Is Faith reasonable?

[waitasec]

Belief is foundation.

You don't have any.

i believe...
you are wrong
as i have evidence to support my belief.

prove me wrong...oh yeah you can't.
how convenient for you

weak.

 

[ChristineES]

i believe...
you are wrong
as i have evidence to support my belief.

prove me wrong...oh yeah you can't.
how convenient for you

weak.

The good thing is that he doesn't need to prove you wrong. Faith isn't about proof anyway- we say that over and over again. It is obvious to us and to yourself that you have no belief in God.

 

[Daviso452]

And as always ....faith requires no proving.

I suppose you don't believe in the afterlife?

This is what I want to discuss. How do you know your faith is correct if it cannot be proven? Or do you agree that faith is on a personal basis and cannot be used for others?

If so, then what are your personal reasons for your faith?

Also, I wanted to comment on this from a different thread:

I suppose the best answer...as there is no proof for the faith....
Do my words have that 'ring of truth'?

Often you can 'see' through the dialog and realize what is being handed to you and why.
Sometimes it's difficult.

As a rogue theologian, I take the time and effort, sort through the dialog...
as it may well be....all I take with me from this life....
is what I can say with certainty.

But what qualifies to be in your "ring of truth"? Is that not evidence for what the claim is?

And does this mean that you believe we are purposefully deceiving people without actually believing it ourselves?

 

[waitasec]

The good thing is that he doesn't need to prove you wrong. Faith isn't about proof anyway- we say that over and over again. It is obvious to us and to yourself that you have no belief in God.

there is a difference between a belief in a god and a belief in a particular god's attributes..

does that make sense?

 

[bigbadgirl]

It's entirely possible that he has no faith as he has described it.


One day, they woke me up, so I could live forever...
It's such a shame you think you need to be divine to be immortal.

I am not a he.

 

[PolyHedral]

Oops, sorry.

 

[Thief]

This is what I want to discuss. How do you know your faith is correct if it cannot be proven? Or do you agree that faith is on a personal basis and cannot be used for others?

If so, then what are your personal reasons for your faith?

Also, I wanted to comment on this from a different thread:


But what qualifies to be in your "ring of truth"? Is that not evidence for what the claim is?

And does this mean that you believe we are purposefully deceiving people without actually believing it ourselves?

Have you also noted my signature?

The questions you now ask are fundamental.
How does anyone know he has been told the truth...or lied to?
Especially in discussion that inherently has no proving?

Been here three years.
By chance have you been reading the rest of my handiwork?

Once in awhile I'll post something for which there is no return.
If a 'nay' saying could have been offered...someone would have.
There's plenty of denial here at the forum.

Starting points are important.
Have you chosen?....spirit or substance.

 

[Prophet]

In a being unattached to beliefs, reasoning leads to truth.

 

[darkendless]

You can reason anything with enough philosophy. Faith may be reasonable but it it is definately not logical.

 

[Looncall]

Well there is a difference between faith and fideism, which people tend to miss. What faith really entails is inferring what is true based logic upon reaching the end of what science knows and what logic can help truly understand. If you believe that all things need a cause, you can eventually infer that Spirit, God, or something else exists, even though it cannot be scientifically proven and logic really cannot aid us in understanding what cannot be understood.

Fideism, on the other hand, is when someone does not care about and even goes against logical and scientific evidence in their beliefs. To the fideist, what they believe does not need any validation, that defeats the purpose. Kierkegaard is a good example of a fideist I believe. Some are so against firm in their fideism that you could give them a sound argument against their beliefs and back it up with scientific proof, and it will not change them.

i would think that if something cannot be understood, it cannot be understood. How does the wishful thinking of faith help? Or does it merely provide comforting delusion?

 

[thau]

I am starting this thread as a means of discussing the concept of faith; what it is, the reasons for it, and how it compare's to a skeptic's idea of "evidence."

Your question is highly ambiguous. What do you mean by "faith?"

You think we need faith to prove the existence of God, or at least, supernatual manifestations? Hardly.

Faith only comes into play for me when considering certain aspects of the Christian religion. For instance: The God we know exists, tells us also that when we Catholics receive communion we are receiving the body and blood of Jesus Christ. That we believe on faith, because of all that we already know which requires no faith.

 

[PolyHedral]

Confidence is reasonable; faith is not.

 

[fishy]

Your question is highly ambiguous. What do you mean by "faith?"

You think we need faith to prove the existence of God, or at least, supernatual manifestations? Hardly.

Faith only comes into play for me when considering certain aspects of the Christian religion. For instance: The God we know exists, tells us also that when we Catholics receive communion we are receiving the body and blood of Jesus Christ. That we believe on faith, because of all that we already know which requires no faith.

What is it you "know" that requires no faith?

 

[waitasec]

Your question is highly ambiguous. What do you mean by "faith?"

You think we need faith to prove the existence of God, or at least, supernatual manifestations? Hardly.

Faith only comes into play for me when considering certain aspects of the Christian religion. For instance: The God we know exists, tells us also that when we Catholics receive communion we are receiving the body and blood of Jesus Christ. That we believe on faith, because of all that we already know which requires no faith.

religious faith

 

[Quiddity]

vanityofvanitys,

waitasec has no comprehension of metaphysical arguments. She trys making sloppy philosophical arguments herself and then demands evidence in the process. She doesn't even realize that she is pinning philosophical arguments against religious faith as if they were even speaking the same language. She'll do this until blue in the face and declare victory.

I personally don't have the patience for it, but I thought I'd let you know what you are in for.

Peace be with you

 

[waitasec]

vanityofvanitys,

waitasec has no comprehension of metaphysical arguments. She trys making sloppy philosophical arguments herself and then demands evidence in the process. She doesn't even realize that she is pinning philosophical arguments against religious faith as if they were even speaking the same language. She'll do this until blue in the face and declare victory.

I personally don't have the patience for it, but I thought I'd let you know what you are in for.

Peace be with you

some one is bitter...

 

[idav]

Confidence is reasonable; faith is not.

Confidence isn't always reasonable. Faith doesn't always mean having no evidence. It's the degree of faith that is the question relative to how much we actually know.

 

[waitasec]

Confidence isn't always reasonable. Faith doesn't always mean having no evidence. It's the degree of faith that is the question relative to how much we actually know.

unfounded confidence is definitely unreasonable
faith supported by evidence is justified confidence

 

[backwateru]

You can reason anything with enough philosophy. Faith may be reasonable but it it is definately not logical.

The only thing that is logical is what you can prove to me.

 

[waitasec]

The only thing that is logical is what you can prove to me.

one wonders what criteria does one hold to make something provable to them..
on one hand people take the bible at face value and on the other hand they dismiss empirical evidence...