1984 & A/S/K revisited

[Ryantology]

2+2=5 is not logical and has nothing to do with faith, it is wrong from our experience of math.

Believing that a burning bush can talk to you is wrong from our experience with immolating shrubbery, but that doesn't stop you. If the Bible said 2+2=5 you'd be here on this very forum trying to tell us that you just know 2+2=5 because God divinely revealed this truth to you and if we poor atheists would only open our hearts to God, we would also know that 2+2=5.

[FallentoReason]

I would think "faith" is a sort of "trust". The question here seems to be if it is justified trust, like when I get on a bus and I trust the driver not to crash. I would use some simple reasoning that would lead me to think it's rational to trust him/her, such as think to myself when was the last time a bus driver crashed in my city (dealing with probabilities), assuming he/she has been doing the job for years and therefore has the experience (dealing with an understanding of the nature of employment) etc etc. I would assume you think your faith in e.g. the A/S/K method is justified, but how exactly? You have no prior evidence that it works, which means it's literally a blind leap of faith into the unknown. Why not also believe 2 + 2 is 5?

Yes I believe faith and trust are the same and I believe it is true for scripture as well.
2+2=5 is not logical and has nothing to do with faith, it is wrong from our experience of math. Same for faith, as I've seen the results of 2+2=4, I've seen the results of faith, trust and A/S/K in those who were before me and the ones of my age and the ones coming up. Seeing faith in action for me is no different than seeing 2+2=4. This is the very reason God said the anti-christ will fool the entire world, even the elect, if that were possible. Through our faith Christians will realize what the anti-christ sales is false, we will see it as 2+2=5.

You won't have faith that 2 + 2 = 5 because your mind is using the framework of knowledge -> belief -> faith. I'm wondering why for God it seems like we need to think backwards and reverse that order to faith -> belief -> knowledge like you suggested in your other post? Because in fact, if we applied that order to 2 + 2 = 5, then guess what the outcome would be? Yep, it's not looking too good is it!

[Undeceived]

What is your definition of "faith"? It seems you put faith and reason in conflict with one another. They work in partnership. Faith goes beyond reason.

I would think "faith" is a sort of "trust". The question here seems to be if it is justified trust, like when I get on a bus and I trust the driver not to crash. I would use some simple reasoning that would lead me to think it's rational to trust him/her, such as think to myself when was the last time a bus driver crashed in my city (dealing with probabilities), assuming he/she has been doing the job for years and therefore has the experience (dealing with an understanding of the nature of employment) etc etc. I would assume you think your faith in e.g. the A/S/K method is justified, but how exactly? You have no prior evidence that it works, which means it's literally a blind leap of faith into the unknown. Why not also believe 2 + 2 is 5?

Now we're just throwing apples and oranges at each other. You say God has no evidence, I say He does. God made us in His image and gave us a conscience. His entire creation is evidence. "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse" (Rom 1:20). I think we agreed that these are evidence a long time ago. The question is whether the evidence is good enough for the beholder. That's where faith comes in. If you like God, the evidence will be sufficient. If you detest God, you will find whatever reasons within your grasp to deny the evidence.

At some point the senses have to give up their quest for knowledge.

Why, so that we can believe the snake oil salesman? It doesn't sound rational in the least to say that we have to let go of the senses in order to believe something. Would it be sensible for me to have faith that when I get on the bus, it will take off and fly? No, because my senses tell me the bus doesn't hold such an ability to do that.

Let's think of an example closer to A/S/K: an organisation tells people that if they give them $10 a day, eventually the CEO will give them 1 million dollars. I could do background checks on this organisation and talk to people about it and come to the conclusion that they are a fraud OR I could have faith that they will follow through and give me 1 million dollars. Do I trust my senses/reasoning or am I justified in simply putting trust into them?

A Christian is one who journeys on past the natural epistemic boundaries. God is, by definition, not of this world. So one needs faith to "see" Him.

Ah, so now it's all about 66 seeing 99, is it? Why the jump from literally experiencing him to a metaphorical experience? I have the feeling I might have gotten to you and you're having to readjust to your new-found cognitive dissonance... this is always the way; salvage the belief and adapt the view to somehow still harmonize with the belief.

I think you misread these lines. My point was that, epistemically, one cannot directly experience God. He is not a natural being. Therefore, any truths about God or morality or purpose cannot be known through the senses. They can be believed, sure. But that's what faith is--believing what the senses cannot confirm. My point is that if we stopped at the senses, we could not pursue metaphysical questions such as "Why am I here?" or "What should I love?" or "What should I live for?" The answers to these are of the highest importance to us. Yet they lie outside of science. Faith is an attempt to reach beyond the empirical realm and illuminate those questions. The believer uses faith to gain access to a new domain, that of revelation. There is no other option--reason has come to the edge of a cliff. The believer hopes that revelation will expose the truths he seeks. Faith is embraced not "blindly" but with "eyes wide open." Faith is not meant to suppress our intellectual abilities, but to guide them--like the way infrared goggles help us to see heat. The idea is to put faith into someone with access--into Jesus/God--who will respond to our faith by providing us with revelation. But in order for it to do any good, we need to keep the goggles on. We need faith to continue to see God. So if we do not want Him in our life, we ignore him by withdrawing our faith.

I know this may make little sense to you. But that fact complies with the mantra: you need to believe in order to see. God will not reveal Himself to someone who does not want God to reveal Himself. Be honest-- do you want God to reveal Himself to you, in all His power and glory and judgment? The way you answer that question will tell you if you are a Christian or an atheist. You see, it is the agent's desire, or faith, that matters.

[Godscreated]

Does not what I say result in direct experience, the answer would be yes, just trying to help. Since the results are the same I see no problem in using my statement, or does this pose a problem for your argument.

I just find it too generalized of a statement. That's why I said I'm dealing just with A/S/K here because that way we can analyze a particular beast.

Looking back at your statement, I guess I do have something to comment on.

There is no method of coming to faith in Christ, many different experiences are described by Christians, to some degree you need to know what your committing to. The rest comes as you experience God in a daily walk with Him. One could say you first come to Christ in faith and through faith will come belief and through belief comes knowledge and in this knowledge comes the wonderful relationship that goes beyond description.

Faith -> belief -> knowledge. I find that order to be a problem that is parallel to the OP. Why not knowledge -> belief -> faith? E.g. I come to know that a chair is made up of sturdy parts. This knowledge allows me to form a belief that it can hold someone's weight, therefore, I will put my faith into it that when I sit on it, it won't collapse under my weight. I sit on it and, viola, it doesn't collapse. My entire thought process lead to a justified application of faith.

To take your order of F/B/K into a scientific exercise of discovery would be an invalid procedure, would it not. Wouldn't you replace faith with assumption, belief with theory and then well knowledge is knowledge, so you would have A/T/K. Sound reasonable.

No, you seem to suggest that I first have to put faith into it... right so I'll put myself out there from the word "go", sit on it, and hope for the best. It doesn't break under my weight... "ah!", I come to believe it's designed to hold my body weight. I can then inspect it and obtain the knowledge that it's made of sturdy parts. My wanting to put faith in it first was completely unjustified, a leap of faith for no apparent reason.

Why is it reasonable to apply your order of faith -> belief -> knowledge when it seems like it's rather silly for anything else we have faith on?

You are applying your thought process to an known object, so your process of thought works.
God is the unknown to all at first, some of us see something we like about God if He exists, so we decide to have faith in God and what He is offering. We begin to follow up by reading scripture and through this we begin to learn, that is as long as we trust God and ask for His revelation of Himself, and we must do this with an open mind, this is where so many trip themselves up. When God reveals things about Himself that go against our preconceived ideas we must give them up and except God's truth, in doing this we come to belief. Through this belief we continue to ask and explore coming to the larger understanding of who God is, in other words we will come to knowledge of God. This is the point I have contention with those who say they knew God and then turned away. This is the point one sees God in a way that is inspiring, joyful, wonderful, exciting and ect. You know God and could never deny Him at this point. This is why the elect will not see the 2+2=5 of the anti-christ, instead we already know the 2+2=4 of God and thus reject all that comes against the truth of God. There will be one ruling anti-christ, but Christians understand as scripture tells us there will be many anti-christ ie. the world.

---

2+2=5 is not logical and has nothing to do with faith, it is wrong from our experience of math.

Believing that a burning bush can talk to you is wrong from our experience with immolating shrubbery, but that doesn't stop you. If the Bible said 2+2=5 you'd be here on this very forum trying to tell us that you just know 2+2=5 because God divinely revealed this truth to you and if we poor atheists would only open our hearts to God, we would also know that 2+2=5.

Wrong, wrong, you mean to tell me you do not believe a bush can burn. The Bible will not teach those things that are false, God divinely reveals truth not lies, all you're trying to do is discredit Christianity with a bunch of nonsense that you know want hold water.

[Ryantology]

Wrong, wrong, you mean to tell me you do not believe a bush can burn.

I mean to tell you that bushes do not talk.

The Bible will not teach those things that are false

The Bible is telling the truth, the Bible says so.

God divinely reveals truth not lies

Every time you respond with this bullshit I'll tell you to prove it. Save yourself the trouble and don't respond with this bullshit.

all you're trying to do is discredit Christianity with a bunch of nonsense that you know want hold water.

Actually, what I'm doing here is specifically discrediting your dreadful argument.

[FallentoReason]

I would think "faith" is a sort of "trust". The question here seems to be if it is justified trust, like when I get on a bus and I trust the driver not to crash. I would use some simple reasoning that would lead me to think it's rational to trust him/her, such as think to myself when was the last time a bus driver crashed in my city (dealing with probabilities), assuming he/she has been doing the job for years and therefore has the experience (dealing with an understanding of the nature of employment) etc etc. I would assume you think your faith in e.g. the A/S/K method is justified, but how exactly? You have no prior evidence that it works, which means it's literally a blind leap of faith into the unknown. Why not also believe 2 + 2 is 5?

Now we're just throwing apples and oranges at each other. You say God has no evidence, I say He does. God made us in His image and gave us a conscience. His entire creation is evidence. "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse" (Rom 1:20). I think we agreed that these are evidence a long time ago. The question is whether the evidence is good enough for the beholder. That's where faith comes in. If you like God, the evidence will be sufficient. If you detest God, you will find whatever reasons within your grasp to deny the evidence.

Ok, perfect. Why are you justified in doing this for your god but not the Muslim? You need to meet me half way and understand that your convictions match your presuppositions, therefore I can't take your suggestions seriously because they are, so far, unjustified. I therefore propose a method for being able to come to truth, but you want to override it and simply urge me "to have faith". So ok... perfect... but why your god and not Baal? It seems like there's no reason at all to choose the Judeo-Christian god apart from the one thing that was out of your control: your geographical starting point on this earth.

Do you see what I'm saying? It's illogical for you to tell me "look! The evidence is all in the Bible!" because I could do the same with you: I could convert to Islam and say "hey, the Qu'ran explains everything you need to know!".

I think you misread these lines. My point was that, epistemically, one cannot directly experience God. He is not a natural being. Therefore, any truths about God or morality or purpose cannot be known through the senses. They can be believed, sure. But that's what faith is--believing what the senses cannot confirm. My point is that if we stopped at the senses, we could not pursue metaphysical questions such as "Why am I here?" or "What should I love?" or "What should I live for?" The answers to these are of the highest importance to us. Yet they lie outside of science. Faith is an attempt to reach beyond the empirical realm and illuminate those questions. The believer uses faith to gain access to a new domain, that of revelation. There is no other option--reason has come to the edge of a cliff. The believer hopes that revelation will expose the truths he seeks. Faith is embraced not "blindly" but with "eyes wide open." Faith is not meant to suppress our intellectual abilities, but to guide them--like the way infrared goggles help us to see heat. The idea is to put faith into someone with access--into Jesus/God--who will respond to our faith by providing us with revelation. But in order for it to do any good, we need to keep the goggles on. We need faith to continue to see God. So if we do not want Him in our life, we ignore him by withdrawing our faith.

Before I respond to this, I need to ask a question. It seems to me that there's an apparent contradiction: You say "...truths about God or morality or purpose cannot be known through the senses" then later on you say "[we] put faith...into Jesus...who will respond...by providing us with revelation". How am I supposed to receive said revelation/truth without my senses? To me it seems like our senses are crucial for such a task, hence the apparent contradiction.

I know this may make little sense to you. But that fact complies with the mantra: you need to believe in order to see. God will not reveal Himself to someone who does not want God to reveal Himself.

Much like the con won't be a con unless you buy into it. Once you believe it, you will see it. Take your pick at any other religion for an example of this -- and if you met me halfway, you would see why your explanations are worrying, because there's no basis for your belief. Just presuppositions that will inevitably align with your desired god's word.

Be honest-- do you want God to reveal Himself to you, in all His power and glory and judgment? The way you answer that question will tell you if you are a Christian or an atheist. You see, it is the agent's desire, or faith, that matters.

It's an ironic question, because as a former Pentecostal Christian, it's what I wanted the most. That was my honest desire and I didn't have even 5% of the knowledge I now have after joining online forums, which means I had zero doubts whatsoever. Just a sincere faith, but I guess reason prevailed in the end.

---

Faith -> belief -> knowledge. I find that order to be a problem that is parallel to the OP. Why not knowledge -> belief -> faith? E.g. I come to know that a chair is made up of sturdy parts. This knowledge allows me to form a belief that it can hold someone's weight, therefore, I will put my faith into it that when I sit on it, it won't collapse under my weight. I sit on it and, viola, it doesn't collapse. My entire thought process lead to a justified application of faith.

To take your order of F/B/K into a scientific exercise of discovery would be an invalid procedure, would it not. Wouldn't you replace faith with assumption, belief with theory and then well knowledge is knowledge, so you would have A/T/K. Sound reasonable.

No, you still have the order backwards. Knowledge -> belief -> faith: knowledge allows me to write up an hypothesis (belief), which can then be tested and the results will allow me to produce a theory which I will put my justified faith on. This is exactly what I explained using the chair example.

You are applying your thought process to an known object, so your process of thought works.
God is the unknown to all at first, some of us see something we like about God if He exists, so we decide to have faith in God and what He is offering. We begin to follow up by reading scripture and through this we begin to learn, that is as long as we trust God and ask for His revelation of Himself, and we must do this with an open mind, this is where so many trip themselves up. When God reveals things about Himself that go against our preconceived ideas we must give them up and except God's truth, in doing this we come to belief. Through this belief we continue to ask and explore coming to the larger understanding of who God is, in other words we will come to knowledge of God. This is the point I have contention with those who say they knew God and then turned away. This is the point one sees God in a way that is inspiring, joyful, wonderful, exciting and ect. You know God and could never deny Him at this point. This is why the elect will not see the 2+2=5 of the anti-christ, instead we already know the 2+2=4 of God and thus reject all that comes against the truth of God. There will be one ruling anti-christ, but Christians understand as scripture tells us there will be many anti-christ ie. the world.

Great, so I have to first a) believe in God so that I can then b) believe in God...

Why did you put unjustified faith into Bible god instead of Qu'ran god? You're still assuming the framework of faith -> belief -> knowledge will give you the "truth", and I say "truth" with 66 99 because we can input whatever we desire into it and you will come out believing it. That's the thrust of this entire thread -- that your methods are equivalent to those used by someone wanting to start a cult.

[Neo-Scholastic]

#1) My senses can't detect God talking to me
#2) I'm being told A/S/K works though
#3) I'm certain God isn't talking to me according to my senses
#4) In order to effectively A/S/K, I need to ignore my senses
#5) God is there

Not big fan of A/S/K myself, since I'm not convinced that its about requesting the Holy Spirit in order to be converted. I think its more about asking to receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit after accepting Jesus, as in: "Lord I believe, help me in my disbelief!"

Anyway, back to your OP argument. I think it's pretty good. I see premises 1 and 4 as problematic, as follows:

Premise 1 assumes that God communicates to the believer as sensible speech, i.e. an inner voice. God has many means of communication available to Him: visionary experience, compelling intuition, reason, scriptural revelation, contemplation of nature, or usually some combination of the above.

Premise 4 calls on the person to ignore their senses in order to find God. This follows from taking premise 1 as a given. However, since multiple channels are available to God and some of these come to us by means of the senses, then 4 is not a precondition for arriving at your conclusion, 5.

[Undeceived]

Now we're just throwing apples and oranges at each other. You say God has no evidence, I say He does. God made us in His image and gave us a conscience. His entire creation is evidence. "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse" (Rom 1:20). I think we agreed that these are evidence a long time ago. The question is whether the evidence is good enough for the beholder. That's where faith comes in. If you like God, the evidence will be sufficient. If you detest God, you will find whatever reasons within your grasp to deny the evidence.

Ok, perfect. Why are you justified in doing this for your god but not the Muslim? You need to meet me half way and understand that your convictions match your presuppositions, therefore I can't take your suggestions seriously because they are, so far, unjustified. I therefore propose a method for being able to come to truth, but you want to override it and simply urge me "to have faith". So ok... perfect... but why your god and not Baal? It seems like there's no reason at all to choose the Judeo-Christian god apart from the one thing that was out of your control: your geographical starting point on this earth.

Do you see what I'm saying? It's illogical for you to tell me "look! The evidence is all in the Bible!" because I could do the same with you: I could convert to Islam and say "hey, the Qu'ran explains everything you need to know!".

Are you sitting here arguing against Islam or Christianity? Christianity, because it is already apparent to you that its evidence is stronger. Again, faith goes beyond reason, but reason is still paid attention to. The Bible contains no convincing internal contradictions. The Quran does. And a loving, personal God is more consistent with the creation we see around and in us.

Before I respond to this, I need to ask a question. It seems to me that there's an apparent contradiction: You say "...truths about God or morality or purpose cannot be known through the senses" then later on you say "[we] put faith...into Jesus...who will respond...by providing us with revelation". How am I supposed to receive said revelation/truth without my senses? To me it seems like our senses are crucial for such a task, hence the apparent contradiction.

'Sensory intake' generally refers to the observation of material objects through sight, touch, taste, smell or hearing. Revelation is encountered directly in the mind. Spiritual inspiration is one example. There are instances in the Bible of 'revelation' in the form of a physical appearance, but that's not what we're referring to here. We're referring to the mental realization of God's immediate presence.

Much like the con won't be a con unless you buy into it. Once you believe it, you will see it. Take your pick at any other religion for an example of this -- and if you met me halfway, you would see why your explanations are worrying, because there's no basis for your belief. Just presuppositions that will inevitably align with your desired god's word.

If this were an argument, it would go like this:
1. The Bible could be a deception
2. Therefore, the Bible is a deception
But we have reasons to believe the Bible is more than mere human ingenuity. Fulfilled prophecy, for one. No other religion has real fulfilled prophecy. http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Prophecy/
http://www.accordingtothescriptures.org/...ecies.html
http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/the-old...-prophecy/

Be honest-- do you want God to reveal Himself to you, in all His power and glory and judgment? The way you answer that question will tell you if you are a Christian or an atheist. You see, it is the agent's desire, or faith, that matters.

It's an ironic question, because as a former Pentecostal Christian, it's what I wanted the most. That was my honest desire and I didn't have even 5% of the knowledge I now have after joining online forums, which means I had zero doubts whatsoever. Just a sincere faith, but I guess reason prevailed in the end.

Do you consider yourself a good person worthy of heaven?

[Anomalocaris]

There is no method of coming to faith in Christ,

Sure there is. Carve out with a blunt and dirty knife the parts of the your brain that wasn't there when your ancesters were monkeys a few million years before "god" came into existence, and you would come to faith in christ.

---

Do you consider yourself a good person worthy of heaven?

I am a good person, therefore I can't be tempted by "heaven".

[The Grand Nudger]

You say God has no evidence, I say He does.

Whats more important to you, claiming that there's evidence or actually presenting it?

---

Premise 1 assumes that God communicates to the believer as sensible speech, i.e. an inner voice. God has many means of communication available to Him: visionary experience, compelling intuition, reason, scriptural revelation, contemplation of nature, or usually some combination of the above.

I think you're bullshitting, care to back up this claim?

Premise 4 calls on the person to ignore their senses in order to find God. This follows from taking premise 1 as a given. However, since multiple channels are available to God and some of these come to us by means of the senses, then 4 is not a precondition for arriving at your conclusion, 5.

I think you're bullshitting, care to back up this claim?

As we all know "from bullshit nothing follows"..............