The Bible talks a lot about faith, and hundreds of books have been written on the subject. The results of this survey might prompt someone to ask: how can I be sure that my faith is genuine? That's a good question, and God gives us a good answer.
Faith is more than mere knowledge, and more than plain belief. For example, I may know that a chair is going to hold me up were I to sit in it, and I may say I believe that it will -- but if refuse to sit down I don't have faith. Faith is putting our belief and knowledge into action.
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
Faith is not built entirely on logic, reason, and facts. You can't prove it; on the contrary, once something is proven there's no need for faith. Logic, reason, and facts can be important for confirming our faith, and reinforcing what we believe, but in the end they alone will be insufficient if we want to know God. Our limited, human minds are incapable of comprehending God in his full glory, and to bridge the gap between partial knowledge and full certainty requires faith.
How do we know, then, if we've got genuine faith?
I John 5:1-5 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well. This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.
This is love for God: to obey his commands. Obedience is hard, because in our sinful state we often don't agree with what God wants us to do. We may not understand the purposes behind his commands or what he's trying to accomplish in our lives and the lives of people around us.
When I think of faith, I always remember an incident with one of my little brothers. He was 4 years old at the time, and wanted to play with a set of shears I was using to cut cardboard. They were sharp and spring-loaded, and far too dangerous for a child to play with, so I told him no. He cried like you wouldn't believe, because he really wanted to play with those shears. I knew it wasn't a good idea, but he simply couldn't understand it. The analogy is obvious: we're the little children, and sometimes God's plan for us is quite different than our own. Do we throw a fit, like spiritual infants, or do we obey what God our father has commanded us?
It's easy to obey when someone tells us to do something we want to do; the real test of love is obeying God when he tells us to do something we don't want to do. Do we have faith that God's way is better than ours? Do we trust him to lead us in the right path? Or do we rebel and do our own thing? God gave us that option when he gave us free will, but when we disobey God we're basically saying that we know better than he does what's good for our lives, and we tell him to get lost.
James 2:14-18 What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
Such faith isn't faith at all -- it's just words. Real faith is an action (just like real love, incidentally). Faith isn't something you feel, faith is something you do.
Our limited, human minds are incapable of comprehending God in his full glory
That's always the argument isn't it? Well, I'm not buying it. Oh, and I'm not a little child that needs his hand slapped away from the shears.
One more:
when we disobey God we're basically saying that we know better than he does what's good for our lives, and we tell him to get lost.
He hasn't said anything yet. When he starts talking, I'll start listening.
We can't even comprehend the vast majority of God's creation... how can we possible understand the Creator himself? We can't even understand how the human brain works, so how can we understand the mind of God?
Have you heard of string theory, Michael?
S3
You won't hear Him if you're not listening. Believe me, He speaks. Every human is born with a yearning for God in his heart. Ignore it long enough, and you can kill it. Pity to have lived and never known Him.
Yes.
You won't hear Him if you're not listening.
jane:
I listen.
Michael:
That is comprehension of "the vast majority of God's creation" then, isn't it?
Uh, string theory isn't very widely accepted or understood, even though is an interesting idea. But it's far from "understanding" the universe.
string theory isn't very widely accepted or understood
Uh...that might have been true 20 yrs. ago. Not today. And, yes it is.
Well, I'm not a physicist, but that's my understanding of the situation. The reading I've done on it seems very speculative, and most of the experiments I've seen proposed require particle accelerators many orders of magnitude more powerful that we've got.
Even still, there's a world of difference between understanding the building blocks and understanding the finished product. Further, we're really almost nowhere when it comes to understanding intelligence and ourselves.
"He was 4 years old at the time, and wanted to play with a set of shears I was using to cut cardboard. They were sharp and spring-loaded, and far too dangerous for a child to play with, so I told him no. He cried like you wouldn't believe, because he really wanted to play with those shears. I knew it wasn't a good idea, but he simply couldn't understand it. The analogy is obvious: we're the little children, and sometimes God's plan for us is quite different than our own."
Well, the analogy would work better if, when the little brother persisted in refusing to let go of the shears, you poured gasoline on him and set him on fire as punishment.
The shears parable is somewhat unfortunate as it equates a possible household accident with what is a human certitude: what becomes of us after death and whether our earthly lives have any lasting meaning at all.
With regards to Ken's proffer of pyrotechnical punishments as an appropriate analog to Judeo Christian concepts of Heaven and Hell, I would remind the thread that Dante's vision of the Inferno, Purgatory, and Paradise was a peculiarly medieval construct. The Jews before the Christian era had a very nebulous concept of the afterlife, both in terms of its possible rewards or punishments. Early Christians followed this lead, while being affected by such parables as the one in which the chaff is separated from the grain and then burned. But there was nothing to suggest Ken's baleful consequences in scripture asides from skewed comparisons of Sheol and Gehenna to what happened in the Valley of Kidron as children were sacrificed to the Baalim.
I'll readily admit that I'm no dyed-in-the-wool "Christian."
But I can't quite follow the post's statement that he was trying to protect his little brother from hurting himself with scissors, to God demanding that said little brother be burned alive.
Perhaps, Ken, you might acknowledge that just because you interpret some believers as espousing that -- One, they might be wrong, and two, YOUR interpretation might be wrong.
As I've said before -- it is intellectually dishonest to use only the extremist argument upon which to base your refutation.
Ken-
I believe you are trying to relate Mike's analogy of faith to eternal judgement. The clear purpose here is to demonstrate that faith involves trusting God's divine wisdom... in spite of what our whims and desires drive us to. Your argument is not relevant to the point being made.
s3-
String theory? If you understand it so well perhaps you could enlighten us. Seeing as how no observable evidence of it's validity exists, it remains just a theory... one that is accepted by faith (by those that subscribe to it).
Still, does a theoretical idea about the basic structure of the universe mean we truly understand "the vast majority of God's creation"? I mean, what do we truly know of the six (more or less) other dimensions proposed by string theory? Aren't these six(+/-) more entire universes to be explored?
Not all Christians accept the "brimstone" model of Hell as literal. It can easily be seen as a metaphorical description of a person's soul after they have rejected the glory of God - the natural consequence of their own actions. So God is therefore trying to warn us against making choices that will lead to a great deal of agony. There *are* coherent theologies that don't involve God acting like a spoiled four year old - and it says something about the atheist that cannot reject God without trying to pretend that they are more enlightened than He.
It's interesting just how many people will *choose* to interpret scriptures a certain way, then refuse to follow the image of God that they have built. I tend to wonder what their real objection is - because if they were really interested in following God, they could *choose* to see God in a way that they found UNobjectionable. There are many Christian churches with different interpretations of all those details that they find abhorent: to reject all theism because they disagree with those interpretations is tantamount to admitting that that particular interpretation must be correct.
Which gives us this curious spectacle; hordes of militant atheists insisting that "fire and brimstone" theology is the last word in the knowledge of God...
Oh, and S3... string theory comes in at least 5 mutually exclusive varieties, and there is no current test that can prove which one is correct. There *are*, however, current experiments that can disprove the two theories that it seeks to unite (quantum electrodynamics, and special relativity.) At the simplest level, the existence of a refrigerator magnet disproves the particle mediation model that underlies both QED and the limitations on gravitic force from relativity. Given that BOTH of the foundational theories are incorrect, there is little hope for string theory - and the existence of multiple, incompatible varieties is another clue that string theory is fundamentally flawed.
Our scientific understanding of reality is much less than academia or the popular press would lead you to believe... and it's interesting just how many people that appeal to science are unwilling to question it like a real scientist would.
gaw wrote:
String theory? If you understand it so well perhaps you could enlighten us. Seeing as how no observable evidence of it's validity exists, it remains just a theory... one that is accepted by faith (by those that subscribe to it).
That I understand it does not mean that I am qualified to explain it, and certainly Michael's comments section is not large enough for such a discourse. There is however evidence of string theory. It is mathematical evidence and that is all that Einstein had for the General Theory until tests were devised that proved him to be correct.
BTW, a theory is something that is proven. What you mean is hypothesis. (Yes, I know you can look up the corrupted definition in a dictionary that allows you to use the word theory in that manner, but it is not the correct definition that applies in this context.)
As for faith, I don't accept it on faith. I accept it based on the math and because it is the best explanation for observed phenomena.
Mike Burris wrote:
string theory comes in at least 5 mutually exclusive varieties,
There were, but they have been unified. They were found not to be exclusive after all.
and there is no current test that can prove which one is correct.
This is only partially correct. It would be more correct to say that there is no test that can prove string theory. It exists only as a mathematical formula but so did Einstein's General Theory for many years. I suspect it will take many more before string theory can be proven. And, it is certainly possible that it cannot ever be proven or that tests will prove it incorrect.
There *are*, however, current experiments that can disprove the two theories that it seeks to unite (quantum electrodynamics, and special relativity.)
If you know of tests that disprove Einstein then I expect to see your name in the papers announcing you have won the Nobel prize. Please enlighten me, what are they?
gaw wrote:
Aren't these six(+/-) more entire universes to be explored?
String theory evidently allows for an infinite number of other universes.
One more thing:
Michael wrote:
We can't even comprehend the vast majority of God's creation...
to which I replied:
Have you heard of string theory, Michael?
and by that I meant that, as an effort to unify Newton and Einstein it does a pretty good job, string theory indicates that we do comprehend the vast majority of God's creation. I think Michael understood that I was not implying that science had taken the place of God.
S3 wrote-
String theory evidently allows for an infinite number of other universes.
and
string theory indicates that we do comprehend the vast majority of God's creation.
If God has potentialy created an inifinite number of universe, and yet we are now still only learning about what may hold this universe together, can we really say that we truly comprehend the vast majority of God's creation? I will grant that string theory may be a plausible explantion for the most basic structure of this universe, but I don't think that we can close the book of human knowledge once we finish that chapter! The more we learn, the less we know.
s3 wrote-
a theory is something that is proven.
and
there is no test that can prove string theory... it is certainly possible that it cannot ever be proven or that tests will prove it incorrect.
Is string theory something that has been proven? or not proven?
I do not see where your views of string theory counter Michael's original contention that "Our limited, human minds are incapable of comprehending God in his full glory"
If anything, I see your firm reliance (FAITH) on an unproven proven that may yet be disproven as supporting his contention that our minds are limited in understanding when compared to the true nature of the One that took a ball of string and made a universe.
S3 -
If you know of tests that disprove Einstein then I expect to see your name in the papers announcing you have won the Nobel prize. Please enlighten me, what are they?
My response:
For QED, consider.. a refrigerator magnet. The magnet exhibits an attractive force. According to particle mediation theory (which is a core underlying assumption of QED), the force is carried by a photon: in attraction, this photon produces a momentum precisely inverse to its vector. That is a manifestly impossible result for both collision and absorbtion interactions, and also directly violates the definition of momentum. With a core assumption incorrect, the theory of QED cannot possibly be correct.
Also, In Dr. Richard Feynman's book "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter" he discusses two significant problems with the mathematical formulation: one, the proccess called normalization may be mathematically invalid; it is certainly questionable. Two, the constants N and M actually vary, depending on the scale of measurement used, and they do not vary in any orderly or predictable way. This is not one of the hallmarks of "understanding" or "comprehension".
For relativity, consider: the gravitational vector of the sun's influence on the earth is about 8 minutes *ahead* of the vector of the sun's light on the earth. This indicates that gravity travels faster than light. Saying that gravity causes changes in space-time sidesteps the problem, which is "how can that part of space react to gravitational changes before there is any possible propogation of information?"
If you run gravitational simulations of the solar system, everything runs well, regardless of what propagation delay you give gravity UNTIL you give the sun motion. As soon as the sun starts travelling, the solar system breaks down rapidly with ANY propagation delay of gravity.
Again, the problem is the underlying theory of particle mediation of forces. According to Einstein, these 'gravitons' cannot travel faster than light, and the implications of that are directly contradicted by our experience. Special Relativity was concocted to explain the Michelson-Morely experiment, which we now know was flawed in execution (still inside the electro-magnetic-gravitational environment of the earth.) And the fun doesn't stop there: if you look at the records of atomic clocks that have been flying west, they speed UP rather than slow down as theory would dictate.
I can't take credit for any of these discoveries, so you will never see my name in lights. But if you do a thorough literature search, you will find that a mathematician (the name escapes me right now) used astronomical data to calculate the minimum speed of gravity... 200 years *before* Einstein. He found that it must be at least 1,000 times the speed of light. If you rerun his calculations with modern precision and data, the number rises exponentially.
The insistence of using science to explain the universe is precisely the same as insisting that all your data fit your predetermined theory. Science discards all data that is not repeatable across both experiments and experimenters as "subjective data". Yet to deny that these phenomena exist is to willfully discard data just because you don't have tools to deal with it... and that's the hallmark of a fraudulent scientist.
gaw wrote:
Is string theory something that has been proven? or not proven?
It has been proven mathematically but not physically. Similar to Einstein's; no physical test was available at the time he wrote his mathematical proofs, but they were eventually born out.
Mike:
You are mistaken on several counts is all I have to say.
S3-
That's too bad. You have represented yourself as someone who knows and understands about the fundamental theories in physics. I was looking forward to learning something substantial from you, rather than the secondary sources I usually learn from.
Make it simple, then: explain to me why my objection to particle mediation is incorrect. I've been looking for a disproof of my objection for quite a while, but I've had no takers. I don't have any alternative theories of magnetism to propose, and I'm stumped as to how magnetics can work without some sort of mediation influence, but there you go - the universe is the way it is.
And getting back to faith; that's why I trot out flaws in scientific theories in these forums. Science itself is a belief system about knowledge and the universe, and it cannot survive reification and still remain true to the pursuit of knowledge. Religion also makes claims about knowledge and the universe... and I think that the proper point of argument isn't the system, but the universe itself. Unfortunately, your preferred belief system (objective verification) doesn't even admit the possibility of some things that are very evident in my view of the universe (like free will and God). So before we can discuss the things that are important, we first need to agree on what's actually part of the universe.
And frankly, that question of "what" isn't nearly as much fun as the questions of "how" and "why".
S3 and Mike Burris: I want to know more about these objections, and then S3's response. I'm out of my depth here, but very interested.
Mike wrote:
Science itself is a belief system
No it isn't. This is what gets many people into trouble. It shows up immediately in discussions about evolution vs. creationism. Science is a method.
As for magnetism, it is no different than light, x-rays, or gravity. They all work the same way. And gravity does not exceed the speed of light. The unified string theory reconciles the problems with gravity that predict the solar system flying apart. This was one of the problems that obviously didn't fit in that did fit once the unification was solved.
Now, the question is whether or not I am some expert. I have already said that I am not. I said that I understand it, but that is the equivalent of saying that I can read and write--it doesn't make me a writer. So, if I can't explain it to your satisfaction, that doesn't prove that I am wrong or that the theorem is wrong. It just proves that I can't write. I would direct you to go and do more research yourself and keep in mind that I am not the professor, but a fellow student.
Some sources:
NOVA recently did a multi-part series on string theory.
Discovery Science has a series called "Understanding" that has an repeating episode on quantum theory.
Subscribe to Discovery, Scientific American, etc. for the latest developments.
Do Google News searches for the above. You will find numerous articles.
Mike wrote:
Unfortunately, your preferred belief system (objective verification) doesn't even admit the possibility of some things that are very evident in my view of the universe (like free will and God).
Where did you get an idea like that? I never said that God does not exist. I said that I had not been convinced. I have said that I have asked God to convince me but I get no reply. I have said that scripture is not proof because it is, in fact, the claim (hypothesis).
Saying that we are not capable of understanding God only sidesteps the question. Besides, I don't see any evidence that we are so hindered.
Saying that God exists outside of creation, i.e. he is beyond our comprehension again sidesteps the question. Again, I see no evidence for anything outside our universe (I include all the infinite universes predicted by string theory in the term "our universe" for purposes of this discussion).
Science, as I said in the previous post, is a method. As such any conclusions reached by any person, in the capacity of "scientist", are subject to verification, peer review, etc. They are also subject to modification. Newton's Laws, Einstein's General Theory, etc., Quatum Theory, and now String Theory all have to be reconciled. Because some information does not fit at this time does not prove it wrong. This indicates why science is not a belief system. If it were it would be finished. And it most definitely is not!
Here is more on string theory.
I wrote:
If it were it would be finished.
I meant complete, as in done. So keep your jokes to yourself. ;-)
S3: 'Saying that God exists outside of creation, i.e. he is beyond our comprehension again sidesteps the question. Again, I see no evidence for anything outside our universe (I include all the infinite universes predicted by string theory in the term "our universe" for purposes of this discussion).'
Naturally you see no evidence for anything outside our universe. How could you expect otherwise?
Michael wrote:
Naturally you see no evidence for anything outside our universe. How could you expect otherwise?
Well, the question then becomes: How does that remark help me see it Michael?
It looks like a comment got lost somehow...?
S3: it doesn't help you see it. You can't see it. No one can see it.
I mean see it as in understand and believe it. Not physically see it with my eyes.
S3 -
I saw (and taped) that NOVA special on string theory; that's why I thoguht there were 5 variations of the idea. The information they presented also led me to believe that the reason it is called the Unified String Teory is because it unifies the force of gravity woth the electro-weak theory; not because it was unified with all the other string theory variants. So your terminology led me off track on that score.
And magnetism may work the same way as light and x-rays and gravity, but my point is that we don't know how magnetism works. The current theory is self-contradictory, and will remain so until someone can figure out another way to mediate the force (and it has to allow for attractive forces, which particle mediation doesn't do.)
As far as science being a belief system...
... yes it is. The method you use to invesigate the universe automatically contains assumptions about how to measure things and how not to; what is possible to exist and what is not; heck, even the question of what to measure contains the assumption that measurement is a valid way to investigate the universe and that other ways are not.
At its root, science is a belief system about the universality of natural law, about the seperation of experimenters from their objects of study, about the constancy of the universe over time, and about how what can't be measured isn't very important.
Don't get me wrong: I like science, and study it as well as I can (not interfering much with my job and kids and life), but I also understand it's limitations and constraints. If you don't understand your tools, you'll end up trying to use your drill as a paintbrush, or in this case, setting up control groups to investigate whether or not you are in love. The wrong tool gives the wrong results; when looking for God, yardsticks are irrelevant. God isn't revealed so much by what He says as by what we see.
If you are looking for God to talk to you, you are probably out of luck. If, however, you are looking for God, then you will find Him, as long as you begin by recognizing Him. If that sounds too Zen-like, I'm sorry; but it's true. First you have to believe that He exists. Commit yourself to that belief. Then you will begin to see His fingerprints all over creation. And once you've seen His work outside your head, you will begin to recognize His voice inside - but it will be in your heart, instead.
Relating to Mike's last post:
Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
S3:
Now that I've had a bit of time to reflect on your answers, I have found a point I'd like to bring up: you haven't made a stab at explaning anything. The three points that I brought up you sidestepped are: 1) string theory; 2) how it solves the solar system gravitational problem; and 3) how particle mediation does not preclude attractive forces. You've just made assertions that my objections have been answered. That's great, but I want the actual answer, not just the knowledge that it exists. I know that you've said you only understand the theory, and that you're not a teacher of the theory - but you didn't even make an attempt.
I understand that this is your complaint about God - you want the actual experience of God, not just the assurance that there is an experience of God. Fair enough, but that's where the similarity between our positions ends. I've given you the roadmap I used to have that communion, and you can now get to where you want to go. (I'll admit I did leave out one step -- the constant striving and effort. I thought that was implicitly stated, but just in case, you've now been warned.)
I am still working on getting those answers. I've checked out the internet, and the few articles I found that addressed the string theory variants made no mention of a reconciliation. "This site" at MIT suggests that the universal acceptance of string theory has a ways to go and some hurdles to overcome. There is the possibility that the b-field (whatever that is: I suspect that just means normal space) slows down all propagation by increasing the distance bewteen all points, but that was alluded to in an article so filled with jargon that I couldn't understand it clearly. And they still aren't suggesting that gravity and photons propagate at different speeds, which is clearly shown by solar observatory data.
And, as always, no one wants to address the blatant handwaving that surrounds particle mediation. Michael, you wanted to understand what I was talking about? Here goes:
The whole idea of particle mediation is that any force applied comes through the collision or absorbtion of a particle (the force mediator). If two electrons are interacting, one electron emits a photon and the other electron absorbs it. The photon carries momentum from the emitter to the absorber (or reflector - but since the math makes absorbtion have a smaller end result, we'll just consider that case. Reflection can also be seen as absorbtion and emission combined, so it just defaults to a combined and more complex case.) Anyway...
The photon (universally agreed as the particle that mediates e-m interactions) moves straight toward the electron, and it has a momentum precisely in line with its direction of travel. But in the case of attractive forces, the electron emerges from absorbtion with a momentum as if the photon carried a momentum precisely opposite to its vector of travel (which violates the definition of momentum). The other possibilities are also bizarre:
the photon has a negative mass/energy (which would allow for inverse momentum)
the electron is emitting double the energy in the opposite direction.
Neither of those two possibilities square with experimental evidence; and even if they did, we would still be left with the problem of why and how the same magnet pole emits two different types of photons (one for attraction, and one for repulsion). So we're stuck with the current formulation of an ordinary photon imparting a negatative momentum -- which can't happen.
Another problem that magentism brings up is that the actual emission of a photon takes energy. But if it's continually broadcasting energy at all times, why don't they lose energy much faster? IOW, it seems that the photons are only directed at other ferro-magnetic objects... so how does it "know" to do that? What kind of mechanism triggers magnetic activity only when energy will be received? You can't have it wait for the reception of magnetism, because then all magnets are waiting for a signal that no magent ever initiates.
The solution in traditional physics was the invention of the "virtual photon", and I consider it a triumph of obfuscation. 'Virtual photons' are emitted all the time, and the magnet only goes into actual photon emission (i.e. magnetic force creation) if it interacts with a virtual photon. According to the theory, a virtual photon acts precisely like an actual photon, but it has no energy (and thus solves the problem of indiscriminately spraying energy around.) Virtual photons have a very short lifetime, act exactly like regular photons, and can be created or destroyed in any system without affecting the balance of energy.
To recap vitual photons: there's no way to look behind that curtain, there isn't anything really there, it looks just like what's out here, and it doesn't really matter what's behind there anyway, because it doesn't affect accounting. I ask you: is that really an explanation?
Not to me, and I can suggest several experiments suitable for a junior college lab that would help stir the pot... but before you can run the experiment, you have to get funding and permission, and that takes credibility. The experimenter will have nothing but chutzpah and questions to face down the reputations of Einstein, Schodinger, Feynman, and the other luminaries of 20th Century physics. Not gonna happen, I think.
Mike: I emailed you, and didn't get a response. I'd like to compile some of your comments here into a post for the site. Or, I'd like you to compile them or re-write your thoughts, however you'd please.
Sorrty, but my ISP has recently began filtering my email for me, resulting in some involuntary censorship. Very un-good.
Compile away, maestro - I am posting on your site, so the way I figure it, you own the comments. My life is now *really* hectic (I'm in charge of my church Christmas party) so write what you want and quote what you want.
But don't make up any quotes. I gave my HS editor permission to do that, and the paper reported me saying some really misogynistic things. I learned my lesson!
interesting---is this board active?
No one's written anything on this post since last year, but yes.