What is Faith?

[Primordial Annihilator]

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.

Money is of lesser value than knowledge (he says pompously)

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

''By its own definition, science is incapable of examining or testing for the existence of things that have no physical effects, because its methods rely on the observation of physical effects''

Wiki - Supernatural

I guess you mean by physical 'interacts with matter/energy and presumably gravity and other forces''.

So I posted the above quote from wiki to reflect my original argument into your definition.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Presuppositionalism.

Not quite. It's more usually, and usefully, called joyful participation. The "God" so believed in is believed in because it exists and is real, in exactly the same way the world exists and is real.

:yes:

 

[strikeviperMKII]

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.

I think you'll find that something 'existing' in 'reality' isn't as important as you think it is.

 

[jarofthoughts]

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

''By its own definition, science is incapable of examining or testing for the existence of things that have no physical effects, because its methods rely on the observation of physical effects''

Wiki - Supernatural

I guess you mean by physical 'interacts with matter/energy and presumably gravity and other forces''.

So I posted the above quote from wiki to reflect my original argument into your definition.

That would be a pretty accurate definition of how I see it, yes.

 

[jarofthoughts]

My point is that your point of view is subjective.

Actually, if anything, my point of view is empirical, which is different.

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?

Nobody has yet been able to convince me, or for that matter provide evidence, that there even is such a thing as the metaphysical, or as we call it, the supernatural.

I also think it is folly to consider questions about the soul, god, heaven, hell and so on as "deeper". You might as well say that wondering about leprechauns is "deeper".

Nihilism would be the wrong label as well since I in no way consider life to be meaningless. I merely postulate that everyone must find their own meaning and that there is no "ultimate" meaning to life.

I concede the point that it is "soulless" though, since I do not believe in any kind of supernatural soul, and reductionist would fit, at least in some cases, as I am an avid supporter of Occam's Razor.


Look, it's a bit like this:
1) We are physical beings. Check.
2) There is no reason to believe we are anything but physical beings. Check.
3) The supernatural/metaphysical does not by its very definition influence the physical, even if we suppose that there is such a thing. Check.
Conclusion: The supernatural/metaphysical is irrelevant and probably doesn't even exist.

 

[Meow Mix]

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".

This all avoids the fundamental question on what justifies belief in the existence of god(s).

 

[Meow Mix]

I think you'll find that something 'existing' in 'reality' isn't as important as you think it is.

I prefer reality to delusion

 

[Willamena]

This all avoids the fundamental question on what justifies belief in the existence of god(s).

No, rather it just keeps things on topic.

 

[Meow Mix]

No, rather it just keeps things on topic.

It is on topic to point out that having confidence in something whose existence isn't justified is irrational.

 

[Willamena]

It is on topic to point out that having confidence in something whose existence isn't justified is irrational.

The topic is "What is faith?"

"God", for some, does not need to be justified, just as belief in the world as it is experienced does not need to be justified.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

I prefer reality to delusion

Of course. Reality is something you can control, understand and manipulate. In other words, it is easy to 'fix'. Delusion, or in your words, irrationality, is not something you can control, understand or manipulate. It can only be experienced.

That you prefer something you can control over something you can't isn't really surprising.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Actually, if anything, my point of view is empirical, which is different.

No it isnt empirical in the slightest, to think it is is laughably naive.
There is no real empiricality in the models of science, they are approximations of what we can measure and observe.
You are utterly subjective.

Look, it's a bit like this:
1) We are physical beings. Check.
2) There is no reason to believe we are anything but physical beings. Check.
3) The supernatural/metaphysical does not by its very definition influence the physical, even if we suppose that there is such a thing. Check.
Conclusion: The supernatural/metaphysical is irrelevant and probably doesn't even exist.

2) Is subjective...a subjective view you have based on your own understanding...there is alternative evidence to suggest that the 4 physical dimensions of spacetime are not the only ones we have a presence in.

You are quite wrong about 3) In my view supernatural phenomena, for example the phenomena known as ghosts, have been captured upon imaging devices and other instrumentation, its just not possible however to scrutinise ghosts in laboratory conditions...yet to dismiss the images and whatever else captured (such as audio recordings) as non real without a rational mudane explanation for the phenomena is basically...stupid.
Plenty of images exist that have no scientific explanation.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

That would be a pretty accurate definition of how I see it, yes.

I thought you might think so...but that does not rule out the entirety of the paranormal such as Ghosts at all...they do interact with the physical...the observer and his camera.
Which by that definition means that they are real...they have some kind of physical presence or have an effect on the physical.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

There is no black and white jarofthoughts...the universe is not like some clockwork automaton...it is not reducable to human logic...there are subjective observational limitations...and quantum uncertainity is not the only one of them...LOL

Do you 'believe' in virtual particles and/or imaginary time incidently jarofthoughts?

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Of course. Reality is something you can control, understand and manipulate. In other words, it is easy to 'fix'. Delusion, or in your words, irrationality, is not something you can control, understand or manipulate. It can only be experienced.

That you prefer something you can control over something you can't isn't really surprising.

You hit the nail on the head psychologically speaking.

 

[Magic Man]

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.

It depends. You can't have trust in God unless we know that God actually exists in reality. You can have faith (belief without evidence) in God only if it's not known that he exists. That's why in these discussions it would be better to just use the different words for things. Your statement would be accurate if you used the word "trust" rather than "faith". It gets confusing when you use faith, since as I pointed out, one definition of the word makes the statement false, while the other makes it true.

That's the entire point being made by MM and me.

 

[Magic Man]

The topic is "What is faith?"

"God", for some, does not need to be justified, just as belief in the world as it is experienced does not need to be justified.

OK, it's not the same as belief in the world, since that's justified by opening your eyes and ears. What we see around us is the world. We named what we see around us "the world". So that's justified. Belief in God is unjustified, unlike that belief in the world.

But the fact that the belief in God doesn't need to be justified according to some is the whole point. It is unjustified, and therefore faith because it's belief based on no evidence.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

But the fact that the belief in God doesn't need to be justified according to some is the whole point. It is unjustified, and therefore faith because it's belief based on no evidence.

It is not unjustified for many people.
They have their own brands of evidence..whilst it might not be established scientific evidence it is evidence nonetheless...to them.

 

[Midnight Pete]

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.

Only atheists require this justifcation. That's what separates you from me.