(July 2, 2009 at 6:48 pm)Rabbit Wrote:

(July 2, 2009 at 5:41 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: We're not shielding the many rabbit but the singular that covers all major faiths.

What is the ground for this cherry picking?

I'm sticking to my point and not widening it because that wouldn't make sense. Belief in God is an exception to the rule of science that everything requires proof. By definition, belief, or more accurately faith does not. You tried to encompass the entirety of religious observance and add in rationalisation for good measure. That may be your opinion but it's besides the point.

(July 2, 2009 at 6:48 pm)Rabbit Wrote:

(July 2, 2009 at 5:41 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: By saying the singular is everything religious is off track. You keep trying to expand my statements into something different and this does the opposite of helping rational thought. ie respectfully, you need Address the point precisely. Forgive me if I misunderstand you.

I am not deliberately expanding your statements into something different. I am exploring their meaning. I am sincerely trying to understand you. This exploring of arguments and testing their consistency is to be expected in normal debate. They may be precise and evident to you, they are not to me. Please do not degrade yourself to simple ad hominem responding. You might ask me what I mean with my assertions and explorations of yours instead of trying to derail every attempt of me to clarify statements made. Do not interpret disagreement as offense by default. Now, what on earth do you mean with "By saying the singular is everything religious is off track."? Are you sure even that the grammar is right? It does not register over here. Please elaborate.

When you explore you always ridicule as well. This isn't conducive to constructive debate. You reap what you sow. Derisive slurs attract similar in response. I always try to treat serious points seriously.
I just explained above: By applying the idea stated that faith is an exception to the scientific rule to everything religious isn't logical. Only faith needs to be an exception.

(July 2, 2009 at 6:48 pm)Rabbit Wrote:

(July 2, 2009 at 5:41 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You're (not singularly) obsessed with the conclusive proof of God's existence. This is folly as I've stated very many times here since January

Well, I haven't been around here for a while. If god is an obsession of anyone it is primarily the religious people, I should think. I have no special interests in a particular god (hindu, christian, nordic, egyptian or whatever). What interests me is the religious and the way they draw their religious conclusions. You offer an especially interesting example since you deny that belief should have some probability grounded in reality. Anyway that is what it looks like to me. And I wanna explore if this is so. If you need no scientific proof then what IS the basis to choose your christian god? If the only way you can address such a simple question is with hostility than you leave little room for me to label it not as closed-mindedness. Show me you're not and please answer the given questions or at least make clear why they cannot be answered or need not to be answered. This is debate and debate should be most enjoyable when opinions differ.

Strangely the question of proof of God's existence is the obsession of most non believers here. (You changed my words again in refutation.. I said interested in proof of God and you changed it to interest in god). I'd challenge you to produce one Christian that would be able to conclusively prove God's existence. You're singling me out for something universally accepted and doctrinal.
The basis for choosing to have faith in God is rationalisation. To support the resultant conclusions I believe by faith in God who's existence I cannot know. This is classic vanilla Christianity. Science doesn't have the tools in it's toolbox to consider this, so if you refuse to consider anything outside the boundaries of scientific thought then you're going to be found wanting.

'probability grounded in reality' - what does that mean? The provable evidence of God's existence is everything in this multi/universe. It's also not provable. So is that probable? Are you misunderstanding my statement? Probable to me implies 'balance of proof in favour'. Would you agree?

(July 2, 2009 at 6:48 pm)Rabbit Wrote:

(July 2, 2009 at 5:41 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: To take us back to the beginning: The hard fact is that the concept exists which denies empirical proof. I'm afraid that's just got to be a thorn in science's ass, and it's going to have to live with it, unless people with power wipe it from history.

You will have to explain this in further detail because I see no hard fact without science, without an alternative method of justification, only with personal beliefs. The hard fact to me is it is logically impossible to build a unified reality from ungrounded belief statements. It is illogical, it makes no sense whatsoever. Earlier you seemed to suggest a difference between philosophical truth and scientific truth. But that is not a clear distinction. Science makes extensive use of logic. And even the choice of logic is a choice. There is modal logic, predicate logic, quantum logic even. Which one are you gonna choose and why. It all seems a very fuzzy selection process to me always leading you to the christian god. Well, I must say I am almost done waiting for a real meaningfull reply that really
adressess the questions I have formulated now over and over. Amaze me.

Well you've touched yourself on the frailty on belief in everything. Further than I would push it but then this seems to be your stance. In a way the existence of God is not the question. Faith in the existence of God is.
Scientific philosophy gets it arse about face wanting the unknowable answer. Scientific philosophy, I can conclude, will never have that answer, so will be infinitely frustrated. The concept 100% renders it impotent.
There's nothing 'fuzzy' about the process. Faith is necessarily without conclusive proof, and you seem to be demanding conclusive proof of it. Is that right?

(July 3, 2009 at 12:59 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(July 2, 2009 at 6:48 pm)Rabbit Wrote:

(July 2, 2009 at 5:41 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: We're not shielding the many rabbit but the singular that covers all major faiths.

What is the ground for this cherry picking?

I'm sticking to my point and not widening it because that wouldn't make sense. Belief in God is an exception to the rule of science that everything requires proof. By definition, belief, or more accurately faith does not. You tried to encompass the entirety of religious observance and add in rationalisation for good measure. That may be your opinion but it's besides the point.

Only limited time to respond before I'm off to work.

That everything requires proof (before it can be claimed to be consistent with reality) is not a rule of science alone but also of plain logic. Otherwise you would have to make clear why empirical proof (is that what you mean with scientific proof??) is special in this regard, for the divide is in the first place an artificial divide made by man in using language. So by shielding of science AND logic you are in the realm of the illogic and the unscientific. It is important that you get this right. The realm we are talking about is the realm of illogic statements, statements not necessarily about our reality, for there are no rules here. Certainly there is no rule that the statements in any way are testable to relate to reality. There is no rule that one statement is consistent with other statements in that realm, because there is no logic in it and there is no testability. There are only unnumerable statements of which some might be true and others might be untrue. Within that realm you faith is a collections of specific belief statements from all the statements that are inthis realm of the illogic and the unscientific. You again provide no clear criterion to pick only certain statements from all possible statements.

---

(July 3, 2009 at 12:59 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(July 2, 2009 at 6:48 pm)Rabbit Wrote:

(July 2, 2009 at 5:41 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: We're not shielding the many rabbit but the singular that covers all major faiths.

What is the ground for this cherry picking?

I'm sticking to my point and not widening it because that wouldn't make sense. Belief in God is an exception to the rule of science that everything requires proof. By definition, belief, or more accurately faith does not. You tried to encompass the entirety of religious observance and add in rationalisation for good measure. That may be your opinion but it's besides the point.

The thing is that I have asked you repeatedly now to make clear why belief in god is an exception to the rule. Again you provide no argument other than 'widening the claim would make no sense'. This is diversion from the question asked. I did not ask you to widen the claim that belief in god makes sense to other statements in this realm of untestable illogic statements make sense. I asked the question about why you claim that belief in god makes sense (i.e. has any meaning or truth about reality to it)? Please answer the question asked.

---

Why does faith have to be an exception? Please answer that question for me.

Well we had to establish the single question from the wider topic you had asked about to be able to answer. I don't see why you should have a problem with that. You didn't ask me to widen the subject - you widened it yourself.

The meaning of the word faith in this context is commonly "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."

"being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see"

Do you know that my definition here is wrong? My assertion is that God cannot be conclusively proved by it's nature. You'd need to re-define God for that to be possible, so that's why belief is an exception. I have tried to explain this to you in several different ways but obviously you've missed it.

The logic of this idea is neutral in conclusive terms I believe. That is the purpose of it's creation. Like I've said before, I'm sure there are other things in the universe that are unique in one form or another. Why single out 'faith' as not another of those? You deny uniqueness.

'Shielding science and logic' is a typical now for you, bit of an emotive exaggeration. You see you have to conjoin the two to make a point. You can't deal with the exact problem. Logic on it's own suffices. But only with science can you claim 'shielding' like the pair (science & logic) are somehow inseparable. The logical statement is that in this instance 'proof' doesn't apply.

(July 3, 2009 at 12:59 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(July 2, 2009 at 6:48 pm)Rabbit Wrote:

(July 2, 2009 at 5:41 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: By saying the singular is everything religious is off track. You keep trying to expand my statements into something different and this does the opposite of helping rational thought. ie respectfully, you need Address the point precisely. Forgive me if I misunderstand you.

I am not deliberately expanding your statements into something different. I am exploring their meaning. I am sincerely trying to understand you. This exploring of arguments and testing their consistency is to be expected in normal debate. They may be precise and evident to you, they are not to me. Please do not degrade yourself to simple ad hominem responding. You might ask me what I mean with my assertions and explorations of yours instead of trying to derail every attempt of me to clarify statements made. Do not interpret disagreement as offense by default. Now, what on earth do you mean with "By saying the singular is everything religious is off track."? Are you sure even that the grammar is right? It does not register over here. Please elaborate.

When you explore you always ridicule as well. This isn't conducive to constructive debate. You reap what you sow. Derisive slurs attract similar in response. I always try to treat serious points seriously.
I just explained above: By applying the idea stated that faith is an exception to the scientific rule to everything religious isn't logical. Only faith needs to be an exception.

The idea that faith is an exception is not logical without argumentation. Stating that faith does not contain all religious is illogical. Is there religious belief that is not faith? This is a very sloppy answer please reply with clear answers that show you indeed are treating this seriously.

(July 3, 2009 at 12:59 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(July 2, 2009 at 6:48 pm)Rabbit Wrote:

(July 2, 2009 at 5:41 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You're (not singularly) obsessed with the conclusive proof of God's existence. This is folly as I've stated very many times here since January

Well, I haven't been around here for a while. If god is an obsession of anyone it is primarily the religious people, I should think. I have no special interests in a particular god (hindu, christian, nordic, egyptian or whatever). What interests me is the religious and the way they draw their religious conclusions. You offer an especially interesting example since you deny that belief should have some probability grounded in reality. Anyway that is what it looks like to me. And I wanna explore if this is so. If you need no scientific proof then what IS the basis to choose your christian god? If the only way you can address such a simple question is with hostility than you leave little room for me to label it not as closed-mindedness. Show me you're not and please answer the given questions or at least make clear why they cannot be answered or need not to be answered. This is debate and debate should be most enjoyable when opinions differ.

Strangely the question of proof of God's existence is the obsession of most non believers here. (You changed my words again in refutation.. I said interested in proof of God and you changed it to interest in god).

I did NOT change your words, I'm responding in my own words to your assertion that proof of god's existence is the obsession of many non-believers. Implicit in your phrasing is the claim to know what motivates the non-believer. In other words you claim you can look inside the heads of non-believers and probe their intentions, you are mindreading. As a non-believer I can only speak for myself but I personally do not share your conclusion that focus on the god issue in debate between non-believer and believer necessarily means that the non-believer is obsessed with the subject of god's existence. In my case the issue of god's existence itself is not what interests me most but it is the question why the believer beliefs what he beliefs. This would give the same impression in debate, especially on atheist forums where the central difference between believer and non-believer is the issue about god's existence. Your conclusion about obsession by non-believers is a hasty generalization based on a unjust claim to know the intentions of other people. And that is the reason that in my response to your assertion I choose my words differently, nothing else.

(July 3, 2009 at 12:59 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I'd challenge you to produce one Christian that would be able to conclusively prove God's existence. You're singling me out for something universally accepted and doctrinal.
The basis for choosing to have faith in God is rationalisation.

The fact that we are in this bilateral conversation singles you out. I can't ask you to tell me what precisely motivates other people to belief. If you want conversation in which you don't want questions from me about your personal opinion, say so and I'll move on to discussion elsewhere. For, as I have said earlier, what interests me most is why people believe not what they think why other people belief. Also, at last it becomes clear in this statement of yours that a reason for you to belief is that it is accepted doctrine. This in essence is an argumentum ad populam (appeal to the masses).

(July 2, 2009 at 5:41 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: 'probability grounded in reality' - what does that mean? The provable evidence of God's existence is everything in this multi/universe. It's also not provable. So is that probable? Are you misunderstanding my statement? Probable to me implies 'balance of proof in favour'. Would you agree?

So you say our universe and everything in it is not provable. It certainly is provable within the highest standard of provability: science. To say that it is not provable means you use another standard of provability, please explain which standard you are using.

(July 2, 2009 at 5:41 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(July 2, 2009 at 6:48 pm)Rabbit Wrote:

(July 2, 2009 at 5:41 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: To take us back to the beginning: The hard fact is that the concept exists which denies empirical proof. I'm afraid that's just got to be a thorn in science's ass, and it's going to have to live with it, unless people with power wipe it from history.

You will have to explain this in further detail because I see no hard fact without science, without an alternative method of justification, only with personal beliefs. The hard fact to me is it is logically impossible to build a unified reality from ungrounded belief statements. It is illogical, it makes no sense whatsoever. Earlier you seemed to suggest a difference between philosophical truth and scientific truth. But that is not a clear distinction. Science makes extensive use of logic. And even the choice of logic is a choice. There is modal logic, predicate logic, quantum logic even. Which one are you gonna choose and why. It all seems a very fuzzy selection process to me always leading you to the christian god. Well, I must say I am almost done waiting for a real meaningfull reply that really
adressess the questions I have formulated now over and over. Amaze me.

Well you've touched yourself on the frailty on belief in everything. Further than I would push it but then this seems to be your stance. In a way the existence of God is not the question. Faith in the existence of God is.
Scientific philosophy gets it arse about face wanting the unknowable answer. Scientific philosophy, I can conclude, will never have that answer, so will be infinitely frustrated. The concept 100% renders it impotent.
There's nothing 'fuzzy' about the process. Faith is necessarily without conclusive proof, and you seem to be demanding conclusive proof of it. Is that right?

No I'm demanding no conclusive proof. I think conclusive proofs about what is the nature of our reality do not exist. Humans (at least for now) have no special access to absolute truth. Science has no conclusive proofs about ultimate truth of our reality. Science only produces tentative truths in a proces of assessing probabilities from empirical results or in a deductive manner from a priori accepted axioma (mathematics). I'm happy with it that people belief without conclusive proof but I'm sceptical about the idea that the choice of a SPECIFIC belief, such as a monotheistic belief, out of the vast array of all possible beliefs (such as non-theistic or polytheistic beliefs) needs no other justification than the choice itself. This is a what Dennett would identify as a skyhook, from all possibilities a particular possibility is claimed out of nowhere. This is illogical and certainly is NOT rationalisation, which you claim it to be.

[quote][quote='fr0d0' )
Belief in God is an exception to the rule of science that everything requires proof. By definition, belief, or more accurately faith does not.[/quote]

A contradictory discussion between two people has sense only if there exists even a slightest common
base of ideas.Otherwise the discussion is of the kind or dialogue between deafs.
In this topic it seems to me that there has to be at least a common base of a minimum agreement rational thinking.

If you say "credo quia absurdum" ,I believe in God although it is absurd or may be because it is absurd
then every effort to convince you against faith is doomed to fail.Stop of dialogue!

On the other hand if you accept a base of rational thinking than it is your duty to prove the existence of God which you cannot do unless you resort to non scientifical or to para scientifical writings.

The ultimate weapon against atheism is that science doesn't have the power either to totally disprove the existence of God,which is true.
The trick is that atheists themselves declare loud and clear that their tools are not perfect and that
science is only able to proof that there are no reasons to believe in God,no more then that.

The explanation of it is very simple :humans of our era are only a link in the evolution of life on earth so we are by no means supposed to know all about nature otherwise we would be Gods which we are not because we are convinced that he does not exist.

The answer which religion is supposed to give on why the world ticks and how it ticks related to God is devoid of any rational thinkig and following falls out from the dialogue.

I debated with a lot of members of this forum about the importance of disproving the existence of God by proving that he is a creation of Man derived, along history of mankind, from a multitude of social,political,economical, spiritual reasons .
Only a few agreed with me but I still maintain this opinion.
There is no major religion of our era which is not based on holly scriptures. Who wrote those scripture other the men who did it,same as in our time,from certain reasons. No scripture was written by God and that is a scientifically proven fact.

So here we are ,if your faith in the existence of God is irrational then you are "right",but if you accept as a base of thinking the rational one then your belief is disproved .

I've followed all the discussions beginning with the first post and found them highly intersting but I consider that this reply sheds a more simple but essential light on the problem

(July 3, 2009 at 11:37 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Well we had to establish the single question from the wider topic you had asked about to be able to answer. I don't see why you should have a problem with that. You didn't ask me to widen the subject - you widened it yourself.

I'll try to make sense of this:
With "the single question" you seem to mean the following question A) "why faith in the existence of the christian god does not require proof?".
With "the wider question" you seem to mean B) "why faith in general (not necssarily faith in the christian or other gods) does not require proof?"
You seem to assert that the answer on A is positive:
A+: "faith in the existence of the christian god does not require proof"
But not the positive answer on B:
B+: "faith in general does not require proof"

I acknowledge A+ and B+ because faith as such does not require proof, it is the nature of faith that proof is not necessarily needed to adhere to it, which does not mean that there necessarily is any truth in it.
You only acknowledge A+, but you give no reason why A+ is true and B+ is not, other than christian doctrine.

Your reference to christian doctrine suggests to me however that you not only claim A+ to be true but also a much more stronger claim, A++.
A++: "the existence of the christian god does not require proof and is a true statement"
Constantly in your answers there is that mix of A+ and A++.
If I am wrong about this please say so.

Notice that christian doctrine has no relevance on the statement X: "A+ is true and B+ is not", since the christian doctrine does not provide objective measures to differentiate between A+ and B+. It only asserts that A++ is true "I am the only god" which is begging the question on A++, a logcal fallacy, but says nothing on A+ versus B+.

So really, while our quarrel is on X, the undertone is that you imply A++ from X. This is of course another illogical leap of faith (btw: by doing so you have widened A+ since you now also apply the rule to other statements than existence of the christian god). That faith needs no proof does not mean that what the faith is about is true by default. You cannot promote a faith statement into a truth statement. You can only say that you believe your faith statement is true. You cannot say that your faith statement is absolutely true because it needs no proof. That would be an illogical conclusion.

(July 3, 2009 at 11:37 am)fr0d0 Wrote: My assertion is that God cannot be conclusively proved by it's nature. You'd need to re-define God for that to be possible, so that's why belief is an exception.

What IS your definition of god? Be aware, by defining god in terms of unprovable your reasoning will become circular.

(July 3, 2009 at 11:37 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I have tried to explain this to you in several different ways but obviously you've missed it.

So far, you have only presented circular reasoning on this. So please give me the non circular variant of the definition of god because on this definition all your claims in this thread are based.

Where areth thou, my friend?

In the meanwhile to clarify things further consider the following assertions:

1) belief in the existence of the christian god does not require proof to subscribe to it
2) the existence of the christian god does not require proof to be true
3) the existence of the hindu gods does not require proof to be true
4) the existence of the christian god a) is true AND b) does not require proof
5) the existence of the christian god a) is true BECAUSE it does not require proof
6) belief in general does not require proof
7) the existence of the christian god does not require belief to be true
8) the existence of hindu gods does not require belief to be true

Which of these assertions in your opinion are true statements, which of them are false?

It all falls down at 4 really doesn't it.

(July 4, 2009 at 6:19 am)Darwinian Wrote: It all falls down at 4 really doesn't it.

That's where the trouble becomes apparent, but the suggestive power of 1 and 2 for some is hard to deny.

But really, for the same reason that I acknowledge that "the existence of the christian god does not require proof to be true" is true I also acknowledge that "the non-existence of the christian god does not require proof to be true".

(July 4, 2009 at 2:49 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Where areth thou, my friend?

In the meanwhile to clarify things further consider the following assertions:

1) belief in the existence of the christian god does not require proof to subscribe to it
2) the existence of the christian god does not require proof to be true
3) the existence of the hindu gods does not require proof to be true
4) the existence of the christian god a) is true AND b) does not require proof
5) the existence of the christian god a) is true BECAUSE it does not require proof
6) belief in general does not require proof
7) the existence of the christian god does not require belief to be true
8) the existence of hindu gods does not require belief to be true

Which of these assertions in your opinion are true statements, which of them are false?

Your puzzle is not accurate formulated unless you define the "religious" views of yor opponent.

If you are addresing the questions to an atheist then all of them are irrelevant because he does not believe ,or "almost" don't believe (I always stumble over this "almost" Dawkins' word which I don't accept) in the existence of god nor inthe truth of any religion.

If you addres the question to a convinced christian who grew in a religious family and does not question any of it's believes and commandments, then for him any proof is unnecessary.

The most interesting situation is if you ask a non christian person who is considering to adopt christianism out of conviction. Then he might require to get proofs about the existence of god and the truth of religion.
Now in this case he will need to read the holly sciptures and if he has an open mind and is willing to adopt a reasonal thinking he will very soon draw the conclusion that all these scriptures were written by men in variuos epochs,for a multitude of political,social economical,spiritual,,,reasons,all of them convincing about the opposit of their purpose,namely the creation of god by man.