a real miracle it would not be 'faith'.
-->
@keithprosser
Faith in science is the belief that science is the best way to discover what is true and what is false.
BASED ON A COMPARISON OF ALL OTHER POSSIBLE METHODS OF DETERMINING WHAT IS TRUE AND WHAT IS FALSE.
It's not "faith" to expect the light to turn on when you flip a switch.
-->
@keithprosser
This is a non-sequitur....But if one has faith in science you don't think that will ever happen.
Having confidence in the scientific method has absolutely no bearing on whether or not a super intelligent time traveling alien may or may not "exist" (at some point in the future).
It merely highlights the fact that we don't currently have any evidence of such a thing and there is currently no reason to think there ever will be any evidence of such a thing.
-->
@Snoopy
Yeah, I guess so. I thought that's what you asked for.
What religious belief do you hold (by faith) that is TESTABLE?
A) Jesus is the one true god
B) Heaven is where you go when you die
-->
@3RU7AL
...But if one has faith in science you don't think that will ever happen.This is a non-sequitur.
Perhaps, if you take it more literally than I intended.
Do you think that we will find a super-duper time travelling alien did it all? I'm not asking if that's possible (anything is possible)- i'm asking if you think we will find one.
-->
@3RU7AL
"Jesus is God" is a theological statement. All things are possible through God. It just happens that Christianity is "The Way"
-->
@keithprosser
@3RU7AL
Faith is integral to science, to say otherwise is wishful thinking.
-->
@Mopac
As you are a theist, you aren't capable of understanding what is scientific.
-->
@keithprosser
i'm asking if you think we will find one.
That is clearly beyond our current epistemological limits.
I try to distinguish between what is known Quanta (extant) and what is unknown (non-existent).
Something being currently unknown (non-existent) does not and should not imply that this state (of non-existence) is a necessarily permanent condition.
-->
@Snoopy
"Jesus is God" is a theological statement. All things are possible through God. It just happens that Christianity is "The Way"
"Jesus is god" is NOT scientifically testable (unfalsifiable) (not a truth bearing statement) (but might be logically incoherent) and as such requires "faith".
"All things are possible through god" is NOT scientifically testable (unfalsifiable) (not a truth bearing statement) (but might be logically incoherent) and as such requires "faith".
"Christianity is The Way" is NOT scientifically testable (unfalsifiable) (not a truth bearing statement) (but might be logically incoherent) and as such requires "faith".
-->
@3RU7AL
"Jesus is god" is NOT scientifically testable (unfalsifiable) (but might be logically incoherent) and as such requires "faith".
Faith in science has already been offered, so it doesn't make sense for a lack of science to be a cause requiring faith.
Random unfact: The Truth is unfalsifiable