Hmmm...I'll try a different approach.

Do you think that a scientist knows the results of a hypothesis before he tests it? or that he has some sort of idea of the possible results, before testing it?

Depends on how many times he has tested it. Depends on the scientist too. He might have an idea what the answer will, again depends on the scientist. What should not happen is that the test gets influenced by his bias view. Just test without any bias and let the results be.

If before testing a hypothesis, a scientist might have some idea of what the answer will be (as quoted above)...

Then you yourself acknowledge that a scientist has to first have some belief that his theory and hypothesis will withstand the test. Otherwise, he wouldn't test it in the first place: he'd test a different hypothesis in which he has greater belief in. In other words, the scientist has faith that his theory and hypothesis will withstand the test, before testing it.

If it doesn't withstand the test, then he goes back to re-evaluate the theory and design a new hypothesis that better fits the evidence. Throughout this whole process however, there are multiple faith components involved.

Do you still deny this?

Sure for arguments sake, some might have an idea!

No he does not HAVE to have any faith. That is the whole point as to why he would test something to start with to see IF his theory is correct. Some scientists might have belief however I am not even sure you can call this belief but rather an educated guess what the test results will be.

I'm not 100% sure on this. I think if he tests his theory and the answer remains the same then what he thought was a correct theory is indeed not. He might well have to create a new theory for it.

Yes, he but chooses between one hypothesis over another based on how confident he is that it is likely to be true. In other words, he believes more in one hypothesis over another, hence why he tests it, rather than testing a hypothesis he believes less likely to be true.
In any educated guess, there is a belief component that the answer is more likely to be true than false. Otherwise, you'd guess something else instead.

I think we've finally made some progress nonetheless. You've acknowledged that its at least possible that there is a component of belief/faith in choosing to test one hypothesis over another.

So... if a scientist needs to have some degree of belief in a hypothesis, in order to choose it over alternative hypotheses, then please stop referring to science as "having nothing to do with faith".

Everything in your life has something to do with faith, as much as it fears you to acknowledge it.

Perhaps the motion of quickly moving your hands toward each other has nothing to do with the creation of a clapping sound and perhaps they're all completely separate events. In this instance it would appear that moving your hands together is causing something, but in reality, the clapping sound and the motion may be completely separate events, whereby you're simply the observer of these events, assuming that they have to be connected somehow. We thus assume cause-and-effect.

This is one example, amongst many, where science relies on assumptions about reality, in order to produce results.

Science does not have a faith component to it. Having faith that an airplane will get you where your going is a type of faith. You may not exactly know how jet works but evidence shows you it is a safe way to travel. Having faith in God or region is an entirely different type of faith and they are not interchangeable. Guessing and testing your guesses is not faith.

If you think your guess is right it could be.

And if I spell imbecile wrong in your language you can enjoy the irony in return.

Your English is good, I don't speak any other languages, but it was still funny.

With respect, maybe it's a language barrier that we're having in this discussion as a whole. It's been asked of you to explain what you mean by knowledge and how you acquire it.

It's important to realise that examples of what you claim to know don't qualify as an explanation.

When you test something empirically, you show that X happens Y times. You then speculate from this that X will happen, under those conditions, an infinite number of times. You assume that the universe will be consistent in the future as it has been in the past (the past being your trials of the experiment). But given that Y out of infinity trials is effectively close to zero as a sample, why do this?

The answer is because it's pragmatically valuable. Empiricism and its implicit assumptions have allowed us to come up with all sorts of useful concepts and inventions. It's eminently more sensible to trust the system that provides the most utility, but that doesn't mean it doesn't rest on some unprovable assumptions at its roots.

Prior to any testing...

Why choose one hypothesis over another?

You believe it to be more likely to be true...no?

It is a belief: primarily because you haven't tested it yet.

Now, although beliefs and faith are not interchangeable, I've certainly worked with scientists who have faith in their theories prior to evidence and testing. And they weren't 'bad' scientists either.

If people had no faith in their ideas, Charles Darwin would've stopped pursuing evidence the very moment he received the first bit of resistance from the church and everyone around him, including his wife.

So to claim that science should operate completely without faith, is to in fact undermine the very foundations of discovery.

Why are you making it that he has to choose one over the other? He can simply test both without any belief in any of the hypothesis!

I am not sure about this either, if you have 2 options to choose why would you choose the mathematically wrong choice? You do not base calculated guess on faith, maybe you do! In poker for example you are on the river, you have 2 choices, fold or call. Based on the knowledge you hold over your opponent you either call or fold to your opponent's bet! It's a calculated guess, if it were belief then you might as well not hold any information on your opponent!

I am NOT acknowledging what you are suggesting! You are just making stuff up. What I said is that SOME scientists might have beliefs, but that should not be the way he should conduct scientific tests.

Here you go again, making stuff up. NO SCIENTIST NEEDS ANY BELIEF. YOU ARE SIMPLY STATING THAT AND IT IS WRONG!

?

Perhaps the motion of quickly moving your hands toward each other has nothing to do with the creation of a clapping sound and perhaps they're all completely separate events. In this instance it would appear that moving your hands together is causing something, but in reality, the clapping sound and the motion may be completely separate events, whereby you're simply the observer of these events, assuming that they have to be connected somehow. We thus assume cause-and-effect.

This is one example, amongst many, where science relies on assumptions about reality, in order to produce results.[/QUOTE]

The last bit is to tiring to even read. What is your point exactly? I am pretty sure I have covered that scientists DO NOT NEED any belief to do scientific tests. I have also covered that faith /belief has no place in science!

I have covered this already! Depends on the knowledge, but the point that Veeedz was making, was that ALL our knowledge comes from belief/faith! I countered this by saying that NOT ALL knowledge was based on belief but rather scientific proof/evidence. Through multiple times of testing, trial and error!

All I am saying is that there is a difference between testing your ideas/theories/hypothesis. These are not automatically beliefs are they???

I am not arguing this, I have already stated that some scientists will be biased. They might even have belief and faith that their theory is RIGHT. My point is that even if he has belief in his theory it could still be wrong and any scientist DOES NOT HAVE to have any belief whatsoever to test any of his hypothesis. That's why he tests it in the first place, unlike religion were you DO NOT TEST but take EVERYTHING AS GOSPEL AND THE TRUTH!

Lots of discoveries have been made by accident. Did those scientists have belief in those discoveries too?

Must of been more than just faith he was operating on. Knowledge and ideas are different.

An idea might be that we can create cement to build houses.
Knowledge of cement is 1000's of hours of working very hard and trial and error to you get a satisfactory outcome!

Is this idea automatically based on faith? Do any people involved have to have belief for cement to be invented? Both answers are NO!

Do you think positive thinking can or will effect the end result?

For the record we are way of topic, this is not the Science, Math and Philosophy forum.

I actually wanted my points addressed in my OP. I am really curious why any sane logical individual would believe god exists.

I haven't even covered rape, starvation, murder, torture, bullies, natural disasters, uneven balance of life.

We eat animals to survive, we are predators because nature dictates it. We had no choice to kill, it was for survival. Look how we live now. We kill animals like cow's, chickens, lambs etc. and we do not even think twice about it. WHY?

Do we eat out of pleasure? We like the taste of chicken or bacon? Or do we eat because otherwise we'll starve to death and we have no other choice?

We are all murderers yet think we are so special that it is ok?

How much more proof does one need before one realises that GOD DOES NOT EXIST!

I guess if SCIENCE invented a food pill so we wouldn't have to kill innocent animals anymore, we'd all just say that it is god's wonder a miracle from god, RIGHT!!!

I need more proof then your faith based theories in the above to believe there is no God. If i did believe God does not exist based on the above "proof" it would be faith.

I have provided him reasons why a sane person might believe in God's existence. I have also provided him with reasons why science is not exempt from belief and faith.

Although I work with the scientific methodology every day, I am still incapable of making him aware of the importance of placing some belief into an idea or a hypothesis: prior to any testing.

He somehow believes that scientists have infinite time and resources to just test all possible hypotheses and that choosing to test one hypothesis is not the right approach: which also makes writing theory around a hypothesis useless because you might as well just test all possible hypotheses and write no theory at all.

Veeedzz I hav agreed with you on multiple occasions on multiple points you have brought up! Do you even read what I write?

Would you at least agree that if god does exist he just stands by and watches a lot of people suffer immensely without stepping in to help?

What exactly are you calling faith based in my post? Care to point it out!

Your post says there is no God because of the problem of evil, thats all the proof you need!!


Maybe God is an ass. Maybe he is a deist. Maybe he has a prime directive. Maybe he has some moral stance we cant understand that he feels he needs to obey to not interfere. Maybe suffering is necessary for humans for some type of growth....

That there is evil in the universe doesn't do it for me as solid evidence to say and know there is no God. So it would take faith or it would be a somewhat weak belief for me to say there is no God because the problem of evil.

I don't think it's fair to say you've covered anything in depth.

As I explained before, all of empiricism relies on the unprovable assumption that the universe is consistent and will remain so in the future. See my response to Johnny Crash.

When I tried to press you on this before, you started ranting about dog****.

You can think this is all off-topic, but what knowledge is and how we acquire it is quite important for discussing why a person might be religious.

Stop avoiding questions. My question was pretty simple, just answer! Would you at least agree that if god does exist he just stands by and watches a lot of people suffer immensely without stepping in to help?

What exactly are you calling faith based in my post? Care to point it out!

Stop misreading my posts! Where do I state that I covered anything in "depth"? I covered it and even gave an example!

Suppose I were to claim that God just stands by and watches a lot of people suffer immensely without stepping in to help. How exactly would this claim be supported by evidence? Can you provide a repeatable and testable procedure that shows that God is just standing around in a manner that makes no assumptions (ie, faith-based statements) about the nature of reality?

Its not provable one way or the other.

If the question is not testable or falsifiable then its not in the realm of science.

But that which is not falsifiable may also argued to be unnecessary.

In other words, if X has NO discernable (testable) influence on anything in the real world, why unnecessarily postulate its existence?

Importantly: this is not to be conflated with imperceptible objects in theoretical physics. For example, although we may not be able to perceive quarks or atoms using our senses, their existence is necessarily postulated due to an observed influence on systems in the real world.

As such, if God does indeed exist and he's just standing around and not influencing ANYTHING, then for all intents and purposes he doesn't exist. Now I acknowledge this goes against the principle of non-contradiction, but the distinction here is the very difference between empiricism and others schools of inquiry.

My question is, what sort of observed influence makes God a necessary postulate?