A person of Faith or A Person of facts?

[whoa182]

Which are you. Are you a person that thinks God has control over us, over our lives.

Could the world just Live on Faith without Facts? Would it be a better world to live by faith?

I seen some person on here mention that, Facts are nothing Compared to faith.

Who would you trust

Person A

I have built a rocket, it carries 2 people into space and orbits around earth, ive done all the calculations, ive got enough fuel get into orbit, i know how gravity works so I will know how long it will stay in orbit, and I know how to get home safely from calculations that are accurate

Person B

I have a built rocket ship, It carries 2 people, I think it has enough fuel, I havnt got proof but I have faith that it will get you there. I Dont have any facts how gravity will work, but You should come down at some point. Because this book told me 2000 years ago.

Would you go to Person A, A person with evidence, with facts, with proof of the ability of his rocket.

Would you go with person B, A person that bases everything on faith, you put you're life in his hands, but he does have faith and a 2000 year old book told him that you will be fine and god will carry you down to earth safely.

I only typed this out because I have Definitly seen people on this Forum that ignore facts and go with faith. Despite how amazing the facts are.

Some person also said that " They are merely facts, nothing much " It was something like that.

Edited January 5, 2005 by whoa182

[seeking]

person A no doubt about it

i can understand the reason why people who believe, believe, but what kills me is the people who will go against everything that has been proven and say it is either the work of the devil or just out right say it must be wrong because the bible says so, why cant you just accept the fact that maybe the bible is wrong, or that the bible does not represent what you think it does

another pet peeve of mine is that when something is proven wrong in the bible the beleivers are quick to say because when the bible was translated it was interpreted wrong, but those same people will say that certain things that have been translated in the bible that show to be true are because the bible tells no lies

oh yea one last thing that i hate is "maybe god created evolution"....i hate when they say this, its for the most part there final attempt to argue that god is real in a heated debate against evolution, the evolutionists state there facts and push the creationist into a corner with no comeback answer so they say "maybe god created evolution"

bah!

edit: hit submit by accident in mid post

Edited January 5, 2005 by seeking

[BurnSide]

Fantastic post whoa182! Clearly, the person who is in full control of the facts will go further in life.

However, you will get the argument that facts are flawed, wereas God is all they need.

[girty1600]

Though I am a person of faith (though not conventional) I rely more on facts. I feel it is possible to exisist as a believer in both with common sense as the deciding factor. Some times the manner in which facts are presented cause suspect in the original claim so you have to look at the evidence closely and broadly at the same time. If I hade to choose between the two, I would chose knowing things over believing things. But I don't have to choose so I try to keep them balanced with common sense.

Edited January 5, 2005 by girty1600

[BurnSide]

DOT has gotten me convinced that it is more than possible to have faith in a devine entity and be in full possesion of the facts.

Person A can know all this and still make a wuick prayer to god that his destination will be reached safely.

[girty1600]

Possible, yes. Some people would rather use the excuse of faith to ignore facts. As long as people keep learning there is hope for them to better themselves. It's when they decide no more knowledge is needed that faith can really become a problem.

[Something Like Laughter]

if faith is the blind belief in something, then i would go with A.

[whoa182]

2000 years ago, Humans had a much less and smaller view of the world we live. They didnt understand how everything worked, Sure we still dont know now about a lot of things.

But our understanding of the way life and universe works now is far beyond any1 could of possibly imagined back then. Now since we can all agree than MAN had written the book?

We should be able to understand how their minds worked, and understand what they thought were miracles, could now be explained by very simple test and science.

Religion is a very important part of human history. I think most of us realize that. But 2000 years ago. Things were grately exaggerated.

They are Great stories tho i admit.

But if we know everything and trust everything from the bible. is it worth life going on? shouldnt we all just kill ourselves if we get a better life in heaven?

When we heal/cure a perosn with a bacteria infection with anti Biotics. Do you believe its a miracle? No, its simply science knowledge. its not based on faith.

When people got cured 2000 years ago, Did they understand biology and how the immune system works?

Im sure that 2000 years ago, A virus like the flu may have been LIFE threatening. Did many people understand what a virus was? When a person is seriously ill with a virus they cannot move, they are Incredibly ill.

now picture a person with the flu back 2000 years ago. And recovered!, But through Coincidence a healer came and tried his/her stuff.

now healers may help, I think some of you might know stuff about it, its all biological stuff going on , no mirical. But A person that was seriously ill Couldnt always get a Diagnoses, So when it looked like they were dying, Their body thought off the disease and that was probably considered.

A mirical.

Edited January 5, 2005 by whoa182

[caitlin_mcfly]

If your going to use an example of faith, i say at least use a better example then the rocket example. the bible doesnt tell us to build a rocket that we have no knowledge of and go into space. most of the bible is filled with stories of the early church, abraham and his desendents, jesus, his teachings, and how he died and rose again. it is also filled with advice on how to live our life. the bible doesnt give us specific life threatening instructions.

i have faith in jesus, i havent seen him, but i know hes there. its the same idea with the wind, you cant see it, but u know its there.

whats the point in having any facts, if your told that evolution is true then you need faith yourself to believe in evolution. you are still beleiving what someone else told you, unless you yourself was the one who found proof for it.

which would u rather believe, that a swirling mass of hydrogen created organic particles which in the end created something as complex as humans, something capable of emotions, love, hate. remember when you were young and you had crushes, how special they made you feel. or when you get hugged by a loving adult. do u really want to beleive that a mass of swirling gases are responsoble for life? do u really want to believe that we are just a cosmic coincedence with no purpose on this earth at all?

thats why i have faith. i dont need concrete proof, i just have the feeling that i have a creater that made me for a purpose, and not only did he create me but he also died for me. thats enough for me that i dont need proof.

[whoa182]

Im sorry you missed the point

yeah Humans are Complex now.

A Computer of today would of been complex to a person 300 years ago.

Science tries to understand Complexity. Usually succeeds with enough time. Mabey humans will not be considered complex in 100 - 200 years from now, Much more Super intelligent things may exist by then

Edited January 5, 2005 by whoa182

[aquatus1]

whats the point in having any facts, if your told that evolution is true then you need faith yourself to believe in evolution. you are still beleiving what someone else told you, unless you yourself was the one who found proof for it.

Well, that's just it. You don't just get told that evolution is true. You actually go to a lab, starting in High School if you are good, and do the experiments that validate the conclusion. If all you are doing is believing what is told to you about scinece, than you are doing it a great diservice. The very defining characteristic of science is its repeatability and reliability.

However, it is true that when you get to the more advanced levels, re-creating the experiments becomes prohibitive. So, do you simply take it on faith that what a scientist said about an experiment is true?

No. Never.

Science has a very specific manner in which it is done. The entire purpose of scientific methodology is to provide for a theory which is both logically possible and imperically correct. It demands a peer review, as well as a full dissemination of data, both positive and negative. Skipping any one of these steps casts immediate doubt.

Ultimately, a theory that has passed this entire process is a statement that has been reviewed by experts in the field, that has been tested for logical structure, and that has been declared a true and possible reason. Not necessarily a correct one, but definitely a possible one.

Are there mistakes? Of course. Hoaxes? Most definitely. The process, however, is so rigorous, so demanding, that such attempts at misdirection are reduced by an incredible amount, and the methodology is such that it becomes a matter of practice that eventually flushes out hoaxes. Note that science is self-correcting. Never has a man of faith been responsible for routing a hoax; no, it has always been the scientists themselves who have done this.

The proper comparison, then, is this intense system of scrutiny, this methodological analyzation, this incredibly absurd amount of nit-picking and exposure to which a scientific hypothesis must submit itself prior to being considered a scientific theory, as compared to the faith based system of verification...which is what? An authority figure? You either believe him or not.

[caitlin_mcfly]

Im in highschool right now, the honors science class. we dissect pigs and learn about rocks, we dont find proof for evolution.

[Curiosity]

I would trust A.

But, I don't think it's human to just go by logic or just go by belief. Everyone has their own different mixture of it.

[jpalz]

DOT has gotten me convinced that it is more than possible to have faith in a devine entity and be in full possesion of the facts.

Person A can know all this and still make a wuick prayer to god that his destination will be reached safely.

436787[/snapback]

I agree with her on that

[aquatus1]

Im in highschool right now, the honors science class. we dissect pigs and learn about rocks, we dont find proof for evolution.

436948[/snapback]

Have you asked your teacher about it? I guarantee this is a good way to incure that extra edge that keeps you ahed of the class.

[Curiosity]

DOT has gotten me convinced that it is more than possible to have faith in a devine entity and be in full possesion of the facts.

Person A can know all this and still make a wuick prayer to god that his destination will be reached safely.

436787[/snapback]

I agree with her on that

436977[/snapback]

So do I.

[SilverCougar]

I'm more of a.. I've all the facts reaserch and built right person.. but please gods.. let it work type ;D

[ThePortal]

I would definitly choose A too.....

I read a text one day that i found very interesting and went with how I think..here is 2 things they said that are related to the thread...

http://www.montalk.net/metaphys/42/princip...volution-part-i

Knowledge is gained by the conscious reflection and integration of experiences, observations, and thoughts. Conscious reflection is what distinguishes memory from understanding, as the latter requires it while the former does not. Knowledge encompasses both, being not just the memory of facts but also the understanding of objective truth.

Faith is trusting that in Creation, all things are possible. It is the suspension of disbelief. It works where knowledge fails. While knowledge stops at every precipice, faith leaps across it. While knowledge further refines knowledge, faith expands it. Simply put, knowledge is deterministic and faith is non-deterministic. Expanding knowledge requires leaping into the unknown, an act that knowledge finds irrational but faith finds necessary. Making paradigm leaps requires faith – not blind faith in what one chooses to ignore, but pure faith in what one cannot yet know.

I tought you guys might liked it

Edited January 5, 2005 by ThePortal