Do nonbelievers or non-theists have faith?

[KingandPriest]

In a separate thread, I suggested the following:

This is why most apologist say you need more faith to be an atheist than to believe in God

To this, an agnostic replied:

Yeah, I heard that silly slander before.. I read a book with a title like that, too.
That book was a HUGE disappointment, by the way.

Frank isn't very respected by outsiders to the faith.
Even the title of the book is messed up.

How many atheists have you EVER heard saying that they have "faith in their atheism"?

Would that be many or few?

To this I now ask:

1. Does a atheist have to proclaim faith in atheism to have faith?
2. Can a nonbeliever or non-theist have faith in anything at all?
3. When a person places money into a bank account, and then goes to a store to spend some of this money, is the action of using a debit card, check card or check book an act of faith?
4. Are generally accepted scientific theories statements of faith?

[McCulloch]

This is just like what is said about God. God is eternal.

Do you think the law of conservation of energy supports the existence of God?

The Law of Conservation of Energy supports the idea that energy is eternal. It can neither be created nor destroyed. Thus it must have existed for all time and will continue to exist for all time.

A huge problem here is that there truly isn't even a meaningful definition for the term "energy" in physics, short of perhaps an ability to "do work".

The Law of Conservation of Energy is meaningless if, as you suggest, physicists are working without an adequate definition of energy. However, the Law simply suggests that energy, however you define it, is eternal.

We can't say for certain that 'energy' preexisted the universe.

We cannot say with any certainty anything about before the universe. It may even be meaningless to discuss.

We also can't even say for certain that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. That scientific definition in science speaks only to the situation within the universe.

Um, can we say anything about outside the universe?

[KingandPriest]

So calling something faith or confidence is subjective. What I call faith you may call confidence because of a difference of opinion on the supporting evidence available.

Lets use a narrower definition for evidence shall we? How about we stick to evidence of the empirical kind?

Seismic waves do not provide evidence of the composition of a material. Only the approximate size and density.

That's more than good enough to demonstrate the composition of the Earth's core.

]We don't know the composition beyond a reasonable doubt. We think we know and have a pretty good idea. It is possible that the core is composed of a mix of new elements yet to be discovered.

Sure.

...2. "solar systems forms from inside out" (Wouldn't you call this a rule about which has to form first?)

It is a rule, it just doesn't mean a planet has to be younger than its sun.

3. "if indeed the sun and the Earth formed form the same dust cloud, then the sun has to be older"

Do you see where the assumption came out of nowhere.

No, I don't. It is backed by empirical evidence.

Why is this assumption more plausible than one which includes an older earth? Why is a theory which includes the earth forming shortly before the sun automatically rejected?

That's where empirical evidence comes in.

Models are not empirical evidence...

What we see matches the model, that give us confidence that the model is accurate, that is enough to demonstrate that the sun is older than the Earth.

If I build a model of building that is supposed to depict a 1000 meter tall building, is the model empirical evidence that the building has already been built?

That's not what is meant by a model. What are the predictions being made here?

Why accept one model simulation, when others could generate a similar result?

No reason. I have a question: from what you said here, it seems you understood that by model I meant simulation. Why did you bring up a model building above if you knew what "model" means?

Are you familiar with how margin of error works?

Yes.

The empirical evidence of dating earths oldest rocks and meteorites affirm that my statement above is possible.

That's where other evidence comes in, you cannot cherry pick in science. Everything has to line up. Looking at oldest rocks says it might be possible, but we can rule it out by looking at everything together.

The only way it is not possible, is if you accept the assumption that the sun had to form first.

Again, not an assumption. Or at worse, not a mere assumption but one backed by empirical evidence.

What is the basis for belief that the sun forms first? Is the basis empirical evidence or conjecture?

Empirical evidence.

So accepting a claim as true is ok as long as it is done on a tentative basis?

If a cosmologists claims the sun must have formed before the Earth with no empirical evidence, it is ok to accept the claim on a tentative basis until a better theory comes along with empirical evidence to back it up.

No. The point was, it's still tentatively true AFTER empirical evidence presented to back it up.

Why was this claim rejected in favor of the new claim (sun older than earth) when this new claim did not have any empirical evidence to support it. Was this just based on personal preference?

Loaded question cannot be answered. The new claim is accepted because it had empirical evidence to support it.

And what is this other empirical evidence?

What other empirical evidence supports the approximate age of 4.6 billion years?
Is a model empirical evidence?
Is the rule "solar systems form from the inside out" empirical evidence?
It is our calculations which show how long the sun has been creating fusion?

Some of the above information is not empirical or it does not support the age of 4.6 billion. It supports the the age range but not the specific date selected.

Can you provide this other empirical evidence?

[Bust Nak]

And what is this other empirical evidence?

Measurement of gravity. The mass, rotational movement of the planets, the sun and other astronomical objects, observation of other solar systems.

What other empirical evidence supports the approximate age of 4.6 billion years?

Not familiar enough with cosmology to tell you, I was thinking of radiometric dating.

Is a model empirical evidence?

No, it just enable us to explain what happened.

Is the rule "solar systems form from the inside out" empirical evidence?

It's a prediction of the model.

It is our calculations which show how long the sun has been creating fusion?

I suppose it could be dated that way, the one I am familiar with is by radiometric dating astronomical objects.

Some of the above information is not empirical or it does not support the age of 4.6 billion. It supports the the age range but not the specific date selected.

Why is having a age range a problem?

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 42 by KingandPriest]

It may please you somewhat to read me saying this: I can't refute what you said. This doesn't mean that I accept everything that's in post 42, but that what is said there is beyond my knowledge of physics.

It really wouldn't matter anyway because KingandPriest is working on a false assumption to begin with.

KingandPriest is working on the assumption that if a person rejects theism then they necessarily must worship science as their worldview. But that's a false dichotomy to begin with.

When did I ever make this statement or any similar statement. This whole thread is about whether or not non-theists have faith, and then questioning what and where is this faith applied. It is known that believers have faith. It is also known, and has been accepted that many non-theists have faith as well. Some have claimed that the type of faith a non-theist has is different from a theist. I want to show that in some cases the type of faith is exactly the same. I do not claim that all cases of faith are the same, but that some types of faith (which has been called blind faith) is present among theists and non-theist alike. If both use faith for different reasons, why is it ok to bash one group for using faith and then applaud another group. This seems hypocritical to me, which is why I asked the questions I did in the OP.

I never insinuated that non-theists worship anything. Having faith in something or someone does not mean you worship it. It just means you have a level of trust or acceptance about a particular person or statement.

Did you read my words in the OP. All I stated is that it takes more faith to be an atheist than to believe in God. This statement has nothing to do with worship, but where a person applies their faith.

For example, I reject all of the Abrahamic religions as being clearly self-contradictory and utterly absurd on many levels. No scientific knowledge is even required to reject all of the Abrahamic religions. [/qupte]
Thanks for providing your opinion on what you accept or reject. I can do it too. I reject your claims that the bible is clearly contradictory and utterly absurd on many levels. No scientific knowledge is required to reject your assertions of contradictory biblical scriptures.

KingandPriest seems to be working on the idea that non-theists must be worshiping science and that this is the reason they reject Hebrew Mythology.

Never used the word worship or introduced this thought process. Check back through the first five pages of this thread and you will see the word faith, used over and over not worship. Having faith in something or someone is not the same as worshiping it. If I have faith that physicists will find particles and a supporting "theory of everything" that will align with the biblical narrative of creation, am I worshiping the physicists or the field of physics? Of course not.

Besides, look at his argument, he's trying to claim that science cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Bible's account of Genesis is necessarily wrong. So what?

So what, you ask. It has been claimed on this forum many times that the bible is not credible because modern science has proved that the creation narrative is impossible. Now that we are learning this may not be the case, we should just reject it because you say so. I guess we should run all claims of knowledge by you to see what should or should not be accepted.

That's got to be one of the least of the problems associated with the Biblical fables in any case. Even if science ended up proving that the earth was necessarily formed FIRST that would hardly vindicate the Bible.

In fact, the theory of Nebular Formation could itself end up having the earth forming as a rocky orb "before" the Sun actually ignites as a star. So what? Should we then run off through the streets proclaiming that the Bible has been vindicated? Hardly.

No, not vindicated. This arguement could no longer be used to attempt to discredit the claims in the bible.

KingandPriest seems to be arguing from the perspective that religion (in this case Christianity in particular) is at war with science, and if he can simply demonstrate that science doesn't necessarily conflict with the Bible then he will have "settled" that war in favor of Christianity.

Major misconception once again. Are we in the same thread. I am not placing faith in Christ at war with science. In fact I am doing the opposite. I am placing faith in Christ on the same level with faith in scientific theories. I am drilling down to why some scientific theories are acceptable as true (ie placing trust or faith in these theories). I am told the reason why is because of empirical evidence. When I look for empirical evidence however, all I see is indirect evidence and our best guesses as to what is taking place. I have no issue with this process. We observe a phenomenon. We test it as best as possible and come up with a best guess as to why it is occurring the way we see. Even though it is a good guess, based on solid observations, it is still a guess.

The faith required to trust these best guesses is the same faith required to trust the biblical account of Jesus.

Some argue that the faith/trust in scientific theories is more trustworthy than the faith/trust believers place in God. This claim of a more trustworthy faith/trust is what I want to explore. It is claimed, that accepting some scientific theories are more trustworthy because of empirical evidence. When I look for empirical evidence, all I see in some cases is indirect evidence just like some claims of faith in the bible.

This no doubt stems from the fact that he has obviously heard many atheists argue that science refutes Genesis. Actually I personally believe it does in the big picture anyway. But some atheists probably argued that you must have sunlight before you can have plants growing and so they argue that the Sun had to be burning before life could exist on planet earth. That's no doubt TRUE!

I never argued that the sun was not vital to life on the planet. I agree with this.
The biblical account even states that light came before life on the planet earth. We don't know what was the source of this light. There are theories but I do not claim to know for sure.

But for some reason KingandPriest seems to now think that if he can bring a question into the mix of whether the earth might have been formed "first", (even as a hot molten rock, this will somehow vindicate the Genesis account of the earth being created before the sun. That's hardly a sound argument in any case.

Not vindicate the bible, just affirm that one needs faith to accept the nebular hypothesis for the chronological dating of objects in our solar system.

But the bottom line is that all atheists don't reject the Hebrew Bible based entirely on scientific technicalities.

Do you speak for all atheists when you write this statement?

Some do, and others don't. My point here is not whether or not atheists reject the bible. The point is that an atheist does have faith, and uses faith to accept certain claims as more trustworthy than others. When we look at the claims which are touted as more trustworthy, I see a stark similarity to the type of faith required to believe biblical claims.

Let's go back to the questions of the OP again and see how they are not dependent on placing "faith" in science, or anything else.

To this I now ask:

1. Does a atheist have to proclaim faith in atheism to have faith?

No, absolutely not. Atheism is not a belief anymore than choosing not to play golf is a belief. No faith is required to choose to not play golf.

This question was in response to the statement proposed by Blastcat. In my opinion, it doesn't make sense for an atheist to proclaim faith in atheism. Blastcat attempted to show that because atheists do not proclaim faith in atheism, they must not have faith as I originally stated.

2. Can a nonbeliever or non-theist have faith in anything at all?

For an atheist the term "faith" is most likely a synonym for "trust'. And so in that context atheists can trust a lot of knowledge and their life's experience. They are even aware that this trust can ultimately turn out to be misplaced.

So atheists do have and place faith/trust in various claims or people. They may be aware that this trust can be misplaced.

This is all I wanted to confirm. Non-theists can have faith/trust in something that could possible be misplaced or not realistic.

That hardly compares with the kind of obsessive unrealistic "faith" a theists place in the existence of an invisible God for which there is absolutely no evidence for at all (especially when we're talking about one that is described in detail in a collection of highly self-contradictory myths)

This is a very bold claim. There is a vast amount of evidence for the existence of God. This evidence may not be direct empirical evidence, but many scientific theories are supported and accepted by indirect empirical evidence. Why is it ok to support a scientific theory with indirect empirical evidence, but not God? The only reason for such a distinction is personal bias.

3. When a person places money into a bank account, and then goes to a store to spend some of this money, is the action of using a debit card, check card or check book an act of faith?

Again, an atheist would most likely use the word "trust" and even then they would most likely be very open to the possibility that this trust could have been misplaced. "Expectation" that a system will hopefully work well is a better description. And if you've ever been stung by a banking error you would be quickly awakened to the fact that mistakes do sometimes occur.

Using the word trust does not eliminate the concept or application of faith. Synonyms prove that the words share a similar or the same meaning.

4. Are generally accepted scientific theories statements of faith?

Again, the correct term here is TRUST, and certainly not "Blind faith" like theists rely upon.

Scientists TRUST in generally accepted theories because they realize that every scientist in the community would love nothing more than to disprove the theory! Therefore, theories that have been peer-reviewed for many years are very trustworthy. Let's not forget that there is also tons of actual evidence to support generally accepted theories as well.

For example, you can argue against Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity until you are blue in the face, that's not going to change the fact that time dilation is real and has actually been measured many times over by many independent scientists who would love nothing more than to prove Relativity wrong.

If you can demonstrate that a generally accepted scientific theory is actually wrong, then you will the Nobel Prize and become recognized as one of the smartest people around.

So scientists are highly motivated to prove scientific theories wrong. They are hardly working in a conspiracy to support lame theories that they could easily disprove or demonstrate reasons to question them.

Every scientist's greatest dream is to be recognized for finding a flaw, an improvement, or an alternative explanation to an existing theory.

So even scientists don't place the kind of "faith" in their theories that theists place in their invisible Gods.

To the contrary, scientists are the greatest "skeptics" of all. And the truly decent scientists would even love to have their own theories blown out of the water if this results in revealing a greater underlying truth.

Scientists are interested in discovering truth, not in perpetuation myths.

So this idea that secular scientists merely have "a theistic faith" in scientific theories is clearly a misguided notion from the get go.

I can restate your sentence with the word faith and it would remain the same. This is the power of synonyms.

"Scientists have FAITH in generally accepted theories because they realize that every scientist in the community would love nothing more than to disprove the theory!"

Changing the word back to faith yields the same result in your sentence. You want to change where I used the word faith to trust. I want to change where you use the word trust for change. The fact that we can use these words interchangeably, shows how similar they are. So trusting a scientific theory is similar or the same as having faith in a scientific theory.

[KingandPriest]

And what is this other empirical evidence?

Measurement of gravity. The mass, rotational movement of the planets, the sun and other astronomical objects, observation of other solar systems.

This empirical evidence does not support the age of the sun. It is indirect evidence which might support other predictions made by the nebular hypothesis. Not predictions about chronology. When we observe other solar systems, we actually see contradictory data. This is why the nebular hypothesis has vacillated back and forth between being accepted and refuted.

What other empirical evidence supports the approximate age of 4.6 billion years?

Not familiar enough with cosmology to tell you, I was thinking of radiometric dating.

All dating techniques we have available today gives us a range of dates. We know the approximate range of the age of the sun, not the approximate age.

Just like the orphan example I gave earlier, without specific empirical evidence, we can approximate the age of a person to a range of years. We are pretty good at guessing within 3-5 years, 4-7% margin of error. With cosmology we have gotten to the level to approximate the age of an object to within 1-10% margin of error. This is amazing. But to leap and conclude that we know the age is like saying we know the birth date of a person with no record of a birth certificate to validate our guess.

The range is very accurate and a good enough estimate. Why assume we know the age, when we do not. To assume nebular hypothesis is right about chronology when it has been wrong about a few other predictions before, requires faith.

Is a model empirical evidence?

No, it just enable us to explain what happened.

Ok, so another model that provides just as good an explanation should be on equal footing.

Is the rule "solar systems form from the inside out" empirical evidence?

It's a prediction of the model.

So is predictions of a model empirical evidence that is good enough for you?
I think it is a stretch to call predictions of a model empirical evidence.

It is our calculations which show how long the sun has been creating fusion?

I suppose it could be dated that way, the one I am familiar with is by radiometric dating astronomical objects.

Our calculations show that the sun has been creating fusion for about 4.57 billion years.

The age of the Sun can be estimated from the ages obtained from radioactive dating of the oldest meteorites. This may seem odd at first, but in fact it is extremely likely that the solar system (i.e. th Sun, planets, asteroids etc.) formed as one unit. Therefore the age of the Sun should be close to the age of the meteorites, which can be found using the method of radioactive dating.

G.J. Wasserburg obtained a meteoritic age of (4.57 +/- 0.01) x 10^9 years and D.B. Guenther (1989, Astrophysical Journal 339, 1156) estimated that hydrogen burning started shortly thereafer (40 million (0.04 +/- .01) x 10^9 years later).

Additional evidence comes from the Earth. The oldest Earth rocks are also about 4.6 billion years old.

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qage.html

So we have a calculation that shows fusion on the sun about 4.57 billion years ago (+/- 1%) and rocks on earth measuring 4.6 billion years. Hmm. These dates seem like they were flipped to match something else. I wonder what they were changed to align with?
Was it because some believed nebular hypothesis was right, so they rejected the actual calculations and report a date that fits a better alignment of what was believed to be true.

Some of the above information is not empirical or it does not support the age of 4.6 billion. It supports the the age range but not the specific date selected.

Why is having a age range a problem?

I don't see having a range as a problem. Our textbooks, online resources and other material seem to have a problem with stating the range instead of a selected date. When you perform an inquiry about the age of the sun or age of the earth, it is presented as 4.6 billion and 4.543 billion respectively. Even in schools if a student has a test question about the age of the sun or planets, they cannot respond with the corresponding range. They are taught the age as if it is true, or as if it is a known fact which has been supported by empirical evidence.

This is not true. The date range is supported by empirical evidence, not the age presented. To say the sun is 4.6 billion years old is a statement of faith. Just like saying we know the composition of the center of the earth. We have good estimates. We do not know for sure. Claiming to know for sure is a statement built on faith not facts.

[Bust Nak]

This empirical evidence does not support the age of the sun. It is indirect evidence which might support other predictions made by the nebular hypothesis. Not predictions about chronology.

Nebular hypothesis does describe the order of formation though.

When we observe other solar systems, we actually see contradictory data. This is why the nebular hypothesis has vacillated back and forth between being accepted and refuted.

We do? What is the latest consensus on solar formation?

All dating techniques we have available today gives us a range of dates. We know the approximate range of the age of the sun, not the approximate age...

The range is very accurate and a good enough estimate. Why assume we know the age, when we do not. To assume nebular hypothesis is right about chronology when it has been wrong about a few other predictions before, requires faith.

Like you said, it's good enough. Surely that's takes the matter into the confidence area, as opposed to leaving it in the faith area.

Ok, so another model that provides just as good an explanation should be on equal footing.

Not quite, the one with fewer unknowns should be preferred.

So is predictions of a model empirical evidence that is good enough for you?

Yes, isn't it good enough for you? More important for this topic, isn't it good enough to be said that it's not statements of faith?

I think it is a stretch to call predictions of a model empirical evidence.

Granted. But lets not downplay the importance of models and predictions in science.

Our calculations show that the sun has been creating fusion for about 4.57 billion years.
...
Was it because some believed nebular hypothesis was right, so they rejected the actual calculations and report a date that fits a better alignment of what was believed to be true.

You say "rejected the actual calculations" but the calculations are still in line with the Nebular hypothesis.

I don't see having a range as a problem. Our textbooks, online resources and other material seem to have a problem with stating the range instead of a selected date. When you perform an inquiry about the age of the sun or age of the earth, it is presented as 4.6 billion and 4.543 billion respectively...

I think it's clear that it is presented as an estimation. Maybe you are just reading too much into this. Neither scientists aren't out there trying to fool people, neither are the typical textbook writers.

Claiming to know for sure is a statement built on faith not facts.

Seems rather pedantic to me, would you find it acceptable to say that we know it is around 4.6 billion-ish years old?

[KingandPriest]

This empirical evidence does not support the age of the sun. It is indirect evidence which might support other predictions made by the nebular hypothesis. Not predictions about chronology.

Nebular hypothesis does describe the order of formation though.

When we observe other solar systems, we actually see contradictory data. This is why the nebular hypothesis has vacillated back and forth between being accepted and refuted.

We do? What is the latest consensus on solar formation?

All dating techniques we have available today gives us a range of dates. We know the approximate range of the age of the sun, not the approximate age...

The range is very accurate and a good enough estimate. Why assume we know the age, when we do not. To assume nebular hypothesis is right about chronology when it has been wrong about a few other predictions before, requires faith.

Like you said, it's good enough. Surely that's takes the matter into the confidence area, as opposed to leaving it in the faith area.

The faith area and the confidence area are the same area.

The latest consensus on solar system formation believes the nebular hypothesis to be the most accurate or acceptable description available. It is because this consensus is based on a belief that nebular hypothesis is right, I say it is based on faith. When a person says they believe something to be true or accurate, they are taking a position of faith.

I do not dispute that the nebular hypothesis is a good description. All I argue is that to accept the nebular hypothesis today in terms of chronological order, it must be done by faith (as a belief) because we do not have the direct empirical evidence to support it. If you see the other predictions of the nebular hypothesis as sufficient, it allows a person to have faith in the accuracy in the nebular hypothesis and arrive at an age of the sun to be 4.6 billion years old. If you don't have faith in the nebular hypothesis, you will question this age and seek evidence to support another theory.

Ok, so another model that provides just as good an explanation should be on equal footing.

Not quite, the one with fewer unknowns should be preferred.

By that logic, many other theories should have been preferred over nebular hypothesis. Sometimes the best explanation will have more unknown variables. In other cases, the theory with the least unknown variables will have the worst explanation.

So is predictions of a model empirical evidence that is good enough for you?

Yes, isn't it good enough for you? More important for this topic, isn't it good enough to be said that it's not statements of faith?

After working with architects and engineers to create models and simulations, I realize just how incomplete it is to just accept a model as empirical evidence. Reality and what we can model in a simulation rarely if ever agree. Just because we can simulate an event, does not mean it actually followed that path. We know unforeseen circumstances are a part of reality. No model can fully account for unforeseen circumstances.

To accept a simulation as empirical evidence of nebular hypothesis is a big error. I have learned that a simulation will give a description of what may have occurred or what may occur in the future.

You place your trust in that which has been calculated as possible but not proven. What is your trust based on? Earlier you said it was based on "other empirical evidence." Now its based on models and simulations.

I think it is a stretch to call predictions of a model empirical evidence.

Granted. But lets not downplay the importance of models and predictions in science.

I know these models and simulations are important. Hence why I claim some scientific theories are accepted on the basis of faith and not direct empirical evidence.

Our calculations show that the sun has been creating fusion for about 4.57 billion years.
...
Was it because some believed nebular hypothesis was right, so they rejected the actual calculations and report a date that fits a better alignment of what was believed to be true.

You say "rejected the actual calculations" but the calculations are still in line with the Nebular hypothesis.

The calculations also support other theories. If the calculations are the strongest support for the nebular hypothesis, but those same calculations also support other theories, why assume or accept the nebular hypothesis as correct for the purposes of chronological order?

I don't see having a range as a problem. Our textbooks, online resources and other material seem to have a problem with stating the range instead of a selected date. When you perform an inquiry about the age of the sun or age of the earth, it is presented as 4.6 billion and 4.543 billion respectively...

I think it's clear that it is presented as an estimation. Maybe you are just reading too much into this. Neither scientists aren't out there trying to fool people, neither are the typical textbook writers.

I don't think it is a willful attempt to fool others, but presenting inaccurate information as though it is true is one of the major contentions of this forum. Many argue that claims in the bible cannot be proven to be true, so why should anyone believe them. My question is why the double standard when it comes to faith?Believing the nebular hypothesis is ok, but believing that Jesus is the son of God is not.

It has been argued that the difference is the lack of empirical evidence to support the claim that Jesus Christ is the son of God. This is a fair reason for questioning the biblical claim if it is applied consistently. Nebular hypothesis lacks empirical evidence to support it just like the claim that Jesus is the son of God. Why treat one more favorably than the other? Both require faith to be believed in.

Claiming to know for sure is a statement built on faith not facts.

Seems rather pedantic to me, would you find it acceptable to say that we know it is around 4.6 billion-ish years old?

Some take the effort and say the solar system is about 4.6 billion years old. This includes all the planets and sun. If we look at the range for dating all planets in our solar system, we see approximately the same range.

It takes a leap of faith to make a claim beyond just stating the range. To differentiate the age of the planets and sun is currently done by faith in the nebular hypothesis alone.

[Divine Insight]

Changing the word back to faith yields the same result in your sentence. You want to change where I used the word faith to trust. I want to change where you use the word trust for change. The fact that we can use these words interchangeably, shows how similar they are. So trusting a scientific theory is similar or the same as having faith in a scientific theory.

In other words, all you are doing is playing semantic games. You're trying to pretend that religious "faith" is no different from everyday secular "trust".

But clearly it's not even remotely the same. So you are just attempting to play semantic games in an attempt to try to reduce science to having no more merit than religions that are based on totally absurd and self-contradictory fables.

Surely you don't expect anyone to impressed by such an empty semantic argument as that? That's an argument that has already been thoroughly debunked many times over in the past. It's certainly an old worn-out argument that isn't the slightest bit impressive.

In fact, if that's the best you can do to support your belief in ancient contradictory fables, then I'd suggest that you are scraping at the very bottom of the apologetic barrel. This is an argument that is basically nothing more than an open confession that there aren't any good reasons to believe in these ancient religions.

Trying to drag science down to the level of religious beliefs in an effort to "level the playing field" does no good at all.

In fact, consider this:

If you maintain that placing "faith" in science is precisely the SAME as placing "faith" in religions. Then you have actually demanded that a belief in "secular worldview" is precisely equivalent to a theistic view. Once you do this, then you necessarily need to concede that a belief that there is no God is on precisely the same rational grounds as a belief that there is.

So you won't have made much progress with an argument like that anyway.

PLUS:

If you argue that all "faiths" are equivalent, then you can't very well argue against people who place their "faith" in Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Wicca, or even The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Once you argue that all "worldviews" are equivalent in terms of "faith" then you no longer have any room left to argue that the religion you have placed your "faith" in has any more merit than anything else.

So from a theological perspective you lose anyway. You would need to confess then that atheists, and all non-Christians are just as "justified" in placing their "faith" in whatever they have chosen to place their faith in as you are for having to choose to place your faith in your favorite religion or worldview.

So what have you gained in terms of a theological argument?

Nothing.

[Divine Insight]

This is just like what is said about God. God is eternal.

Do you think the law of conservation of energy supports the existence of God?

The Law of Conservation of Energy supports the idea that energy is eternal. It can neither be created nor destroyed. Thus it must have existed for all time and will continue to exist for all time.

A huge problem here is that there truly isn't even a meaningful definition for the term "energy" in physics, short of perhaps an ability to "do work".

The Law of Conservation of Energy is meaningless if, as you suggest, physicists are working without an adequate definition of energy. However, the Law simply suggests that energy, however you define it, is eternal.

We can't say for certain that 'energy' preexisted the universe.

We cannot say with any certainty anything about before the universe. It may even be meaningless to discuss.

We also can't even say for certain that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. That scientific definition in science speaks only to the situation within the universe.

Um, can we say anything about outside the universe?

To define energy as being "eternal" seems a bit presumptuous. Especially if we accept the thermodynamic hypothesis that the universe may end up in a "heat death". A "heat death" would actually be a state of "zero energy" (the inability to do any work at all).

If that's the case, then why would we say that energy is eternal?

In fact, there is a very close connection between energy and entropy. Entropy is definitely not eternal. It constantly moves from a state of low entropy to high entropy. In fact, this is the explanation for why the universe is headed for a "heat death".

But then the question arises, "How did the universe ever get wound-up into a state of low entropy in the first place?"

Of course, this is because we think of entropy in terms of energy. In order to "create" energy we must wind something up (so to speak). Like winding up a rubber band in a model airplane. We tend to think of a low entropy state as a state of "wound-up" energy.

So this causes us to ask, "How did the universe get wound up?"

However, Ludwig Boltzmann's formulation of entropy as a state of information allows for the universe to get "wound up" without any expenditure of energy at all. All it needs to do is start out in a state of extreme uniformity. And that could be accomplished without any "physical exertion" at all. In fact, that's most likely the explanation.

However, if this is the explanation, then energy is most certainly not eternal. What we call energy is really nothing more than the observation that the universe is moving from a state of high uniformity to a state of low uniformity. But this also means that it's "running out" of energy.

Another thing to note also is that if our universe dies a "heat death" gravity will also become zero. This gives much credence to the idea that gravity and energy are strongly related. When energy dies, so does gravity (or vice versa).

So energy, gravity, and entropy may all be observables of the same underlying phenomena.

In any case, if the universe is heading for a heat death as thermodynamics predicts, then isn't it safe to assume that there must be something "other than the universe" that ultimately gave rise to this initial low state of entropy that we call the "Big Bang"?

I'm not arguing that there would need to be an intelligence behind this event. But I am arguing that it seems to make sense that it came into being for some reason "beyond" this universe. Even if that "beyond" was just yet another perfectly natural process. In fact, IMHO, it actually makes sense that this other process was not the least bit conscious, intelligent, or sentient of what was actually happening. None the less, whatever it was it seems to have been something quite "different" from what we currently call the universe.

[KingandPriest]

Changing the word back to faith yields the same result in your sentence. You want to change where I used the word faith to trust. I want to change where you use the word trust for change. The fact that we can use these words interchangeably, shows how similar they are. So trusting a scientific theory is similar or the same as having faith in a scientific theory.

In other words, all you are doing is playing semantic games. You're trying to pretend that religious "faith" is no different from everyday secular "trust".

Can you provide a clear difference between faith and trust. You continue to add different caveats in front of the word faith or trust to attempt to make the distinction between faith and trust. Can you prove that faith and trust are substantially different?

The only way you can is by trying to create separation by creating new labels "religious faith" or "secular trust". This thread is focused on the concept of faith, not the minute types of faith which could be divided into tiny categories.

But clearly it's not even remotely the same. So you are just attempting to play semantic games in an attempt to try to reduce science to having no more merit than religions that are based on totally absurd and self-contradictory fables.

You claim faith and trust are not the same, or even remotely similar. You have not provided any support for your claim other than your opinion.

I have provided support to show where scientists themselves have used the word believe or belief as the reason for supporting a theory. They believe the theory is correct, so they interpret new data based on their belief (trust/faith) in a theory.

Surely you don't expect anyone to impressed by such an empty semantic argument as that? That's an argument that has already been thoroughly debunked many times over in the past. It's certainly an old worn-out argument that isn't the slightest bit impressive.

I am not trying to impress anyone. Not trying to impress a girl back in high school.

The reason the argument continues to be presented over and over again is because some scientific theories are not supported by direct empirical evidence. They are supported on the assumption that they are correct. This is the same type of assumption which is made to assume that the bible's claims about God are correct.

In fact, if that's the best you can do to support your belief in ancient contradictory fables, then I'd suggest that you are scraping at the very bottom of the apologetic barrel. This is an argument that is basically nothing more than an open confession that there aren't any good reasons to believe in these ancient religions.

More opinions do not substantiate your claim. I realize it is impossible to talk about God without talking about faith. To begin to properly debate and in my case present arguments in favor of accepting Jesus Christ, it is important to lay a foundation based on faith.

It is not wise to build a house or any other construct (in this case a belief system) without the proper foundation. If we jump into complex spiritual conversations without understanding faith, we will be debating on quicksand and neither argument will stand very long. This is my 3rd thread on the topic of faith, because I am focused on laying the appropriate foundation. There are many good reasons and supporting evidence to support my claims. You want to discuss the walls and roof of Christianity without discussing the foundation.

Trying to drag science down to the level of religious beliefs in an effort to "level the playing field" does no good at all.

I dont wish to drag science down anywhere. I am not attempting to talk about science at all. I am discussing the faith people have in some scientific theories. There is a difference between talking about science or a scientific theory, and the faith a person places in science or a scientific theory.

In fact, consider this:

If you maintain that placing "faith" in science is precisely the SAME as placing "faith" in religions. Then you have actually demanded that a belief in "secular worldview" is precisely equivalent to a theistic view. Once you do this, then you necessarily need to concede that a belief that there is no God is on precisely the same rational grounds as a belief that there is.

I am not arguing for or against a secular world view. I am comparing specific instances where faith is used to support a scientific theory, and specific cases where faith is used to support a claim in Christianity. There are numerous scientific theories which rely on direct empirical evidence. These do not require faith to be trusted, because the evidence is direct and indisputable. There are other scientific theories which are generally accepted even though they lack direct empirical evidence. I am specifically comparing faith in these theories to the faith that Jesus Christ is LORD.

I would agree with your last statement, but I have a feeling most if not all atheist would not. Belief that God is, is on the same rational grounds as belief that God does not exist. Most atheist would argue that they do not "believe" God does not exist. They would assert they lack belief in the existence of God. Since they claim a lack of belief, the two are no longer on the same rational ground. If atheists claimed to believe that God does not exist, this would place their beliefs on the same level as a person who does believe in God. It is the lack of belief which separates the two positions.

So you won't have made much progress with an argument like that anyway.

You are correct, because atheists claim a lack of belief.

PLUS:

If you argue that all "faiths" are equivalent, then you can't very well argue against people who place their "faith" in Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Wicca, or even The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I don't argue that all faiths are equivalent. I argue that faith is used outside of a religious context to accept something as true. I also argue that they type of evidence presented goes a long way to building or reducing a persons faith in a claim or person.

Once you argue that all "worldviews" are equivalent in terms of "faith" then you no longer have any room left to argue that the religion you have placed your "faith" in has any more merit than anything else.

When did I ever argue that worldviews are equivalent?

So from a theological perspective you lose anyway. You would need to confess then that atheists, and all non-Christians are just as "justified" in placing their "faith" in whatever they have chosen to place their faith in as you are for having to choose to place your faith in your favorite religion or worldview.

What makes one persons faith justified or another persons faith rejected is the type, quantity and quality of the supporting evidence. This is a fair question and may be worthy of a separate thread.

So what have you gained in terms of a theological argument?

Nothing.

As I stated above, my desire is to lay the appropriate foundation for a later discussion about spiritual claims made in Christianity. Without the appropriate foundation, it will be impossible to have a reasoned and well informed debate.