It All Comes Down to Faith

[Riverwolf]

A thing doesn't imply physical properties. 'Thing' is a very useful term for the very reason that there is no definitive explantion for what it must represent. Check your dictionary.

I see.

Third definition of "thing" by dictionary.com.

anything that is or may become an object of thought: things of the spirit.

I stand corrected. Yet I remain uncomfortable with using "thing" to describe God. Guess I'll have to get used to it.

 

[MoonWater]

Look, I'm quite prepared to accept that I'm wrong if you show me I'm wrong. But if you're going to just tell me I'm wrong, without any examples, then I'm afraid I must reject what you're telling me out of hand.

I did give you an example, myself. And I haven't "just been telling you you are wrong" If you think I have then maybe you need to go back and re-read what I said or point out where you feel I need to further expand on the topic. I also pointed out in just my last post that I don't expect you to completely change your mind based just on my testimony; just as your testimony alone isn't enough to get me to believe that faith is prejudiced.

This is all very simple. I'm not just speaking of 'having faith in something'. I have faith that it will rain sometime during the month. But I don't hold to that belief dogmatically. I'm saying if people have faith in God, that means they believe in God, suspending reason in the process. The Bible puts it very nicely for me: "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." (Hebrews 11:1) That is dogmatism.

And on my end it also "is very simple" or at least it seems so to me. You don't have to "suspend reason" in order to have faith in "god". There are many more god concepts out there than just the one presented in the bible and more kinds of faith. You don't have to be dogmatic in your faith in order to have faith to begin with.

Dogmatism is defined in the dictionary as:
"dogmatic character; unfounded positiveness in matters of opinion; arrogant assertion of opinions as truths."
This may or may not be present in the quote you give from the bible depending on how "assured" one's expectations are. And once more there are more definitions and more kinds of faith then simply the one spoken of in the bible.

 

[Willamena]

EDIT: In case it isn't clear, for the purposes of this thread, when referring to faith, I'm using the definition "belief in something for which there is no proof", not "trust."

Surely "belief in something for which there is no proof" requires "trust"?

 

[Thief]

Thief here....
So let's consider the singularity...and you get to participate.

Go all the way back to the genesis...see the singularity just as you will.
Now pinch it between your fingers, firmly.
When you release it...it will expand...like any explosion would do.
But in an absolute void...the expansion will be uniform in all manner.
All you would see in a hollow sphere of energy....no rotation.

Let it go...but snap your fingers when you do.
With rotation as an influence...the expansion will have spirals ...orbits ... revolutions...
Without the influence of rotation the universe would not be as we now see it.
The big bang had an influence...right before the expansion began.

There is a God.

 

[MoonWater]

Cottage let me clarify something. I am not trying to "prove you wrong" per se, only to show that the view you hold of faith and the conclusion you draw based on that view takes into account only one kind of faith and that is blind faith. Yes I too think that if someone holds dogmatically to a view, believing it to be the ultimate truth and all others to be false regardless IS prejudiced. But this is not the only kind of faith there is. One does not need to hold dogmatically to something in order to have faith in it. You don't need to see it as the ultimate truth or see all other views as false, all that is required to have faith is to put your trust in yourself and what you believe.

 

[themadhair]

Response: I can not have a discussion with a link. However, if you can provide your thought of the information on the link since this is your argument than I can comment.

Basic idea – by considering the universe as a multidimensional membrane that performed a slingshot across multi-dimensional spacetime there was no point of ‘creation’ in the big bang. Fully consistent with current observation but years away from providing any testable predictions. Interesting though and a very real alternative to a singularity scenario.

 

[dogsgod]

Surely "belief in something for which there is no proof" requires "trust"?

Prejudice.

 

[themadhair]

But in an absolute void...the expansion will be uniform in all manner.

One word – anisotropy.

All you would see in a hollow sphere of energy....no rotation.

Conservation of angular momentum has been preserved. Also – anisotropy.

The big bang had an influence...right before the expansion began.

Doesn’t follow on account of the above which you were not aware of.

There is a God.

You argument is for a first cause – not god.

 

[Willamena]

Prejudice.

It requires prejudice?

 

[cottage]

Cottage let me clarify something. I am not trying to "prove you wrong" per se, only to show that the view you hold of faith and the conclusion you draw based on that view takes into account only one kind of faith and that is blind faith. Yes I too think that if someone holds dogmatically to a view, believing it to be the ultimate truth and all others to be false regardless IS prejudiced. But this is not the only kind of faith there is. One does not need to hold dogmatically to something in order to have faith in it. You don't need to see it as the ultimate truth or see all other views as false, all that is required to have faith is to put your trust in yourself and what you believe.

I hear what you're saying, Moon, and I really don't disagree. However, I'm looking at a printout of my post, and what I said seems pretty clear to me. I asked a rhetorical question at the end: "where does the prejudiced view 'that there is no God is false' find its inception?" So I had set out quite specifically the circumstances where predjudice is evident. And I stand by that. To be honest, I don't really know what all the fuss has been about. In my view it is because for whatever reason some people see prejudice automatically as a bad or even an immoral thing, perhaps linking it with some of the more objectionable examples. And that is a mistake. We are all prejudiced. I'm prejudiced in my (far from extremist) political affiliation; I am prejudiced in favour of my family over strangers; I am prejudiced in favour of my philosophical views over others who take a different position; I am prejudiced in favour of my country (without being nationalistic). I sure I could go on. Tell me if I'm making sense.

 

[cottage]

I see.

Third definition of "thing" by dictionary.com.



I stand corrected. Yet I remain uncomfortable with using "thing" to describe God. Guess I'll have to get used to it.

Yes, I know what you mean. I tend to use 'concept' as that applies whether we believe or disbelieve in God.

 

[Riverwolf]

I hear what you're saying, Moon, and I really don't disagree. However, I'm looking at a printout of my post, and what I said seems pretty clear to me. I asked a rhetorical question at the end: "where does the prejudiced view 'that there is no God is false' find its inception?" So I had set out quite specifically the circumstances where predjudice is evident. And I stand by that. To be honest, I don't really know what all the fuss has been about. In my view it is because for whatever reason some people see prejudice automatically as a bad or even an immoral thing, perhaps linking it with some of the more objectionable examples. And that is a mistake. We are all prejudiced. I'm prejudiced in my (far from extremist) political affiliation; I am prejudiced in favour of my family over strangers; I am prejudiced in favour of my philosophical views over others who take a different position; I am prejudiced in favour of my country (without being nationalistic). I sure I could go on. Tell me if I'm making sense.

If that's what you're trying to say, then I think bias would be a more accurate term.

 

[Thief]

Thief here...Hey madhair...
You will confuse the visitors with that rebuttal.
Anisotropy did not exist before the big bang.
The initial blast would obey the primary laws of motion first.
All substance in all directions...uniformly.
Rotation would have to be in place before the big bang.
But the Cause would have to be God.

Unless of course you have a better...'impetus'.

 

[MoonWater]

I hear what you're saying, Moon, and I really don't disagree. However, I'm looking at a printout of my post, and what I said seems pretty clear to me. I asked a rhetorical question at the end: "where does the prejudiced view 'that there is no God is false' find its inception?" So I had set out quite specifically the circumstances where predjudice is evident. And I stand by that. To be honest, I don't really know what all the fuss has been about. In my view it is because for whatever reason some people see prejudice automatically as a bad or even an immoral thing, perhaps linking it with some of the more objectionable examples. And that is a mistake. We are all prejudiced. I'm prejudiced in my (far from extremist) political affiliation; I am prejudiced in favour of my family over strangers; I am prejudiced in favour of my philosophical views over others who take a different position; I am prejudiced in favour of my country (without being nationalistic). I sure I could go on. Tell me if I'm making sense.

I understand what your getting at cottage but I'm with river here, bias would be a better word. Or even "favoring" or "preference". People often use the term prejudice to refer to a person who thinks their group or their idea is superior to another group or idea. While you do need to be biased or have a preference in a particular direction in order to be prejudiced, but you don't have to be prejudiced in order to have a particular preference. Would you consider me prejudiced against chocolate ice cream because I happen to prefer vanilla ice cream?

if you wish to define "prejudice" as "bias" or "preference" then you would be right but those terms aren't exactly equal. Prejudice is a certain kind of "bias" or "preference", it isn't "bias" or "preference" in general.

 

[cottage]

If that's what you're trying to say, then I think bias would be a more accurate term.

Well, it goes without saying that someone with strong beliefs is biased. But prejudice isn't bias, such as a view that tends towards a certain direction, but a preconception, a view or idea largely formed beforehand and rigidly held, as per the example I gave in my OP.

 

[themadhair]

Anisotropy did not exist before the big bang.

And your basis for this claim is what exactly? You must realise that you making a supposition here that you have justification for doing so.

But the Cause would have to be God.

Aside from a desire for the above to be so, do you have anything to justify the cause being a god? When you talk about physics, and concepts related thereto, you are within the realm of science and unsupported justifications just won’t wash.

I tackled the claim that ‘first cause’ = ‘god’ in this thread if you want to take up that argument:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/81193-argument-contingency-world.html

One word of advice thief – don’t try to use science to support a theological based position when that same science itself probably does more damage to the argument you are proposing.

 

[cottage]

I understand what your getting at cottage but I'm with river here, bias would be a better word. Or even "favoring" or "preference". People often use the term prejudice to refer to a person who thinks their group or their idea is superior to another group or idea. While you do need to be biased or have a preference in a particular direction in order to be prejudiced, but you don't have to be prejudiced in order to have a particular preference. Would you consider me prejudiced against chocolate ice cream because I happen to prefer vanilla ice cream?

No, of course I wouldn't.

if you wish to define "prejudice" as "bias" or "preference" then you would be right but those terms aren't exactly equal. Prejudice is a certain kind of "bias" or "preference", it isn't "bias" or "preference" in general.

No, I certainly don't mean 'bias' or 'preference'; that would make no sense at all in terms of the example I gave in my OP. I would expect every believer (or sceptic) to be biased, as their views define that position. But a dogmatic view that some unsubstantiated and preconceived obect or ideology cannot be false, and therefore any objection renders the objector in the wrong, is to make a prejudicial judgement.

 

[Fatihah]

Basic idea – by considering the universe as a multidimensional membrane that performed a slingshot across multi-dimensional spacetime there was no point of ‘creation’ in the big bang. Fully consistent with current observation but years away from providing any testable predictions. Interesting though and a very real alternative to a singularity scenario.

Response: But if everything is supposed to have come from this multidimensional membrane, some creation was involved. And if there was creation, there is a creator.

 

[themadhair]

Response: But if everything is supposed to have come from this multidimensional membrane, some creation was involved.

Nope. It take the view that the universe is in a perpetual state of contraction/expansion without a creation point.

And if there was creation, there is a creator.

You are assuming creation again. Do you not see the gaping hole in having to assume the truth of your conclusion???

 

[Fatihah]

Nope. It take the view that the universe is in a perpetual state of contraction/expansion without a creation point.

Response: And contraction and expansion is a form of creating, the result being a creation.

Quote: themadhair
You are assuming creation again. Do you not see the gaping hole in having to assume the truth of your conclusion???

Response: But you've confirmed the truth in your post.