What is Faith?

[Sunstone]

In other words; There are more than one view of this.

The presence of more than one view shouldn't confuse you. There is more than one view of nearly everything. That does not mean that all views are right. Zen is no more in the Western philosophical tradition than Aristotle, Descartes, and Wittgenstein were Zen practitioners.

What about the concept of "Buddha nature" that permeates all of existence? I am aware that not all Buddhists see it as "supernatural", but if it is not a part of observable reality then its claim is as unsubstantiated as that of a god or gods, which means that it fits nicely into the category I described.

In the first place, aren't you now arguing something different than you were a moment ago? Namely, you began by arguing that all religions asserted there were unobservable realities. Now you seem to be arguing that Buddhism asserts supernatural realities. Those two things are perhaps easily confused but they are not the same. So which are you asserting? One, the other, or both?

 

[darkendless]

\

Nice. Are you the self appointed and self important forum police, then? If you can't get technical about religion on a religious forum, where can you get technical about religion?

No. Its just amusing to see debates break down so quickly because certain beliefs are ignored, then the debate turns into religion and philosophy..... etc etc.

 

[jarofthoughts]

The presence of more than one view shouldn't confuse you. There is more than one view of nearly everything. That does not mean that all views are right. Zen is no more in the Western philosophical tradition than Aristotle, Descartes, and Wittgenstein were Zen practitioners.

I hope you are not equating the word "philosophy" with just Western Philosophy?

In the first place, aren't you now arguing something different than you were a moment ago? Namely, you began by arguing that all religions asserted there were unobservable realities. Now you seem to be arguing that Buddhism asserts supernatural realities. Those two things are perhaps easily confused but they are not the same. So which are you asserting? One, the other, or both?

From the Online Oxford Dictionary:
Supernatural: 'attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature'
Unobservable: 'not able to be observed'
Science: 'the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment'

They are not terribly different either and in the context of our discussion they are essentially interchangeable.

So in short, you may assume that I am asserting both.

 

[Berndt Tötterman]

Brothers and sisters in Christ,may His peace be with You.
Faith is the very foundation of believing in God. As someone once said,"You can't fall deeper then in Gods hands". I put my self in Gods hands every day,and I feel secure,I guess that is faith.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Not to invoke Plato's cave metaphor here but you are now postulating that there is something outside the box

You dont think that there are only 4 dimensions of spacetime* do you?

You think this universe is the only one?

Interesting...as M theory predicts otherwise.... even more exotic in some ways than the quantum many worlds multiverse theory.

''A multiverse of a somewhat different kind has been envisaged within the multi-dimensional extension of string theory known as M-theory, also known as Membrane Theory.[13] In M-theory our universe and others are created by collisions between p-branes in a space with 11 and 26 dimensions (the number of dimensions depends on the chirality of the observer);[14][15] each universe takes the form of a D-brane.[14][15] Objects in each universe are essentially confined to the D-brane of their universe, but may be able to interact with other universes via gravity, a force which is not restricted to D-branes.[16] This is unlike the universes in the "quantum multiverse", but both concepts can operate at the same time...''

Wiki

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Doesn't matter. If they postulate something outside of observable reality and therefore something which cannot be empirically shown to be correct then they fall into the same category.

They postulate explanations for things science cannot mainly...such as the supernatural and why we are here? (the scientific reductionist answer 'because we are' is of little use to many, seems logically bankrupt) type questions...they are all have different spins on the answers.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Brothers and sisters in Christ,may His peace be with You.
Faith is the very foundation of believing in God. As someone once said,"You can't fall deeper then in Gods hands". I put my self in Gods hands every day,and I feel secure,I guess that is faith.

Good luck to you.

 

[jarofthoughts]

You dont think that there are only 4 dimensions of spacetime* do you?

You think this universe is the only one?

Not at all.
But I do think that there is nothing that is not physical.
I don't think that there is anything supernatural about these other potential dimensions and universes.

 

[jarofthoughts]

They postulate explanations for things science cannot mainly...such as the supernatural and why we are here? (the scientific reductionist answer 'because we are' is of little use to many, seems logically bankrupt) type questions...they are all have different spins on the answers.

But in most cases they postulate explanations for things they have yet to show needs an explanation, i.e. that the things they explain even exist at all.
Also, without objective evidence their explanations amount to nothing more than mere opinion.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Brothers and sisters in Christ,may His peace be with You.
Faith is the very foundation of believing in God. As someone once said,"You can't fall deeper then in Gods hands". I put my self in Gods hands every day,and I feel secure,I guess that is faith.

Good luck with that.

Also, you might want to have another look at the grammar of your signature.

One Jesus is.
Two Jesuses are.

 

[Willamena]

But it is, if something is supposed to exist. Maybe we're talking past each other.

Nobody doubts that people BELIEVE.

Atheists doubt that the thing believed in exists -- which requires justification to suppose exists, by anyone.

Yes, justification is required to demonstrate that something exists; and it's a good thing, to demonstrate, if you're looking at discussing an ontological issue. But the topic is faith, and faith is present where something is already believed in. It is believed in with evidence, and the evidence of things experiential doesn't have to be justified --you agreed to this earlier.

It doesn't matter if atheists don't have faith in "God" --in fact, it's not even surprising. It doesn't mean "there is no God," it just means they haven't defined "God".

 

[lunamoth]

As they say, you can't step into the same stream twice, and this thread certainly has moved on since I last posted.

It appears, in sum, that the atheist position is that one can't have faith in God unless one can prove God ontologically exists, or unless God is objectively obvious. OK then! No surprises there.

I would throw out there for reflection, though, the question of how one could measure or objectively prove the existence of an omnipresent God. If God is the basis of reality, the ground of being, there is going to be no ontological 'where' that God is not.

 

[jarofthoughts]

It appears, in sum, that the atheist position is that one can't have faith in God unless one can prove God ontologically exists, or unless God is objectively obvious. OK then! No surprises there.

Actually I think that most atheist don't have a problem recognizing that people DO and CAN have faith in anything, but that unless the existence of God can be backed up with objective evidence, then that belief is belief without evidence, also known as Blind Faith.

I would throw out there for reflection, though, the question of how one could measure or objectively prove the existence of an omnipresent God. If God is the basis of reality, the ground of being, there is going to be no ontological 'where' that God is not.

Perhaps not, but since there is no evidence that there is a god, then there is no reason to think one exists.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Not at all.
But I do think that there is nothing that is not physical.
I don't think that there is anything supernatural about these other potential dimensions and universes.

You think everything that is real is physical?
Hmmm..interesting philosophy...ever heard of Plato's world?
Supranatural would be a better word....

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Perhaps not, but since there is no evidence that there is a god, then there is no reason to think one exists.

Some consider life forms, stars, physical constants, the symmetry of flowers, the order that manifests from chaos etc..as evidence of a creator God/Intelligence/Power

 

[Revoltingest]

Some consider life forms, stars, physical constants, the symmetry of flowers, the order that manifests from chaos etc..as evidence of a creator God/Intelligence/Power

For me, stars, physical constants, etc are evidence of their own existence.
To read any more than that into it is above my pay grade.

 

[jarofthoughts]

You think everything that is real is physical?

Yup. And don't give me that line about "freedom" or "love" or other philosophical concepts. We'll be here all night and we both know that is not what we're discussing here...

Hmmm..interesting philosophy...ever heard of Plato's world?

Yup. Interesting philosophical concept and possibly a solution to the problem of universals, which again are mere philosophical problems.

Supranatural would be a better word....

Or, you know, a thought experiment, like so many things related to philosophy.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Some consider life forms, stars, physical constants, the symmetry of flowers, the order that manifests from chaos etc..as evidence of a creator God/Intelligence/Power

And some people eat mushrooms in the woods.
What's your point?

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Define 'physical' for me jarofthoughts...I am intrigued.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

And some people eat mushrooms in the woods.
What's your point?

My point is that your point of view is subjective.

Based on your understanding of the point of science...which is to measure, observe, formulate theory and then use it to create a model or equation that makes accurate predictions.
That does not answer meta physical questions...that is the province of religion and philosophy...which you seem to consider irrelevant...fine...but others feel the need to ask these deeper questions, they are not content with soulless reductionist nihlism and why should they be eh?