It All Comes Down to Faith

[themadhair]

I for one never said that everything that exists has a creator but every creation does have a creator.

You have assumed creation. Assuming your premise is a logical fallacy known as circular reasoning.

 

[MoonWater]

You are still doing it! You're assuming the world was created and then declaring that the assumed creation needs a creator. Your first premise needs to establish that the world was created and then, and only then, can you introduce your Creator.

Science itself says the universe was created... by the big bang. So it seems to me as the the universe being created has already been established.

 

[themadhair]

Science itself says the universe was created... by the big bang.

Nope.

 

[cottage]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...comes-down-faith-post1573606.html#post1573606
What nonsense is this? It isn't the business of dictionaries to identify and enumerate every form of bigotry under each heading.

And I'm saying faith is prejudiced. I didn't give a definition of faith. Faith is a strong and committed belief in the supernatural, or some other element understood to control or influence human destiny. I agree entirely with that.


That is merely one aspect or form of faith, that's not all faith can be. It's not what I "have faith" in. Again how can faith be prejudiced when:
I can’t review, amend or retract what I’ve written on the basis of you saying: ‘It’s not what I have faith in’. Explain your faith to me and I’ll be pleased to consider it in the light of what I’ve written above. Is that fair?

Quote:
Originally Posted by moonwater
not everyone of faith "holds dogmatically to a particular view as if it were certain." I don't and have met numerous other people on and off these forums who don't either. It could be considered prejudiced to believe without doubt that your view is true and others are false and that is certainly a view many people of faith hold; but one is not required to hold that view in order to have faith. Indeed the above I would say is not "faith" but is "blind faith" and there is a distinct difference between the two.



I most certainly do not ‘believe without doubt that my view is true’, but consider it to be correct on the basis that I’ve outlined: in my original post I said: I don’t hold the view dogmatically that ‘there is no God’. The word ‘God’ may be replaced by any metaphysical belief or object of faith.

 

[Fatihah]

You are still doing it! You're assuming the world was created and then declaring that the assumed creation needs a creator. Your first premise needs to establish that the world was created and then, and only then, can you introduce your Creator.

Response: And you are still dismsissing the premise of providing a more logical claim that the world was not created. It works both ways. We know for a fact and can prove that things come into existence from a creator. The t.v., car, stereo, etc. They all are creations from a creator. So to say that the existence of something is a creation from a creator is not far fetched. So when we talk about the universe and life itself, you must now provide a more logical explaination of the origin of something existing other than it being created but you don't have one. Therefore, until you have done so, there is nothing more logical than the universe and life coming from a creator and since it is the most logical and nothing can be provided to to show more logic, then it has to be the truth.

 

[cottage]

Science itself says the universe was created... by the big bang. So it seems to me as the the universe being created has already been established.

The Big Bang was a physical event. So all you are saying is the physical world was caused by another physical event. Nobody is questioning the existence of cause and effect in the physical world. The case being made by the mystics is that all physical phenomena is caused by something which is not itself physical.

 

[Riverwolf]

Last I checked, numbers obeyed the laws of logic.

But are nevertheless abstract concepts that don't in actuality exist.

WE created them to help us organize the universe so we can understand it better. And mathematics is always evolving; I do believe that the highest form of mathematics, which we will likely never achieve before we go extinct, can organize and help us understand God.

 

[Riverwolf]

You are splitting hairs. By all means replace 'thing' with 'concept', 'entity' or whatever else you consider suitable.

Please explain how I'm splitting hairs.

If a word is inadequate to name or describe something, then it should not be used in relation to that thing. In this case, the "thing" is not a thing at all, and therefore words that imply physicality should not be used.

 

[Riverwolf]

I'm sorry but I don't know what it is that you want to say. If you are saying Supreme Being isn't a part of the material world then I agree. But if you are saying the material world isn't a part of Supreme Being then I disagree.

"God" the Creator isn't part of the material world, according to some faiths.

I personally believe in the Supreme Being as the Universe itself: Brahman. Not separate at all.

Now, explain how you feel that the material world isn't part of God. Because that's the case in many religions.

 

[MoonWater]

Science itself says the universe was created... by the big bang. So it seems to me as the the universe being created has already been established.

riverwolf has just helped to point out to me that this is poor wording on my part. Nevermind

 

[themadhair]

Response: And you are still dismsissing the premise of providing a more logical claim that the world was not created.

[hep-th/0611246] The Cosmological Slingshot Scenario: A Stringy Early Times Universe

So when we talk about the universe and life itself, you must now provide a more logical explaination of the origin of something existing other than it being created but you don't have one.

But Fatihah, you haven’t provided an explanation for people to require an alternative to. Your logic is arguing that the universe had a cause (which may or may not be true) – to assign a creator/intelligence to this is pure unfounded assertion on your part. I’m happy to say ‘I don’t know’ rather than take comfort in a story that is made up.

Therefore, until you have done so, there is nothing more logical than the universe and life coming from a creator and since it is the most logical and nothing can be provided to to show more logic, then it has to be the truth.

Do we need a creator for every thunderbolt? Do we need a creator for every human being? Do we need a creator for every snowflake? No we don’t – so to proudly proclaim a creator as being logical without any foundational basis is illogical.

 

[themadhair]

But are nevertheless abstract concepts that don't in actuality exist.

Isn't god similar?

 

[Riverwolf]

Isn't god similar?

In a way.

"God" is a human-made concept that is our best estimate as to what the universe is and how it came to be.

Numbers don't exist, but they can be used to organize things that do exist.

"God" may not exist, but the concept can be used as a description (albeit one that may not be very accurate) of what does exist.

Now... that's what I believe.

In terms of a Creator, the Creator is an entity or force that is conscience, but outside of normal reality. It cannot be described by modern science, so poetry is needed. (Even that's inadequate.) And that poetry can be found in the religious texts of religions that believe in a Creator.

 

[themadhair]

In terms of a Creator, the Creator is an entity or force that is conscience, but outside of normal reality.

I couldn’t hear you over the unfounded unjustified assertions you just made.

 

[Fatihah]

You have assumed creation. Assuming your premise is a logical fallacy known as circular reasoning.

Response: You are assuming that I have assumed creation which is a wrong assumption.

 

[MoonWater]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
What nonsense is this? It isn't the business of dictionaries to identify and enumerate every form of bigotry under each heading.

And I'm saying faith is prejudiced. I didn't give a definition of faith. Faith is a strong and committed belief in the supernatural, or some other element understood to control or influence human destiny. I agree entirely with that.


That is merely one aspect or form of faith, that's not all faith can be. It's not what I "have faith" in. Again how can faith be prejudiced when:
I can’t review, amend or retract what I’ve written on the basis of you saying: ‘It’s not what I have faith in’. Explain your faith to me and I’ll be pleased to consider it in the light of what I’ve written above. Is that fair?

While I certainly don't mind explaining my personal faith and spiritual journey I fail to see why that knowledge is necessary in this regard. I was listing myself as one example. I certainly don't expect you to completely change your mind based on just my testimony. The thing is I'm not the only one telling you that you are mistaken in viewing faith as prejudiced, I'm just the only one continuing the argument. Storm and a couple others here who also(from what I understand, I could be wrong) are people "of faith" have told you that this idea is skewed and shows a very narrow-minded idea of what faith is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by moonwater
not everyone of faith "holds dogmatically to a particular view as if it were certain." I don't and have met numerous other people on and off these forums who don't either. It could be considered prejudiced to believe without doubt that your view is true and others are false and that is certainly a view many people of faith hold; but one is not required to hold that view in order to have faith. Indeed the above I would say is not "faith" but is "blind faith" and there is a distinct difference between the two.



I most certainly do not ‘believe without doubt that my view is true’, but consider it to be correct on the basis that I’ve outlined: in my original post I said: I don’t hold the view dogmatically that ‘there is no God’. The word ‘God’ may be replaced by any metaphysical belief or object of faith.

And many people who have faith in god don't hold the view dogmatically either. If you not holding to your particular view dogmatically means you are not prejudiced then how does another person who also doesn't hold to their view dogmatically become prejudiced simply because their view involves having faith in something?

 

[Riverwolf]

I couldn’t hear you over the unfounded unjustified assertions you just made.

Neither could I.

Perhaps you could, instead of simply telling me that I'm wrong, EXPLAIN TO ME HOW I'M WRONG!!!! Otherwise I'll continue to wallow in my ignorance, and will never learn.

And I want to learn.

I beg of you, pick apart my unfounded, unjustified assertions, and explain to me why they are such, and what I may do to correct my arguments. I won't be able to go back to school until August.

 

[themadhair]

Response: You are assuming that I have assumed creation which is a wrong assumption.

It is true Fatihah. You have assumed creation.

You could prove me wrong by providing something religious apologists have failed to do for centuries. I won't be holding my breath.

 

[MoonWater]

[hep-th/0611246] The Cosmological Slingshot Scenario: A Stringy Early Times Universe


But Fatihah, you haven’t provided an explanation for people to require an alternative to. Your logic is arguing that the universe had a cause (which may or may not be true) – to assign a creator/intelligence to this is pure unfounded assertion on your part. I’m happy to say ‘I don’t know’ rather than take comfort in a story that is made up.


Do we need a creator for every thunderbolt? Do we need a creator for every human being? Do we need a creator for every snowflake? No we don’t – so to proudly proclaim a creator as being logical without any foundational basis is illogical.

except those things do have a creator... nature.

 

[themadhair]

I beg of you, pick apart my unfounded, unjustified assertions, and explain to me why they are such, and what I may do to correct my arguments. I won't be able to go back to school until August.

I’ll highlight them for you:

In terms of a Creator, the Creator is an entity or force that is conscience, but outside of normal reality. It cannot be described by modern science, so poetry is needed. (Even that's inadequate.)