Just a quick philosophical question. Most of us (myself included) would agree that gravity as a constant exists. We could do an experiment of throwing up a ball (lets say a tennis ball) and watching it land on the ground. We could throw it in the air a billion trillion times and watch it land. However unless we have observed it being pulled down by gravity an infinite amount of times how can we be one hundred percent certain without any doubt that the next time I throw it in the air it will land again?

To believe that it will fall back on the ground the next time I throw the ball up in the air even with the evidence (a billion trillion times of the same experiment) is an act of faith or not?

Why do I get the feeling that this is a trick question!

To me the obvious question would be...No. To believe (know) it will fall back on the ground the next time I throw the ball up in the air is a statement of fact not an act of faith.

How do you define faith? If you go by the Bible's definition than Heb 11:1 says that faith is the evidence of things not seen.

So perhaps I just didn't understand the question. Good to see ya back, btw. I miss your Lady!!!

Not faith or absolute. You're basing it on mathematical consistency. There are facts and reason, and history that support it, but it isn't absolute. Very few things are absolute. But the rest aren't automatically faith.

Not a trick question but a straight forward one.



I know where you are coming from but how could you be one hundred percent certain that it would land again and not do something different?



So if I cannot see whether or not the ball will be pulled by gravity the next time we perform the experiment then how is that not faith by bible terms?



I miss her too. She is gone for four days.

So me not knowing for certain that the ball isnt gonna be pulled by gravity but believing it will be even though I havnt done the experiment yet isnt faith?

No, it isn't faith. It's reason. There is a distinct difference.

How is it not faith? How is it not trusting that the ball will fall?

By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
-Richard Dawkins


Rationally, you could make a logical choice long before a billion throws.

Laws of Physics.





I don't understand your question.

But how can you be certain that after ten, one hundred or ten trillion throws that it will land the next time?

No matter how many times the result of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. ---Stephen Hawkings

I am not asking whether or not believing that the ball will land again is rational or not. I am asking how can we be one hundred percent certain unless we observe the result an infinite amount of times and therefore being one hundred percent sure of getting that same result.

I told you, we can't be absolutely sure of hardly anything. But it isn't therefore faith, simply because it isn't absolute. Faith is believing without reason. We have reason to believe, it will come down again. What is the point in this question anyway? What are you trying to prove?

Im not denying the laws of physics. I am saying that unless we observe the laws of physics at work an infinite amount of times how can we know that they will function the same the next time we test them? Unless we can observe the future how can I be one hundred percent that the next time I throw a ball into the air that the law of gravity will work?

Tis not, therefore, reason which is the guide of life, but custom alone that determines the mind, in all instances, to suppose the future conformable to the past.

--David hume

The supposition that the future resembles the past is not founded on arguments of any kind, but is derived entirely from habit. ---David Hume







Ok. I cannot foresee the result of an experiment regardless how much I believe it will turn out. I trust that it will turn out in a certain way. That trusting is faith.

Im going by this definition:

faith
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith





Tis not, therefore, reason which is the guide of life, but custom alone that determines the mind, in all instances, to suppose the future conformable to the past.

--David hume

What is it valid or reasonable to assume that just because something did something in the past that it will continue to do so in the future?



That to believe that the world will continue to be run by laws of physics requires faith.

What does David Hume know? Some of the things he said were complete lies. The present does resemble the past. Therefore the future should resemble the present. History does repeat itself.

Are you going to keep quoting that fool as your entire argument? Because he makes a declarative statement, doesn't make it true. Unlike him, I'm offering evidence to back up my point. Or does evidence not matter, as it isn't absolute?

My thought exactly. It is a law because it predictable though mathematical equation. If you get caught braking a physics law the physics police will arrest you.

You are missing my point. How can we be one hundred percent certain that it will continue to do so?



So george wasington hasnt died yet? Because the according to you the present resembles the past? I wont get into that because it is not my point. My point is that how can you be one hundred percent certain certain that gravity will work just as tomorrow as it is today?

You havnt given an OUNCE of evidence. Show what evidence you have posted so far?

God I wish this forum didn't have any restrictions... what the heck! George Washington hasn't died yet? All you've done is twist and manipulate my words and proved nothing. You won't listen to the voice of reason. And you keep quoting David Hume without making a single argument on your own behalf.

How can we be one hundred percent sure though that we will predict it right the next time though???

Again. Show me your reason and evidence that we can be one hundred percent sure that the laws of physics will work tomorrow as they have today.

I didn't say I provided evidence that it is absolute. I've said in every post that it isn't absolute. Hardly anything is absolute. But, reasonable people, can use reason, logic, mathematics, history, science, and evidence to come to a reasonable conclusion. Someone who comes to the conclusion that the ball will drop, is not someone using blind faith to believe. Now quit lying, start reading the answers given to you, quit quoting David Hume, and maybe, we'll get somewhere.

I am prepared to bet my life on it ,that's how sure I am .Are you prepared to bet yours on it not falling to earth??


fullywired

You said:

I'm offering evidence to back up my point. Or does evidence not matter, as it isn't absolute?

What evidence have you offered in the thread so far? Please show ANY evidence you have posted.




I never said it isnt a reasonable conclusion to agree with the laws of physics. My argument is, how can we be one hundred percent certain that the laws of physics will react the same the next time we test it.

The main definition of faith is thus:

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith


I throw a ball in the air and have confidence or trust that it will fall down again because it may not. Because something being the way it is now isnt a guarantee that it will that way later.

So when I throw a ball in the air I have faith it will fall back again in my hands.




I never said anything about blind faith. I merely said faith as in trust or confidence. To use faith is not to be one hundred percent certain.




Why dont you copy and paste the evidence that you say you have used. Show me where you have used evidence to back up your argument that the way things are now means that it will that way in the future.

I myself would bet my life as well.

That doesnt stop the fact that we cant be one hundred percent certain because we cant see the future.

Then no, then nothing can be 100%. But you can be pretty certain.

How do you know your next breath will be breathable? Maybe you should stop breathing just in case? Or are you going to keep breathing because you're using reason and logic to dictate that the air is breathable and you won't die a horrible death from it? I place money on it that you're going to keep breathing.

I have faith that the air will be breathable and therefore will continue to do so.

It is via logic and reason that I have come to the conclusion that as much faith I have that the air is breathable in the next moment it may not be. My faith is based on reason. And my reason is enforced by faith. They feed each other. I have faith that reason gives me reasonable answers and therefore have faith in those answers. My faith in reason shows me that it is reasonable to have faith.



I'll place my money that I will too.

why in the heck do we want what is now, tommorrow, i sure don't , i want peace , unity love equality hope kindness, never another child is harmed by the one who says they love em...... I am with you Brave and no one can give you this because life is change, uncertainty doubt etc... and theres no tommorrow there is only now what we do or fail to do creates our tommorrows, not faith thats lack of responsibiblity...imo

keep quoting dude don't ever stop.....



life is always a surprise, always new, but most can't see it cuz they are bored by thier own minds, it goes on saying the same things its said a thousand times , because it can't switch off... .Osho

I hope you know that belief doesn't always mean spirituality... I should have known right away... You've done this thread to death many times before... You're just trying to say that everything is faith based rather then knowing that a word can be applied to different meanings.

Perhaps scientists just have a more 'justified' faith-based belief system than others. Yeh I agree this thread sounds familiar

Well actually I can apply in a way.

Just as I have faith that a ball is going to land in my hand after I throw it in the air.

I have faith that a personal god isnt going to reveal himself tomorrow to mankind in conventional terms.

An atheist may say that he has faith that God isnt going to reveal itself tomorrow because it hasnt done so far and therefore concludes that God doesnt exist. God may reveal himself tomorrow and show that statement to be invalid. The possibility of that happening is miniscule but it may happen because we cannot see the future and therefore cannot be one hundred percent sure what will happen.




You said yourself 'nothing can be 100%. But you can be pretty certain' so how can we be one hundred percent certain whether or not god exists?

I agree that they do too. However there system is still faith based and therefore subject to doubt.

It this actually the point of your OP?

And yet no matter what belief still does not always imply spirituality.

Hmm... Well belief is part of knowledge and knowledge is ever changing. Which isn't religious or spiritual.



That's like saying I should also be agnostic just in case astrology, unicorns, fairies and little leprechauns are real.

I think you should worship me just in case I'm some messiah... You can't be 100% sure that I'm not so, I'll take some wine and grape bunches please.

No. My actual point is that faith is more or less required for everything, including what we take for granted like gravity. I hear and read all the time that people who have weird notions about the universe go by faith and not reason. Even what is considered to be normal requires faith.Everything we know we know only because we want to believe or have faith that we know.

I mention that even the laws of physics are based on faith and suddenly I am being unreasonable. I cannot prove that tomorrow the world will exist but I can have faith that it will be. Faith isnt just something that fuels fundamentalists. Faith is the base point of reason. There is a different between blind faith and faith. One is based on 'reason' and the other isnt. However both are subject to doubt and therefore one cannot claim to be one hundred percent right and the other wrong. We only assume that one is more correct than the other because of our faith in the reasons and logics we have developed to test whether something or not is 'true' or 'real'.

You are bad!!!

how do you have faith???what do you need if for??? anyone???

That is your opinion. I agree that knowledge isnt always spiritual or religious. However both have one thing in common. Religious knowledge and relative knowledge are both based on belief or faith.




Well ultimately what have you got to lose being open to the possibility?



Hahahahaha! You are seeing my point though. I have faith you arnt a messiah but tomorrow something may happen and you very well could end up being one. There is still a chance. I dont have faith in this chance. That doesnt mean I might not be proven wrong.

Faith is trust. I trust that you exist. I may be wrong. We need it more or less for everything.

Hi,

Perhaps in the modern context of the word "Faith" you are correct. The modern view of Faith is synonymous with "belief", something that is not concrete or tangible or has any basis in logic o reason. The biblical sense of Faith is not the same though. The biblical sense of Faith is closer to "trust" than it is to a belief. Whenever I hear my mother or father tell me they love me, I have Faith that what they are saying is true - I TRUST that they really do love me. This Faith is based on the experience I have had over 28 years of life that show that they do indeed love me. It is not "believing without reason", for I have 28 years of experience to fall back on. But it is still Faith, at least Faith as it is used in the Bible.

Faith is not unreasonable. It is not illogical. And it is not blind. Faith is not "believing despite evidence to the contrary", though many people seem to think it should be that (after all, I do not think it illogical to posit that my parents do indeed love me). Faith is believing a promise or a statement is true, and trusting enough in the person making that statement to put that Faith/Trust in action.

With that in mind, I do agree to an extent with BNW that it takes a level of Faith to believe that a tennis ball will fall if we throw it in the air. But it is a Faith (Trust) based on observations, and while we cannot be certain that the ball will come down, I think it is safe to say that most of us have enough confidence and Trust and Faith in gravity to say with certainty that it will indeed fall down the next time we throw a ball.

~ Regards, PA

You're just trying to mix the lines to apply belief to everything. Yes, they both have belief but the word has different meanings.




My self respect?



I'll see to it personally then that you burn in the torments of hellfire.

quote name='brave_new_world' date='Jan 11 2008, 06:57 PM' post='2090962']
Everything we know we know only because we want to believe or have faith that we know.
[/quote]

I'm not sure I get this...lol.




You know that she exists! Why do you need to trust that she exists?

We cant be one hundred percent certain about anything and therefore everything we trust we know may be wrong.







I think I know she exists. I may be wrong. I have powerful trust and confidence in her existence but because I dont know everything I cant rule out the possibility that she may not exist and therefore my statement (though I have faith it is correct) is subject to doubt.

I am applying belief to everything here. Even what we base on observation is belief. We believe that what we observe is there when it very well may not.





Elaborate, how so?

I can be certain that I am female and you are male. I can be certain that I can have babies, and you can't.





Has Nell been feeding you turkey again.

When I go to university everyday, I trust that the train system will run smoothly and on time. Therefore I check my time and arrive at the station 5 minutes before my train arrives. But this has only been the last couple of years. A year or so ago, the rail system was a shambles. Cityrail had a 42% on-time running efficiency, meaning that greater than 1-in-2 trains would be late. During this time, when I was going to uni, I woke up half an hour early to catch the 6:30 train instead of the 7:00 train. I did not have Faith in the train system.

Similarly, when I woke up this morning and came to sit at my computer, I looked at the chair and put Faith in the possibility that when I sat down, it would not break on me. Then I plonked myself down and ne'er gave it a second thought

Or back to the example in my previous post, I have Faith that when my parents say "I love you", they really do love me.

I have Faith that the words of the Bible are true and come from the mouth of God. I put my trust in those words and so far they have yet to let me down. I therefore have Faith that these words are good.

Why do you ask, Sheri?

I can be certain that tomorrow I wont be able to have babies or ever have babies. But something may happen to me tomorrow and I might be able. I cannot see the future and therefore cannot say I one hundred percent know (no matter how much I say I know).

My faith is based on reason but is subject to doubt nevertheless.




No, just vegetarian stew!

Actually, you trust that "he" is really a he. Have you ever met BNW?? I haven't. We take what people say on Faith, and are no less logical for doing so.

I have faith (trust) that if I leave this window and come back your post will still be here. However there is a chance that it may not. Im glad you see my meaning.

She has talked to me over the phone but I rekon she trusted that it was me she was talking to.