What is Faith?

[strikeviperMKII]

Huh? Once a definition is established, so is the way to communicate effectively. If you want to change definitions of words, go right ahead, but remember that it's your fault, not others', when you can't seem to communicate effectively with them.

So you're blaming the door for bumping into you, even when you're the one who walked into it?

Using the standard way of thinking will get you standard results. Change the way of thinking to something more complex and you'll get better, more complex results.

 

[Magic Man]

So you're blaming the door for bumping into you, even when you're the one who walked into it?

No, I'm blaming the guy who's swinging the door into me. You're assuming that you're communicating effectively. You're not. If you were, then we wouldn't have a problem.

Using the standard way of thinking will get you standard results. Change the way of thinking to something more complex and you'll get better, more complex results.

Sure, but you're not changing to something just more complex. You're changing to something irrational and ridiculous. If you want to talk about more complex ideas, we sure can. Meow Mix loves more complex ideas which is why she's so knowledgeable about physics.

See, the problem is that you're falling for the old "Oh, this sounds cool, so it must be more complex and profound", when all it really is is nonsense. Saying "God is a relationship" sounds pretty cool if you don't actually think about it, but when you do, it's just nonsense. In other words, you're not thinking in more complex, better ways. You're thinking in different ways, but different doesn't always equal better or more complex.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No doubt. But I think you've extended that to 'logical' rather than 'truthful'.

Distinction without a difference. Logic is a measure of truth. If a claim or idea is illogical, it can be rejected as false.

Might makes right, I guess. Once a definition is established, so is authority. My point stands.

But it's not a matter of authority. Nobody's telling you that you can't use whatever words you want in whatever way you want, but the simple fact is that if you're concerned with how your message is understood by your intended recipient, you have to have some sort of agreement between yourselves on the meanings of the terms being used. If you unilaterally decide on your own unique meanings for your terms, then that agreement isn't there.

Using the standard way of thinking will get you standard results. Change the way of thinking to something more complex and you'll get better, more complex results.

"More complex" does not necessarily equal "better". Especially not if "better" is measured in terms of effectiveness of communication.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

It means that one should be VERY careful about postulating additional and excess concepts into one's explanations, in this case ghosts.
This rightly makes the burden of proof rather steep for those who claim the existence of entities which are not only not an accepted part of science, but which would also include a completely new branch of science.
In other words, if what you're proposing, if true, will change the world on a massive scale you should be prepared to present copious amounts of irrefutable evidence.
As well it should be.

I didn't mention ghosts I mentioned paranormal entities or unexplained supranatural phenomena that are frequently captured on imaging devices and other instruments...they are a part of reality as these images and the anecdotes of people suggest...whatever they actually are or represent...is another question...but the evidence exists whatever the conclusions of the empirical data.

You can do what mainstream science does and pretend it isnt happening in situations where the scientific explantions have been exhausted and there is no scientifc explantion for an image or video recording of phenomena...relegating the supranatural to the realm of fringe scientists, mediums, occultists and enthusiasts.

But that in my opinion just shows how useless the scientific method is when confronted with particular aspects of greater reality.

Yes the scientific word view can estimate its own inaccuracy an edge on other world views but it cannot qualify what cannot be observed under scientific conditions.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Distinction without a difference. Logic is a measure of truth. If a claim or idea is illogical, it can be rejected as false.

It can be rejected as illogical. Logic is a measure of logic, and sometimes that logic is truth. Truth and logic are not equivalent.

But it's not a matter of authority. Nobody's telling you that you can't use whatever words you want in whatever way you want, but the simple fact is that if you're concerned with how your message is understood by your intended recipient, you have to have some sort of agreement between yourselves on the meanings of the terms being used. If you unilaterally decide on your own unique meanings for your terms, then that agreement isn't there.

You need no such agreement. You only have to find out what those words mean when other people use them. Something you, and many others, simply refuse to do.

"More complex" does not necessarily equal "better". Especially not if "better" is measured in terms of effectiveness of communication.

The more complex something is, the more possibilities there are for growth. Transparency, or what you are proposing in your 'clear communication' has little room for growth.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

No, I'm blaming the guy who's swinging the door into me. You're assuming that you're communicating effectively. You're not. If you were, then we wouldn't have a problem.

I am communicating my meaning just fine. You're the one not seeing or understanding it. That is the point.

Sure, but you're not changing to something just more complex. You're changing to something irrational and ridiculous. If you want to talk about more complex ideas, we sure can. Meow Mix loves more complex ideas which is why she's so knowledgeable about physics.

See, the problem is that you're falling for the old "Oh, this sounds cool, so it must be more complex and profound", when all it really is is nonsense. Saying "God is a relationship" sounds pretty cool if you don't actually think about it, but when you do, it's just nonsense. In other words, you're not thinking in more complex, better ways. You're thinking in different ways, but different doesn't always equal better or more complex.

It's difficult to understand. If it wasn't, you'd already understand it. That's the whole point.

Different ways allows for change, change allows for growth. That alone is more complex than the way you are thinking.

 

[Magic Man]

It can be rejected as illogical. Logic is a measure of logic, and sometimes that logic is truth. Truth and logic are not equivalent.

"Illogical" equals "false". If something is illogical, it doesn't exist. So, logic is a measure of truth.

You need no such agreement. You only have to find out what those words mean when other people use them. Something you, and many others, simply refuse to do.

Yes, you do need agreement, or else effective communication becomes ineffective. No, we don't simply have to find out what words mean when others use them. You have to find out what they mean, and use them accordingly. It's one thing to use a slang term like "cabbage" for cash. It's another to use a word like God to refer to a relationship rather than an object or being. If you want to use a drastically different definition of a word, it's best to just use a different word for it. If you simply used a new word like "gomp" for "a relationship with God", then you could communicate effectively after explaining the word "gomp".

The more complex something is, the more possibilities there are for growth. Transparency, or what you are proposing in your 'clear communication' has little room for growth.

More complexity can just be useless complexity. It's not necessarily a good thing. And no, it doesn't have more possibilities for growth. You can have all the complex ideas you want, but if you fail to communicate them effectively, there's no point in even talking about them. What we're proposing is that you communicate effectively, which means not using "God" to mean something other than a sort of being.

 

[Magic Man]

I am communicating my meaning just fine. You're the one not seeing or understanding it. That is the point.

And this is the problem. You're not. When you have multiple reasonable, intelligent people not able to understand what exactly you're saying, it's generally a sign there's something wrong on your end, not theirs.

It's difficult to understand. If it wasn't, you'd already understand it. That's the whole point.

Only because you're making it more complicated than it needs to be. If you were communicating well, it wouldn't be that hard. Believe me, I love difficult concepts. That's why I'm on a board like this, and why I've read books like A Brief History of Time and why I love shows about physics and cosmology.

Different ways allows for change, change allows for growth. That alone is more complex than the way you are thinking.

No, it's just nonsense, and meaningless. Again, you're falling into the "Oh, this sounds more complex, so even though it doesn't make sense in any way shape or form, it must be more profound". That's simply false. Complex is not necessarily better. Your ideas are not necessarily complex. We're all able to understand complex ideas. It just makes you feel cooler to pretend that we're just not trying to understand you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It can be rejected as illogical. Logic is a measure of logic, and sometimes that logic is truth. Truth and logic are not equivalent.

Just for curiosity's sake, can you provide an example of something that's both illogical and true?

You need no such agreement. You only have to find out what those words mean when other people use them. Something you, and many others, simply refuse to do.

You're talking about the word "God"?

If so, I haven't seen you give a meaning yet. In fact, you seem adamant that you not be constrained to any meaning at all for the term.

The more complex something is, the more possibilities there are for growth.

What does that even mean?

Transparency, or what you are proposing in your 'clear communication' has little room for growth.

If you mean that a clear communication only has limited ways to be interpreted, then yes... and that's the whole point. To communicate, i.e. to express a meaning to someone else, requires that the meaning actually be expressed and received intact.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Just for curiosity's sake, can you provide an example of something that's both illogical and true?

Quantum uncertainty. (joke)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Quantum uncertainty.

How is quantum uncertainty illogical?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

And this is the problem. You're not. When you have multiple reasonable, intelligent people not able to understand what exactly you're saying, it's generally a sign there's something wrong on your end, not theirs.

It just means that multiple, reasonable, intelligent people aren't seeing what I'm saying. It's not unexpected, and is quite possibly a good thing.

Only because you're making it more complicated than it needs to be. If you were communicating well, it wouldn't be that hard. Believe me, I love difficult concepts. That's why I'm on a board like this, and why I've read books like A Brief History of Time and why I love shows about physics and cosmology.

There are many kinds of 'difficult'. Conceptual, mental, emotional, spiritual, physical...there's a 'difficult' for just about everything. The 'difficult' you're talking about is mental. I'm not talking about that, and I never was.

No, it's just nonsense, and meaningless. Again, you're falling into the "Oh, this sounds more complex, so even though it doesn't make sense in any way shape or form, it must be more profound". That's simply false. Complex is not necessarily better. Your ideas are not necessarily complex. We're all able to understand complex ideas. It just makes you feel cooler to pretend that we're just not trying to understand you.

'It's simply false' is an opinion. 'It's simply illogical' is a statement of fact.

I have no doubt that you are trying to understand. I hope that you do keep trying.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Just for curiosity's sake, can you provide an example of something that's both illogical and true?

Life, experience. This discussion.

You're talking about the word "God"?

If so, I haven't seen you give a meaning yet. In fact, you seem adamant that you not be constrained to any meaning at all for the term.

You're right, I don't.

What does that even mean?

It means its a good thing to be confused.

If you mean that a clear communication only has limited ways to be interpreted, then yes... and that's the whole point. To communicate, i.e. to express a meaning to someone else, requires that the meaning actually be expressed and received intact.

And that's my point. Limited ways of interpretation, limited results, limited room for growth. Growth is a good thing. We should do all we can to grow, not limit ourselves for the sake of us not being confused.

 

[Magic Man]

It's difficult to understand. If it wasn't, you'd already understand it. That's the whole point.

Different ways allows for change, change allows for growth. That alone is more complex than the way you are thinking.

I just wanted to come back to this for a minute. You think the reason we're not understanding you is that we're not trying to and the fault is not with your communication. Let's take an example. You think your ideas are complex and profound, and that's the problem with the understanding.

An example of such an idea would be "There is no spoon" from The Matrix. That's a sort of deep, complex idea expressed in language that at first makes you say "Huh?". Yet most of us understand that after thinking about it for a minute, even though you have to think differently and outside the box.

You seem to think your "God is a relationship" assertion is on the level of that example, but it's not. It's not that we think your ideas are irrational because they're complex, or different or outside the box. It's that you're not communicating effectively. Again, if you just use a different word instead of God, all this could be cleared up. You could say "I believe in gomp", and we'd say "Oh, what's gomp?", and you could explain without confusing things by using a word we already use for something completely different.

 

[Magic Man]

It just means that multiple, reasonable, intelligent people aren't seeing what I'm saying. It's not unexpected, and is quite possibly a good thing.

Yes, and the reason they're not seeing what you're saying is then likely to be your poor communication of what you're saying, not their poor ability to understand things. And no, it's generally not a good thing when you're trying to have a conversation with a few people and they don't know what you're talking about.

There are many kinds of 'difficult'. Conceptual, mental, emotional, spiritual, physical...there's a 'difficult' for just about everything. The 'difficult' you're talking about is mental. I'm not talking about that, and I never was.

'It's simply false' is an opinion. 'It's simply illogical' is a statement of fact.

They're both statements of fact. The claim that the Holocaust didn't happen is false. The previous statement is fact, not opinion.

I have no doubt that you are trying to understand. I hope that you do keep trying.

Actually, at this point I'm wondering why I'm still bothering. You've made it quite clear you're not interested in real conversation, especially since you don't even value rational things. You've made it clear you're really only interested in coming across as deep and cool. I'm sure to some people, that's the way you've come off, but not to those of us who think critically.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Life, experience. This discussion.

Can you explain how either of the terms "logical" or "true" can be applied to any of these things?

You're right, I don't.

You don't want to be constrained by one definition? Then why the complaints that we're not acknowledging your definition? You would need to have one before anyone could acknowledge it.

It means its a good thing to be confused.

Why would you say that?

And that's my point. Limited ways of interpretation, limited results, limited room for growth. Growth is a good thing. We should do all we can to grow, not limit ourselves for the sake of us not being confused.

Growth of a person is a good thing. Growth of other things (e.g. tumours) is bad. "Growth" of a message from beyond the intended meaning is not universally a good thing. In fact, more often than not, I'd say it gets in the way.

And your position doesn't exactly seem to treat growth as a good thing like you claim here. For instance, growth of knowledge is dependent on differentiating true things from false things, but you seem to be opposed to this.

 

[Meow Mix]

Continue...

If an irrational belief is nonsensical, then it shouldn't be held. It abandons the epistemic duties to hold a belief without justification.

 

[Meow Mix]

And again, justification can be by something other than reason.

No, it can't. The use of justification at all is by definition part of what "reason" is. If something is justifying an idea, then that idea is being held through the use of reason by definition of being justified. Justification and reason are comfortable bedfellows.

It is impossible to understand something you have not experienced yourself.

...

You're still not getting it.

You should still be able to provide an example. Saying that it's so ineffable that you can't even speak of it is just a weak cop-out.

If your justifier is "I felt a strong feeling that God was with me" or something like that, then say that. Whatever it is, you should be able to at least partially describe it with words.

Now, please. Provide an example so we can examine it. You're making bold claims about being able to justify beliefs without reason and such, so it's time to "put up or shut up."

 

[Meow Mix]

Just for curiosity's sake, can you provide an example of something that's both illogical and true?

I've been barking up that tree for a while now. If I understand him correctly (which is understandably a dubious judgement considering any of his words could seemingly randomly mean something crazily different than I think they mean) I think he's saying something like, "X is true, but X is so wildly ineffable that I can't explain why -- but it's true."

 

[Meow Mix]

And your position doesn't exactly seem to treat growth as a good thing like you claim here. For instance, growth of knowledge is dependent on differentiating true things from false things, but you seem to be opposed to this.

His definition of "knowledge" doesn't differentiate truth value... he explained to me that in his semantics, "knowledge" is that which is mostly internally justified (and "internal justification" to him doesn't mean a priori, it means something a person agrees with as opposed to an "external justifier" which to him means an idea someone else came up with, a foreign idea... not a posteriori like most of us would define it).

Basically he defines "knowledge" as what most of us would use the word "belief" for -- something that we believe and that we agree with.

I still haven't figured out if he uses any vernacular at all that has anything to do with distinguishing truth value -- it may simply not be something he's interested in.