Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Some people, typically skeptics, are intimated by the word "belief", because they think it means something irrational.
The moment we accept anything, fact or otherwise, we are making a statement of belief.
To accept the 1st law of thermodynamics is to believe the evidence presented to you :
That the energy withing a closes system will remain constant, that energy can be transformed but never created or destroyed.

This is a statement of belief.

There are plenty of beliefs a skeptic will have. I don't think they are in any way intimated by the word belief, it's just that they are too often approached with what is seen as irrational claims only backed up by "belief" and the skeptic will dismiss what he sees as an irrational claim.

Kenny,
The word belief has nothing to do with the validity of the belief, right?
The moment you accept something you believe it and the moment you don't you believe it you don't accept it, right?

Right. But just because a person rejects a lot of claims, it doesn't mean he is intimidated by the word "belief".

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Some people, typically skeptics, are intimated by the word "belief", because they think it means something irrational.
The moment we accept anything, fact or otherwise, we are making a statement of belief.
To accept the 1st law of thermodynamics is to believe the evidence presented to you :
That the energy withing a closes system will remain constant, that energy can be transformed but never created or destroyed.

This is a statement of belief.

There are plenty of beliefs a skeptic will have. I don't think they are in any way intimated by the word belief, it's just that they are too often approached with what is seen as irrational claims only backed up by "belief" and the skeptic will dismiss what he sees as an irrational claim.

Kenny,
The word belief has nothing to do with the validity of the belief, right?
The moment you accept something you believe it and the moment you don't you believe it you don't accept it, right?

Right. But just because a person rejects a lot of claims, it doesn't mean he is intimidated by the word "belief".

And a person chooses what they accept, correct?
The weight the evidence and facts and then choose to accept them and then they believe that they are correct ( or incorrect), yes?

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Some people, typically skeptics, are intimated by the word "belief", because they think it means something irrational.
The moment we accept anything, fact or otherwise, we are making a statement of belief.
To accept the 1st law of thermodynamics is to believe the evidence presented to you :
That the energy withing a closes system will remain constant, that energy can be transformed but never created or destroyed.

This is a statement of belief.

There are plenty of beliefs a skeptic will have. I don't think they are in any way intimated by the word belief, it's just that they are too often approached with what is seen as irrational claims only backed up by "belief" and the skeptic will dismiss what he sees as an irrational claim.

Kenny,
The word belief has nothing to do with the validity of the belief, right?
The moment you accept something you believe it and the moment you don't you believe it you don't accept it, right?

Right. But just because a person rejects a lot of claims, it doesn't mean he is intimidated by the word "belief".

And a person chooses what they accept, correct?
The weight the evidence and facts and then choose to accept them and then they believe that they are correct ( or incorrect), yes?

I wouldn't say people choose what they accept to be true, to reject something that makes sense to you because it goes against what you want to be true is a form of lying. It would be honest to change your agenda rather than to reject what make sense to you.

I wouldn't say people choose what they accept to be true, to reject something that makes sense to you because it goes against what you want to be true is a form of lying. It would be honest to change your agenda rather than to reject what make sense to you.

Are you saying that people don't choose to believe the evidence?
Did you read my post on the first law of thermodynamics?
Do you believe it to be true?

I wouldn't say people choose what they accept to be true, to reject something that makes sense to you because it goes against what you want to be true is a form of lying. It would be honest to change your agenda rather than to reject what make sense to you.

PaulSacramento wrote: Are you saying that people don't choose to believe the evidence?

I don’t think I can choose to believe evidence that make sense to me, any more than I can choose to decide what I find beautiful, delicious, or funny. The fact that I like the taste of Strawberry Ice cream over Chocolate, is not a choice IMO; it’s not something I control

PaulSacramento wrote: Did you read my post on the first law of thermodynamics?
Do you believe it to be true?

I don’t know if I read your post on that law; perhaps you can point out the date and time you posted it, and I will go over it again. However; what little bit I know about the various laws of thermodynamics make sense to me.

Kenny wrote:

I wouldn't say people choose what they accept to be true, to reject something that makes sense to you because it goes against what you want to be true is a form of lying. It would be honest to change your agenda rather than to reject what make sense to you.

PaulSacramento wrote: Are you saying that people don't choose to believe the evidence?

I don’t think I can choose to believe evidence that make sense to me, any more than I can choose to decide what I find beautiful, delicious, or funny. The fact that I like the taste of Strawberry Ice cream over Chocolate, is not a choice IMO; it’s not something I control

PaulSacramento wrote: Did you read my post on the first law of thermodynamics?
Do you believe it to be true?

I don’t know if I read your post on that law; perhaps you can point out the date and time you posted it, and I will go over it again. However; what little bit I know about the various laws of thermodynamics make sense to me.

Are you suggesting you have no choice in what you believe?

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

I wouldn't say people choose what they accept to be true, to reject something that makes sense to you because it goes against what you want to be true is a form of lying. It would be honest to change your agenda rather than to reject what make sense to you.

PaulSacramento wrote: Are you saying that people don't choose to believe the evidence?

I don’t think I can choose to believe evidence that make sense to me, any more than I can choose to decide what I find beautiful, delicious, or funny. The fact that I like the taste of Strawberry Ice cream over Chocolate, is not a choice IMO; it’s not something I control

PaulSacramento wrote: Did you read my post on the first law of thermodynamics?
Do you believe it to be true?

I don’t know if I read your post on that law; perhaps you can point out the date and time you posted it, and I will go over it again. However; what little bit I know about the various laws of thermodynamics make sense to me.

Are you suggesting you have no choice in what you believe?

Paul,

Kenny and I had this conversation a while back. Kenny takes the position that he has no choice in what he believes.

If we believe in something, we trust that its claims are true. I can't understand how we could put our trust in a claim, without choosing that it's true.

If a person has no choice in what they believe then how can what they believe be based on rational thought?

I really don;t think that people that don't believe in free will or choice truly understand the mess of a position they are in.

EX: if you don't believe in free will you don't believe that people are responsible for their choices and be default, their actions and as such, our justice system falls apart.

If you don't choose what evidence to be correct then you are not rationalizing the data and as such, the scientific method, which is based on interpretation of data that is observed, doesn't matter.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

I wouldn't say people choose what they accept to be true, to reject something that makes sense to you because it goes against what you want to be true is a form of lying. It would be honest to change your agenda rather than to reject what make sense to you.

PaulSacramento wrote: Are you saying that people don't choose to believe the evidence?

I don’t think I can choose to believe evidence that make sense to me, any more than I can choose to decide what I find beautiful, delicious, or funny. The fact that I like the taste of Strawberry Ice cream over Chocolate, is not a choice IMO; it’s not something I control

PaulSacramento wrote: Did you read my post on the first law of thermodynamics?
Do you believe it to be true?

I don’t know if I read your post on that law; perhaps you can point out the date and time you posted it, and I will go over it again. However; what little bit I know about the various laws of thermodynamics make sense to me.

Are you suggesting you have no choice in what you believe?

I don’t think you could choose what to believe any more than you could choose to believe something is beautiful or not, or that something taste good or not.
If you choose what you believe, could you choose to believe you can fly like a bird? Can you choose to believe something is true even though you know it is not? I don’t think so. Do you agree? If not; tell me where I've gone wrong.

Ken

PaulSacramento wrote:If a person has no choice in what they believe then how can what they believe be based on rational thought?

Rational thought is usually what determines what we believe.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:If a person has no choice in what they believe then how can what they believe be based on rational thought?

Rational thought is usually what determines what we believe.

Ken

And stimulus from the surrounding environment acting upon receptors (e.g., eyes, ears, etc) is what determines our thoughts.

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:If a person has no choice in what they believe then how can what they believe be based on rational thought?

Rational thought is usually what determines what we believe.

Ken

Not if you have NO CHOICE in what you believe.

I don’t think you could choose what to believe any more than you could choose to believe something is beautiful or not, or that something taste good or not.
If you choose what you believe, could you choose to believe you can fly like a bird? Can you choose to believe something is true even though you know it is not? I don’t think so. Do you agree? If not; tell me where I've gone wrong.

Ken

Define beautiful Ken.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:If a person has no choice in what they believe then how can what they believe be based on rational thought?

Rational thought is usually what determines what we believe.

Ken

Not if you have NO CHOICE in what you believe.

How do you figure? For me, thoughts come naturally; I don’t make a conscious decision to choose on what to think. IOW if you do something that causes me to think about, or judge what you’ve done, I don’t make a conscious decision to do this, then make another conscious decision of which way I am going to judge you; for me all of these things come naturally without me thinking about it. Isn’t it that way for you?

PaulSacramento wrote:

I don’t think you could choose what to believe any more than you could choose to believe something is beautiful or not, or that something taste good or not.
If you choose what you believe, could you choose to believe you can fly like a bird? Can you choose to believe something is true even though you know it is not? I don’t think so. Do you agree? If not; tell me where I've gone wrong.

Ken

Define beautiful Ken.

I define beautiful as something I subjectively find pleasing and attractive in a positive way