(December 3, 2009 at 7:27 pm)Saerules Wrote: Its really simple... when someone says something like 'I like blue'... a person might ask 'why?' of that. You can continue these 'why?'s until their final logical conclusion that a person just needs to accept all things on faith

You make it seem like a straight line from opinion to faith down under. IMO it is more like the roots of a tree, one conviction has many roots which has many roots and so on. Besides the line of reasoning from top to bottom there is need for coherence and consistency among the many branches. Reasoning is like maximizing consistency among all the branches of a certain conviction you hold with yourself and with arguments presented by others. Yes, in the end (at the tip of the roots) all convictions are based on assertions (as Kant says: the thing in itself cannot be known), but there is a difference between blind faith and reasoned opinion. You cannot accept genesis and empirical results from cosmology at the same time. The proof is in the pudding and the eating is in reasoning.

The nature of belief. That was my first argument here. I think you guys believe their is not god, and that that is a matter of faith. I personally think there is a few (gods), and that is a matter of faith. It is when no-god is "scientifically verifiable fact" and theists have some mental disorder that things get out of hand. We all believe something, we all take a lot of things on faith alone. The is my version of skepticism, to know that what we don't know. And if you really push, what we don't know is 99% of it. It is possibilities, gray areas. It is possible there is no god, but I think that less likely, so I am a theist. When some atheists step up to the plate with "There is no god, everyone knows that" and treats it like a verifiable fact (verifiable to others) I call him/her to prove what they are saying. Knowing there is no proof, god or no-god is a matter of faith, not science.

That is the silly "burden-of-proof-trap", as I have referenced it before. I make a statement of possibility "There might be a god", or of personal opinion "I think there is a god". I get jumped with "prove it!" and I politely say I cannot prove it, and I have not made an objective statement requiring proof. So then comes the "There is no god, and you are silly to believe something different" which is a much more objective statement. And I say, oh, prove there is no god (something that can't really be done) and they say "No, you believe in god, you prove her" which is diversionary, because is is not in what you believe that makes the need for proof, but the content of the statement. I think there is a god. I cannot prove that I think there is a god, you will have to take my word on the fact that I think there is god. That is subjective. Some of the more militant, fanatical atheists would say there is no god, objectively. That he/she has no god, and I should have no god, and there is no god for anyone. That is a statement demanding proof, not because of it's point (which as a negative cannot be fully proven) but only because of its stance. It's treatment as pure honest fact.

Ugh. That was some kind of mental flatulence. Excuse me.
-Pip

(December 4, 2009 at 2:38 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

(December 3, 2009 at 7:27 pm)Saerules Wrote: Its really simple... when someone says something like 'I like blue'... a person might ask 'why?' of that. You can continue these 'why?'s until their final logical conclusion that a person just needs to accept all things on faith

You make it seem like a straight line from opinion to faith down under. IMO it is more like the roots of a tree, one conviction has many roots which has many roots and so on. Besides the line of reasoning from top to bottom there is need for coherence and consistency among the many branches. Reasoning is like maximizing consistency among all the branches of a certain conviction you hold with yourself and with arguments presented by others. Yes, in the end (at the tip of the roots) all convictions are based on assertions (as Kant says: the thing in itself cannot be known), but there is a difference between blind faith and reasoned opinion. You cannot accept genesis and empirical results from cosmology at the same time. The proof is in the pudding and the eating is in reasoning.

There can be well-justified beliefs... but that also is subjective. Its a pudding that tastes different to everyone.

Every single assertion is taken by faith. Including the one I just said We arrive at the conclusion of "I like blue" by 'scaffolding' ourselves up to that position (which we hold faith in each scaffold, including "i like blue".). It is an entire chain of faith... trusting that which we believe we can trust (by justifying it).

Essentially, even the holding of faith becomes circular. Even the most basic 'law?' of our universe (logic) is not unaffected by this. Why is A=A? Because it has to be, or else we can 'know' nothing in this universe, we essentially cannot 'reasonably' function, as all things are impossible to accept. So I suppose I'm a materialistic existentialist. I recognize that we cannot ultimately know anything... but that we must construct our individually accepted subjective meanings and definitions upon what we are familiar and confident with.

I'm confident with science. A theist is confident with their god(s). Is that not the 'problem?' we atheists have with theists?

(December 4, 2009 at 5:04 am)Saerules Wrote: There can be well-justified beliefs... but that also is subjective. Its a pudding that tastes different to everyone.

Every single assertion is taken by faith. Including the one I just said We arrive at the conclusion of "I like blue" by 'scaffolding' ourselves up to that position (which we hold faith in each scaffold, including "i like blue".). It is an entire chain of faith... trusting that which we believe we can trust (by justifying it).

Essentially, even the holding of faith becomes circular. Even the most basic 'law?' of our universe (logic) is not unaffected by this. Why is A=A? Because it has to be, or else we can 'know' nothing in this universe, we essentially cannot 'reasonably' function, as all things are impossible to accept. So I suppose I'm a materialistic existentialist. I recognize that we cannot ultimately know anything... but that we must construct our individually accepted subjective meanings and definitions upon what we are familiar and confident with.

I'm confident with science. A theist is confident with their god(s). Is that not the 'problem?' we atheists have with theists?

A pity for this debate, but essentially I agree on most. Accept on your use of the word faith. The word faith to me has to much connotation on the macro level of belief systems, sets of convictions on meaning on a grand scale, molten together into dogmatic fortified strongholds. That I think is not a term that aptly describes the accepting of assertions on a basic level (for instance the assertion that there is an "I" that exists). There is no intricate system of convictions involved in the assertion that I exist, I just cannot operate without it.

Basically you too come up with a practical argument to accept some assertions. As ultimately science is driven by practical arguments (which model of reality works best in terms of explanatory and predictive power). There is no logical basis for a principle like Ockham's Razor in science. It just works best.

(December 3, 2009 at 3:56 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Ps. 139:7-12: God is everywhere. We cannot escape His presence.

1 Ki. 8:27:: The heavens cannot contain God.

Jer. 23:23-24: No one can hide from God. He is always near at hand. God fills the heaven and earth.

Heb. 4:13: There is no creature hidden from God's sight. All things are naked and opened to His sight.

...ah - you didn't mean the bible Sae?

@ Ps. 139:7-12... it is clearly the statement of a hyperbole. Isn't that obvious with the context?

@ Ki. 8:27... Of course they can't contain God... God is massive. But he isn't everywhere (the girl's bathroom for instance... he is rather interested in the men's room though...)

@ Jer. 23:23-24... It is quite obviously referring to God's fatherly and judicial aspects, as well as how great he is (in the context of the goat herders who correctly realized that God designed the rest of the universe simply for their astrology.

@ Heb. 4:13... Of course... the author was simply referencing that God is looking out for us 'his sight' is just a term for how he acts as our fatherly being


Of course i meant the bible, silly fr0d0

---

(December 4, 2009 at 11:42 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

(December 4, 2009 at 5:04 am)Saerules Wrote: There can be well-justified beliefs... but that also is subjective. Its a pudding that tastes different to everyone.

Every single assertion is taken by faith. Including the one I just said We arrive at the conclusion of "I like blue" by 'scaffolding' ourselves up to that position (which we hold faith in each scaffold, including "i like blue".). It is an entire chain of faith... trusting that which we believe we can trust (by justifying it).

Essentially, even the holding of faith becomes circular. Even the most basic 'law?' of our universe (logic) is not unaffected by this. Why is A=A? Because it has to be, or else we can 'know' nothing in this universe, we essentially cannot 'reasonably' function, as all things are impossible to accept. So I suppose I'm a materialistic existentialist. I recognize that we cannot ultimately know anything... but that we must construct our individually accepted subjective meanings and definitions upon what we are familiar and confident with.

I'm confident with science. A theist is confident with their god(s). Is that not the 'problem?' we atheists have with theists?

A pity for this debate, but essentially I agree on most. Accept on your use of the word faith. The word faith to me has to much connotation on the macro level of belief systems, sets of convictions on meaning on a grand scale, molten together into dogmatic fortified strongholds. That I think is not a term that aptly describes the accepting of assertions on a basic level (for instance the assertion that there is an "I" that exists). There is no intricate system of convictions involved in the assertion that I exist, I just cannot operate without it.

Basically you too come up with a practical argument to accept some assertions. As ultimately science is driven by practical arguments (which model of reality works best in terms of explanatory and predictive power). There is no logical basis for a principle like Ockham's Razor in science. It just works best.

I understand what you mean by considering 'faith' to be a reference to what I like to call "An amount of faith equivocatable to a blind warp-speed jump through a wormhole and landing ten feet to the left of where you started." For illustration: http://www.stonemakerargument.com/2.html I think that things are not simply A or B... but are A or B to degrees.

Indeed, logically you would have to exist... at least in some way or another Of course... things can exist without logic... as we can witness by most theists But perhaps our perception is so limited that we cannot see the full picture, and thus although logic could be 'perfect?': our perception of reality makes some things appear illogical.

The assertion that "I" exist makes one wonder just what "I" am... but nonetheless: there is something that "I?" am calling "Me", and it is in reference to what we perceive to be ourselves. You are right in that some things just have to be believed, or else we can't function :S

Indeed... a person can't believe something if they don't have any reasons for the truth of it (however logical or 'true'). I simply can't make myself believe that my computer is a pony... I need reason(s) so that I can just believe that my computer is a pony. Eventually all faith becomes circular because we have to have faith in simply holding faith. :S

I have my faith in science as well... as it takes but a blink of faith for me to accept science.

*catches the curve ball*

I've forgotten who's joking Haha!

Isn't that our interpretation of the bible though? Are we any better for that? just wondering... If god wrote the book in an unambiguous way knowing humans would not interpret it wrong, shouldn't it be completely literal?

Well it's the opposite LG. God wrote the book ambiguously so that shits like you wouldn't understand it.

1 Cor 2:14 : "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."

Aha, it's a secret code then. That's a shame because I've just bought a bible, my first ever, and was hoping to be able to understand it. What's the point in writing a book to explain the meaning of life and the reason for our existence if you have to believe it first to be able to understand it? :S

Quote:The bible teaches that natural man will never be able to understand its truth on his own; for only the Spirit of God, who understands the mind of God, can reveal the truths of God, which are in direct opposition to the wisdom of the world (1 Cor. 2:10-16; cf. Acts 8:30-31). However, when the bible is read or heard, the Spirit works as he chooses, giving understanding and producing faith in many who hear (Jn. 3:4-12; 16:7-14; cf. Acts 16:14).

Therefore, it is of great benefit for anyone who so desires to study the bible, knowing that “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17), and that God gives his wisdom liberally to all men who ask him in faith (James 1:5-6); indeed, no one who hungers and thirsts for God's truth will be turned away, if he cries out to the Savior and applies himself to study the bible, for Jesus has invited us all with these words, “If anyone thirst, let him come unto me and drink” (John 7:37).

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20927137/6-Can...on-his-own

Or as my Welsh buddies say... "Let he who has yurs, yur" *shrugs*