What is Your Definition of Reasonable Faith?

[Minimalist]

"Reasonable Faith" is an oxymoron.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

However, to answer the question on it's merits, lol, that I don;t believe the god botherers when they tell me that there's a god isn't an objection.  It's just a statement of fact.  I, personally, object to their shitty gods strictures and systems and normative proclamations.  Which is why I tell them that the existence of their god is irrelevant to my status of faith.  Their faiths fail, for me, not on grounds of the existence of their god...but on ethical/moral grounds unrelated to the existence of a deity.

Thanks for your reply, Rhythm.  I personally do not have any requisite evidence for the existence of a deity, because IMO, humanity has not even really properly defined the term: IMO, it is like being told to simplify a mathematical problem without a complete understanding of what the domain is, and if we don't know what the domain is, then how do we know that the range will produce valid outputs for all possible inputs? Hence, I don't see a difference between a search for deities and a seti search for alien lifeforms: call them deities if that's what one's heart wants, but IMO,  it could just as easily be called something else and perhaps something more accurate if we interpret it with reason rather than wishful thinking.

[The Grand Nudger]

Thanks for your reply, Rhythm.  I personally do not have any requisite evidence for the existence of a deity, because IMO, humanity has not even really properly defined the term: IMO, it is like being told to simplify a mathematical problem without a complete understanding of what the domain is, and if we don't know what the domain is, then how do we know that the range will produce valid outputs for all possible inputs?

OFC we have.  The definition being consistently wrong doesn't mean that the term hasn't been continuously defined and re-defined. Theres no one on earth who hears a person use the word god in any language and thinks to themselves "well, wtf is that, total noncognitive, no idea what you're talking about".

Hence, I don't see a difference between a search for deities and a seti search for alien lifeforms: call them deities if that's what one's heart wants, but IMO,  it could just as easily be called something else and perhaps something more accurate if we interpret it with reason rather than wishful thinking.

I can help with that.  SETI concerns life that may exist out there, in the universe, and equipment capable of..at least potentially, detecting such life in a demonstrable fashion.  While the search for some god is neither a search for life, or for anything "out there" in the universe, nor does it require or entail equipment that could then be pointed to as a certifier or demonstration of it's results.

You can easily call something anything you like. You can't easily make whatever you've called that thing accurate. This ground leveling shit between SETI and faith is pure idiocy. That won;t even be lost on a believer, who would gleefully tell you that the search for a god is not the search for some alien. Whether or not -they- could tell a difference between the two is amusing, but non-informative as to a -god- or SETI. Should SETI pick up what they;re looking for, from the other end...the last thing they'll tell you is "hey, we just found Zues!" Both believers -and- SETI know better.....even if you, personally, don't or couldn't tell the difference.

Now, I'm almost certain that you employed some variation of the texas sharpshooter in concluding the above, but you can honestly spare me the details of sloppy thinking. I'm already well acquainted with such in the context of gods.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

OFC we have.  The definition being consistently wrong doesn't mean that the term hasn't been continuously defined and re-defined.  Theres no one on earth who hears a person use the word god in any language and thinks to themselves "well, wtf is that, total noncognitive, no idea what you're talking about".

 
Agreed. People have conceptions/definitions of what a god is.  However, can we make use of these definitions as we would mathematical definitions in writing mathematical proofs and solving mathematical problems?  Hence, can we make use of god definitions/concepts with the same exactness and precision that we can use mathematical definitions/concepts? That is what I was curious about. 
 

You can easily call something anything you like.  You can't easily make whatever you've called that thing accurate.  This ground leveling shit between SETI and faith is pure idiocy.

 
After reading your post and seeing the concept of a god from the perspective described in your post, I couldn't help but laugh at myself.  You have given my king a well-deserved check, sir. 
 

I can help with that.  SETI concerns life that may exist out there, in the universe, and equipment capable of..at least potentially, detecting such life in a demonstrable fashion.  While the search for some god is neither a search for life, or for anything "out there" in the universe, nor does it require or entail equipment that could then be pointed to as a certifier or demonstration of it's results.

 
 
Thank you for taking the time to clarify the difference, but I already understood this.  My aim in that post, which was poorly communicated by me, was to ask the following question: is this conception of god actually beyond a "search for life" or "anything out there"?  In essence, by saying that "the search for some god is neither a search for life, or for anything "out there" in the universe, nor does it require or entail equipment that could then be pointed to as a certifier or demonstration of it's results," are we closing off our imagination/understanding to matters which can actually be understood, searched for, and demonstrated to exist in our reality? Do god concepts ultimately inhibit human growth and humanity's understanding of the reality they occupy?

[The Grand Nudger]

 
Agreed. People have conceptions/definitions of what a god is.  However, can we make use of these definitions as we would mathematical definitions in writing mathematical proofs and solving mathematical problems?  Hence, can we make use of god definitions/concepts with the same exactness and precision that we can use mathematical definitions/concepts? That is what I was curious about. 

I'd say that we could, but we don't...that's -why- failed concepts and definitions persist in the face of refutation.  If god concepts were an issue of exactness and precision they;d have long ago fell by the wayside.  God, for most, is a fuzzy feeling.  

After reading your post and seeing the concept of a god from the perspective described in your post, I couldn't help but laugh at myself.  You have given my king a well-deserved check, sir. 

I appreciate your amusement, truly.  I'm all about the lulz.   
 

Thank you for taking the time to clarify the difference, but I already understood this.  My aim in that post, which was poorly communicated by me, was to ask the following question: is this conception of god actually beyond a "search for life" or "anything out there"?  In essence, by saying that "the search for some god is neither a search for life, or for anything "out there" in the universe, nor does it require or entail equipment that could then be pointed to as a certifier or demonstration of it's results," are we closing off our imagination/understanding to matters which can actually be understood, searched for, and demonstrated to exist in our reality? Do god concepts ultimately inhibit human growth and humanity's understanding of the reality they occupy?

Depends on who you mean by "we".  You, for example, make the comparison between alien and divine entities.  God botherers resent such comparisons, deeply. As to the other bit, whether or not god concepts limit human growth...I can only point to a specific example and return the question to the one who asked. Christians believe in vicarious redemption. They have sacrificed the better man for their own gain. They accept this as the foundational pillar of their faith. That's what it means, to them, to be Christ...and what differentiates them from jews, who believe that to be the christ is to be something else (and theyre still waiting).

What do you think? Does the faithful adherence to notions of vicarious redemption inhibit human growth, or an understanding of the reality they occupy?

[Edwardo Piet]

My definition of reasonable faith?

Non-existent faith.

[The Grand Nudger]

Reason finds no use for faith and vv.  If you have the one, you have no need of the other.

[Mystic]

I don't understand and I don't see are just proofs that "I" is ignorant or doesn't see something. Doesn't mean much.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, that's the only explanation for the absence of the divine.....ignorance, lol.  It couldn't be that the divine., is...you know..absent. Heaven forfend that you're a gullible mark taken in by con artists.  



Who was it that sent you to those people again...your family...that "loves" you?

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

What do you think?  Does the faithful adherence to notions of vicarious redemption inhibit human growth, or an understanding of the reality they occupy?

I'm flattered that you returned the question back to me, but I'm not an intellectual (I'm just a guy asking questions), nor am I an expert in theistic matters.  To be candid and honest, you would probably get a better answer from one of AF's open-minded theists.  Is anyone up for the challenge?