It All Comes Down to Faith

[themadhair]

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

If you want to call that a creation then go for it. In either event your semantic bs isn’t changing the fact that no creator is involved in the process.

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

Just that you are assuming too much Fatihah.

 

[Fatihah]

[QUOTE:themadhair]If you want to call that a creation then go for it. In either event your semantic bs isn’t changing the fact that no creator is involved in the process.

Response: If there's a creation, there's a creator.

 

[themadhair]

Response: If there's a creation, there's a creator.

You have to demonstrate the universe meets the definition of a creation requiring a creator. Semantics are not a substitute for a logical argument Fatihah, and all you are doing is assuming your conclusion.

The argument that the ‘first cause’ = ‘god’ is dealt with here:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/81193-argument-contingency-world.html

 

[Fatihah]

[QUOTE:themadhair]You have to demonstrate the universe meets the definition of a creation requiring a creator. Semantics are not a substitute for a logical argument Fatihah, and all you are doing is assuming your conclusion.

Response: On the contrary, you have to show a more logical explanation of something existing besides it being created by a creator.

 

[MoonWater]

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.

I agree. But what you describe is only one kind of faith, often known as "blind faith". And that is the problem with your argument. Faith is by no means limited to "a dogmatic view that some unsubstantiated and preconceived object or ideology cannot be false, and therefore any objection renders the objector in the wrong" as you seem to be claiming. Indeed to claim such shows a very limited and narrow-minded understanding of the term "faith".

 

[smitten508]

First let me say I am a believer in diety. Now allow that I am a believer in science. If the big bang occured, as I believe, then where did all the matter in the universe come from? I'm not a God of the gaps kinda guy. If the universe is eternal then isn't IT God? If it hasn't been in existence for eternity, then doesn't that allow room for a Creator? If not, how so?

 

[Thief]

Thief here...
It's not all that complicated.
Once in motion an object will remain in motion, and constant.
The big bang is a situation not having motion at the 'point' of singularity.
Once the substance of the singularity begins to expand...it will do so in all directions...uniformly....leaving at the center a void.
But that's not what we see when we look up.

The rotation had to be initiated....before... the expansion begins.
The premise of cause and effect now comes into play.
We do not deny the laws of motion.
Therefore....if the singularity had been idle....there would be only expansion...no rotation.
But we see rotation in all things above us.

There was a cause for that....and it had to be there before the expansion began.

 

[cottage]

I agree. But what you describe is only one kind of faith, often known as "blind faith". And that is the problem with your argument. Faith is by no means limited to "a dogmatic view that some unsubstantiated and preconceived object or ideology cannot be false, and therefore any objection renders the objector in the wrong" as you seem to be claiming. Indeed to claim such shows a very limited and narrow-minded understanding of the term "faith".

It seems to me that you want to wear a hair shirt on the behalf of all believers by misrepresenting my post as faith = prejudice. Faith may indeed be prejudiced and my argument is that where the dogmatic view is held that 'there is no God is false' (or any other mystical or metaphysical belief, the Noble Truths, karma, or anything else you wish to put in its place) then that is a prejudiced view by definition. If your faith or anyone else's doesn't fall under the terms I've described then don't include it and pretend to be offended.

 

[themadhair]

Response: On the contrary, you have to show a more logical explanation of something existing besides it being created by a creator.

I linked to such a paper. How many times did I have to re-iterate that for you now?

And again Fatihah – you haven’t presented something requiring an alternative. Assuming what you want to be true doesn’t make it so.

If it hasn't been in existence for eternity, then doesn't that allow room for a Creator? If not, how so?

Relevant thread:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/81193-argument-contingency-world.html

Once the substance of the singularity begins to expand...it will do so in all directions...uniformly....leaving at the center a void.

There can’t be a void. Seriously Thief, if you misunderstand big bang theory to the point where you think it is an expansion into space (capable of leaving a void) rather than an expansion of space then maybe you should do some reading?

The rotation had to be initiated....before... the expansion begins.

Angular moment has been conserved. Localised clumping and ‘violations’ become homogenous when taken on a universal scale. If you think there has been a violation of these conservation laws then do feel free to inform the scientific community that you have found a hole they missed for decades.

Therefore....if the singularity had been idle....there would be only expansion...no rotation.

Are you implying the universe is rotating and not a universal equilibrium? You got some serious talking to do. It sounds to me that you are speaking without realising the implications of what you are saying. The last I checked the universe displayed large-scale homogeneity. Care to challenge that?

But we see rotation in all things above us.

Wot??? Are you referring to things like galaxies and planets that display localised angular momentum that, when summed over cosmic scales, adhere to the universal homogeneity? When I jump upwards where does that momentum come from? Nowhere – my momentum plus the earth’s momentum sum to zero adhering to the conservation laws. Just because you may experience localised momentums doesn’t mean those conservation laws have been violated.

There was a cause for that....and it had to be there before the expansion began.

Arguing for a first cause is not arguing for a creator. I tackled this canard here:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/81193-argument-contingency-world.html

 

[Storm]

It seems to me that you want to wear a hair shirt on the behalf of all believers by misrepresenting my post as faith = prejudice.

Well gee, maybe you shouldn't have said exactly that.

 

[MoonWater]

It seems to me that you want to wear a hair shirt on the behalf of all believers by misrepresenting my post as faith = prejudice. Faith may indeed be prejudiced and my argument is that where the dogmatic view is held that 'there is no God is false' (or any other mystical or metaphysical belief, the Noble Truths, karma, or anything else you wish to put in its place) then that is a prejudiced view by definition. If your faith or anyone else's doesn't fall under the terms I've described then don't include it and pretend to be offended.

I was not trying to misrepresent your posts cottage. From what I read that's what I saw you as trying to say. But it seems like we are actually in agreement and this whole debate has been because we didn't understand what the other person was saying.

And I wasn't "pretending to be offended" I wasn't offended at all and I'm not the type to pretend such things.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Do you believe in reality?

You'll have to be more specific. Please define your terms.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Response: My understanding and reasons for following islam is based on truth and has nothing to do with faith. I do not believe or have faith in Allah's existence. I know.

This is a good point to bring up. I suppose for some, their perception is that their belief isn't a matter of faith, but of knowledge. Then again, I used to know this crazy homeless guy who lived outside my dorm who knew that the CIA was listening to his thoughts. The point being that knowing something doesn't necessarily make it true, particularly when no objective evidence exists which supports your claim of knowledge.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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

I'll assume you're being intentionally obtuse.

 

[Quagmire]

And I suggest that if you were to read my post properly you would see I’m addressing ‘those of faith’. An agnostic is committed to no belief. And it is a trivial complaint to say I’m ‘denying the existence of entire groups of people’ when this is a public forum and they have the opportunity to make their own positions clear (which I welcome).

It wasn't a complaint, it was a critique. The fact that people belonging to the group you're denying or ignoring "have the opportunity to make their own positions clear" doesn't do anything to plug up the holes in your reasoning, it just points them out.

Because ‘there is no God’ isn’t a truth, anymore than ‘God exists’ is a truth. Therefore it is a preconception, a view held from dogmatism.

All you're doing here is re-stating your original position without addressing my objection to it.

 

[sandandfoam]

Any logical or philosophical argument for god's existence falls short.

I'm fine with that.

There is no proof, nor objective evidence, of god's existence.

This is a hard one because it so quickly falls into word games - I think my existence is proof of God's. I'm also fine with the knowledge that this view is not satisfactory to others.

Ultimately, any belief in a deity has to come down to faith, and faith alone.

I agree.

I am not a person who relies on faith, nor could, but I understand that we are all built differently, and they can change no more than I could.

Spot on. Couldn't agree more

I understand that many debate on here out of the enjoyment of debating, or as an intellectual exercise, but, at the end of the day, fully realize that it all comes down to faith, and their belief isn't based on logic, reason, or philosophical arguments.

I'd say it's based on a feeling but that's probably the same thing

How many believers here agree that, ultimately, their belief rests on faith?

Subject to the above I agree i.e. I'd say it's based on a feeling but that's probably the same thing

Is there anything more pure/noble/etc. about basing belief only on faith?

I don't think so

Is it better to try to formulate other arguments to bolster your faith?

That's not necessary. I'm not trying to convince anyone - I see things as I see them. To my mind rooting God in reason or argument is like trying to make a case for the beauty of sunrise with math

 

[cottage]

I was not trying to misrepresent your posts cottage. From what I read that's what I saw you as trying to say. But it seems like we are actually in agreement and this whole debate has been because we didn't understand what the other person was saying.

And I wasn't "pretending to be offended" I wasn't offended at all and I'm not the type to pretend such things.

Cool! Please ignore my ill-considered remarks. :bow:

 

[Willamena]

I'll assume you're being intentionally obtuse.

Not at all, though perhaps I have not considered all the options.

Can you give me an example of "belief in something for which there is no proof" that does not require trust?

 

[themadhair]

Can you give me an example of "belief in something for which there is no proof" that does not require trust?

Karma.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Not at all, though perhaps I have not considered all the options.

Can you give me an example of "belief in something for which there is no proof" that does not require trust?

Okay, I guess you're not.

The point is that "faith" has two primary definitions. For sake of clarity, I stated which one I was referring to, since many people default to using the definition "trust", when referring to "faith". Since using the definition "trust" wouldn't answer the question I was asking, I wanted to be clear up-front.