Is faith a reliable path to reality?

[Angry Ukulele Girl]

Hi there!

This is my first post
This is according to Hebrews 11:1
How exactly can "confidence in what we hope for"
and an "assurance about what we do not see"
be a reliable path to reality?
For example,
Would it be advisable to approach my bank account balance in such a way?

Thanks!

[Diogenes]

]Not all hypotheses are proved by empirical testing

I suppose that may true of some, but please give examples of scientific hypotheses that don't require empirical testing for proof.

[John17_3]

I do not see a "misinterpreted version of the scientific method", but if it is your view that the authors points are false, please specify which points are false, and produce the papers that demonstrate that they are false.

Also, if you do not mind telling me, please explain why the subject of faith has become a discussion on the scientific method, because I don't feel comfortable going against forum rules, which says start a new thread, if discussing another subject.

Transponder was kind enough to provide a sufficient response on my behalf in post #338.

I have not been reading Transponder's posts, so I would not see that.
However, it's okay if you don't want to post a response. I understand.
It may not be that important.

[John17_3]

]Not all hypotheses are proved by empirical testing

I suppose that may true of some, but please give examples of scientific hypotheses that don't require empirical testing for proof.

You'll need to start a new thread, since I don't believe that is keeping on the topic of this thread.

[Diogenes]

]Not all hypotheses are proved by empirical testing

I suppose that may true of some, but please give examples of scientific hypotheses that don't require empirical testing for proof.

You'll need to start a new thread, since I don't believe that is keeping on the topic of this thread.

Wrong!
You wrote this just a few posts ago and now you refuse to defend your claim.
I don't blame you. Like many of your posts, this one is indefensible.
If I am wrong, defend it. But please don't use the 'New Thread" cop out.
Defend your claim or withdraw it.

Apparently even YOU admit your claim does not deserve its own thread and has no defense.

[John17_3]

]Not all hypotheses are proved by empirical testing

I suppose that may true of some, but please give examples of scientific hypotheses that don't require empirical testing for proof.

You'll need to start a new thread, since I don't believe that is keeping on the topic of this thread.

Wrong!
You wrote this just a few posts ago and now you refuse to defend your claim.
I don't blame you. Like many of your posts, this one is indefensible.
If I am wrong, defend it. But please don't use the 'New Thread" cop out.
Defend your claim or withdraw it.

Apparently even YOU admit your claim does not deserve its own thread and has no defense.

I'm wrong that this is another topic, and you should start a new thread?
Perhaps you can ask the mod. Or believe what you want. It does not matter.
I'm not discussing this topic any further in this thread.

[Diogenes]

I do not see a "misinterpreted version of the scientific method", but if it is your view that the authors points are false, please specify which points are false, and produce the papers that demonstrate that they are false.

Also, if you do not mind telling me, please explain why the subject of faith has become a discussion on the scientific method, because I don't feel comfortable going against forum rules, which says start a new thread, if discussing another subject.

Transponder was kind enough to provide a sufficient response on my behalf in post #338.

I have not been reading Transponder's posts, so I would not see that.

O! So sorry! Let me help you out. Here you go: viewtopic.php?p=1157220#p1157220

[bluegreenearth]

I have not been reading Transponder's posts, so I would not see that.
However, it's okay if you don't want to post a response. I understand.
It may not be that important.

See below:

I do, if not a deliberate attempt to smear the scientific method as untrustworthy.

I suspect that, if not an agenda - driven effort to discredit science - an all too common agenda in the US today, it is misunderstanding science. It is imperfect and revised conclusions all the time. That is understood and is a strength, especially over dogmas that will not change even when debunked.

The nod to the paid bias of medical research is particularly suspicious as it as a blinkered smear in one direction, point taken - proper medical research has at times taken paid research to task for being partial. This is nothing to do with scientific medical research which even if it is biased with a desire to claim a discovery, gets peer - reviewed.

Do I need go on? I think that article is a rather shoddy piece of work if not actually a deliberate anti - science smear.

Indeed, the noted objection to biased medical research was used to criticize the scientific method when that example is representing a misinterpreted version of the scientific method.

[John17_3]

I do not see a "misinterpreted version of the scientific method", but if it is your view that the authors points are false, please specify which points are false, and produce the papers that demonstrate that they are false.

Also, if you do not mind telling me, please explain why the subject of faith has become a discussion on the scientific method, because I don't feel comfortable going against forum rules, which says start a new thread, if discussing another subject.

Transponder was kind enough to provide a sufficient response on my behalf in post #338.

I have not been reading Transponder's posts, so I would not see that.

O! So sorry! Let me help you out. Here you go: viewtopic.php?p=1157220#p1157220

Thank you.

I have not been reading Transponder's posts, so I would not see that.
However, it's okay if you don't want to post a response. I understand.
It may not be that important.

Indeed, the noted objection to biased medical research was used to criticize the scientific method when that example is representing a misinterpreted version of the scientific method.

Thank you.

[TRANSPONDER]

Righhhht... So it appears that we have got to the idea that all hypotheses are necessarily subject to empirical verification before they are proven (even if they have a lot of support, like the Higgs - Boson before it was proven) and the linked article attempting to piddle over the scientific method was not a valid objection to that.

So let me check back the progress of John's argument. Previous page, apparently a claim for the validity of what we call 'pseudo - science' was made.

Page before that, semantic juggling about claims needing to be justified and perhaps scientific validation being the necessary method. I seem to recall a claim that science was not the only valid method of testing an hypothesis.

I hear the rustle of Validation by Faith hovering in the wings.

Yes - previous to that the discussion about the nature of faith and whether it is good or at least useful (which is irrelevant to whether it is true, even if it is useful) we had talk about Faith and belief. There are two concepts aside from the words one uses - a good reason to believe a claim or no good reason.

Scientific validation supports a claim while divine revelation of perception by the believer does not.

Semantic juggling is always a red flag in these areas.

John's post 96 said "Naturalism, on the other hand presumes that there is no purpose to nature; there are no spirits; etc." and aside from the rather pointless detour into Kalam, yes, that seems what the discussion has been about. The materialist default goes like this:

We know that we live in a world and things happen.Science tells us how these things work (as distinct from mistaken guesses, like a volcano exploded because we didn't sacrifice enough Virgins). Science does not show a god necessary for anything the workings of which we know and what we don't know is unknown not validation of a god, name your own.

This is the materialist default and is not something that needs proving beyond what has been proven, science denial aside, which is where we ended up.

I'd say that throws the burden of proof of Godfaith back on the Faithclaim and essentially settles the matter - yet again, because the God - believers never, ever, understand where the burden of proof lies because they invariably start from the unvalidated and invalid faith - belief that a god (The one they believe in) exist until totally disproven.

This is why all theist apologetics are flawed, invalid and irrational right from the start, and they can never get it right, even if they do not deny logic, science and the materialist default.