PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
As we have no proof that God communicates indirectly (via Messengers) to everyone.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is Faith?
- Thread starter Trailblazer
- Start date
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
The problem with proof in the standard understanding is that it is absolute in some sense. For the strongest version of proof it is so for all universes/realities and all times/places and can't be any different.
Now as that stands when you check it, you can learn that it is an idea and there is another idea. No knowledge has strong proof, rather for this world all knowledge is conditional, because we are humans. Even that all knowledge is conditional, is itself conditional on that we as have limited knowledge, because we are humans.
So you can imagine a being that has absolute knowledge and proof, but you can only imagine it, because you can't know if that is so, because you are not such a being.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
No proof, only evidence.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Just to nitpick. We have no evidence of God. You have evidence of your understanding of God. Other people have other evidence as per a different understanding. And some people have yet another understanding where there is no evidence of God.
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
So there is also evidence that God communicates to some people directly. How do you choose who to believe?
Last edited:
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
You do it subjectively as everybody else. But that is not unique to God. It is so for all the different versions of in effect absolute proof. That is e.g. also so for Ayn Rand's Objectivism. You can find the same for some political ideologies.
I wrote, "There is no reason to believe that if something is undetectable that it exists." You dissent, but you do not rebut. Yu say "No," but offer no reason why one should believe such a thing.
Nobody has spiritual eyes. So people have lax standards for belief. They want these beliefs respected, so they make claims like yours.
Nope, not a loss. A gain. I know from personal experience.
I know that you have not mastered critical thinking because [a] you commit fallacy after fallacy and you lack the critical thinking skills to see that. If one can't tell a sound argument from a fallacious one, he lacks critcial thinking skills..
No, that's your definition. I never said that. Your fallacy this time: straw man.
If you hold a god belief, your belief is unjustified, meaning that you hold it by faith. There is no fallacy in those words.
So what? You must think that that is the only fallacious belief that one who commits that fallacy one can hold. What you said was an ad populum fallacy nevertheless, as you are about to repeat next:
And there it was.
That is incorrect. Faith is never justified, just as unjustified belief is never sound.
No, it was not rebutted. Mere dissent is not rebuttal.
No, it is a matter of fact.
Same thing. A claim is a statement of belief.
Demonstrating the truth of the claim it has been easy. Proving it to YOU, however, is impossible. One needs to be able to think critically to recognize a sound argument, which is why I commonly note that there in never a burden of proof with one unwilling or unable to recognize such an argument.
Both are the same claim.
Here's more fallacy from you.
I think that's you. You've recognized none even after having pointed them out, and you have not correctly identified a single fallacy in the critical thinkers disagreeing with you. How could you?
Wrong again. I had written "There is no reason to believe that if something is undetectable that it exists."
Why bother?
Right in front of you, but you are unprepared to make such judgments. Critical analysis is an acquired skill.
For starters, I get to avoid playing the role of a Dunning-Kruger example on the Internet. It's kept me from expending scarce resources like time and money on religion. I got the Covid vaccine. I reject Fox News. It was essential in the practice of medicine. I don't think my wife would have accepted me without it.
Sure I do. I've looked at your opinions. How else could I have identified so many fallacies?
False belief? You betcha. That's the chief benefit of the process.
PureX
Veteran Member
The experience of love, forgiveness, kindness, generosity (and etc.) provide significant innate value to all of us, according to my experience of living. They speak for themselves (so to speak
) So I choose these as my general goal. Though the specifics of how are more often difficult to ascertain. And I know that perfection is an unachievable ideological myth.Not what I "believe" will happen. What I hope will result, and what I am willing to act toward achieving even though I do not know that it will be the result. This is faith. Belief in the face of our unknowing is dishonest. And because it's dishonest it very often misleads us and confuses us, and others. It's far better to admit that we don't know, and choose our actions accordingly, than it is to pretend we do know, and act dishonestly. Too many theists have fallen for the lie of "belief" and for the dishonest hubris that comes with it. They strut around proclaiming knowledge of God that they cannot possibly possess. They use that hubris to condemn their fellow humans, and to puff themselves up in their own eyes. And they become misleaders and abusers as a result. Causing people to turn away from the possibility of God, instead of helping them embrace and use it to help them live.
I am not against religion, but too much religion has fallen into the dishonesty of "belief" at the expense of the well being of everyone involved and effected by it. And so I feel obloged to speak out against it.
Belief is nothing more than the presumption that what we think is true, IS true. It is the rejection of doubt. When one says that they believe "X = X", they are expressing their lack of doubt in regards to the truthfulness of that statement. And for we humans, and in nearly all instances, we do not possess sufficient knowledge to hold to such certainty. So for us to do so, is fundamentally dishonest. And this is especially true when it comes to the subject of "God".
To "believe what we cannot prove" is both dishonest and illogical. It is the deliberate denial of two of our most effective and valuable human assets: honesty and logic.
Last edited:
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
So faith means you get persuaded by others that something is true. In doing so you accept only "evidence" (claims) that most corresponds with your bias or wishful thinking.
PureX
Veteran Member
That's bias, not faith.
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
Is all faith naive - blind faith?
I think faith can be blind and it can be reasonable. For example trust in someone. It's reasonable not to trust a stranger (unless it's necessary) and to trust someone you know intimately and who has proven to be trustworthy. Is this knowledge or belief? If it was knowledge we wouldn't have to trust, right? We would just know it.
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
In the beginning of science/knowledge is wonder. This is the source of asking questions and seeking answers.
Yes, religious faith is a special area:
"The First Vatican Council teaches, then, that the truth attained by philosophy and the truth of Revelation are neither identical nor mutually exclusive: “There exists a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards their source, but also as regards their object. With regard to the source, because we know in one by natural reason, in the other by divine faith. With regard to the object, because besides those things which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, cannot be known”
/.../ faith is of an order other than philosophical knowledge which depends upon sense perception and experience and which advances by the light of the intellect alone."
(John Paul II. in Fides et ratio)
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yes, and so do all other humans than the special one. Are you the special one?
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Which of these three statements can be either deductively verified, or shown to be false?
1) Everything that happens is a random result of physical forces.
2) Everything that happens is directed for a purpose by a divine agent.
3) Everything that happens is an effect of a previous cause.
The answer is that none of them can. Accepting any one - or more - of these premises requires an act of faith, the exercise of which is dependent on the perception and experience of the observer.
1) Everything that happens is a random result of physical forces.
2) Everything that happens is directed for a purpose by a divine agent.
3) Everything that happens is an effect of a previous cause.
The answer is that none of them can. Accepting any one - or more - of these premises requires an act of faith, the exercise of which is dependent on the perception and experience of the observer.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
On the contrary .. there is more than one way of seeing .. do you see?
No, clearly not.
Oh, really?
..and you have already died and found out?
No .. thought not.
PureX
Veteran Member
Forces do not produce random results.
The "divine agent" part is unknowable. Apart from that, everything that happens is directed, and the result is the purpose of the direction.
Everything that has happened was first, possible. Not everything was or is possible. This is where our focus should be.
These statements can all be validated via reasonable deduction. Verification is not within their context.
Last edited:
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
All innovation in all walks of life starts with faith. Innovation often begins with a seed idea. It rarely begins with something tangible, that the doubter can see with their eyes or sense with their five sense. It is not until the innovation, takes on form in physical reality, so the doubter can see it and touch it, do the doubters suddenly believe. Faith has to dumb down, to be seen by those, without the gift of inner vision.
When Einstein developed his theories of Relativity, he had to first develop the math needed to explain his unique inner vision of space and time. Math allowed a way for some scientists to see his idea, based on their own faith in the infallible logic of math. Those who could not follow the new math, would still doubt his theory, since they needed to see a demonstration, in a practical and tangible way. To them only seeing was believing. So what was needed, was a further dumb down, to create hard experiments, that would allow even those, without inner vision, to also see. The innovator needs very little to know, but to get others on board, much more work was needed.
Next, to reach the layman, who does not understand base or raw theory, the complexity of math, or the direct experimental data, we often use the prestige of those who can, as a way to tell the layman what to think. This is the final faith and intuitive dumb down; school and media is the ground floor. From this ground floor, one has the tools to become faithful in your own innovation. Many will have good ideas. However, the dumb down process, from inner vision, will often become the rate limiting step, since appealing to all, top to down, is not easy.
There is a saying; paraphrase, that a prophet is without honor in his home town. To people who know you, you are a regular Joe. They have a hard time with raw innovation ideas, since as the masses, they known they need many steps toward reassurance. To them, raw innovation in the hands of Joe, seems too far fetched. The stranger who does not know Joe, can infer extra prestige; bump him up the ladder, from the bottom to the middle, so the innovation is closer to being done.
Mathew 5:11-12; Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets before you.
Innovation can be spooky and trigger the primitive fear of novelty, unless one also has the inner eyes of faith to see. The gift of inner vision is often a curse, if your inner vision sees and projects demons; fear of novelty. There are also good visions that edify, even with humble beginnings; this is it own reward.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
The consensus, in so far as there is one, among theoretical physicists is that there is a certain irreducible randomness in nature, so don't be too quick to dismiss the first statement. Nor to assume that everything is directed. It appears that the universe is probabilistic rather than deterministic.
And no, none of these statements can be shown by deduction, but only by inductive reasoning. The distinction is important.
There are many ways of processing information, but not all are desirable or produce beneficial outcomes. One of those undesirable ways to see the world is through a faith-based confirmation bias.
I found out that I'm happier outside of religion. You've been promised pie in the sky and have believed the promise.
They start with creative intuitions that are then explored empirically.
Gift? More claims for special ways of seeing and knowing? You would be able to show others the fruits of this gift if there are any.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, that is how you get 3 axioms.
The universe is real.
The universe is orderly.
The universe is knowable.
But even those 3 have some limits and indeed have different interpretations.