What is Faith?

[osgart]

I think that caring originates in the brain and mind, which is where thoughts and feelings are stored, and I believe that the mind and the soul are connected.

The mind is the power of the soul. The soul is the lamp; mind is the light which shines from the lamp. The soul is the tree, and the mind is the fruit. Mind is the essential quality of the soul, as the sun’s rays are the essential quality of the sun.

The brain to me is electrochemical reactions that are intimately associated with the mind. Electricity and chemicals do not explain the mind.

So I see a gap in possible explanation. The gap is from the physical to the abstract. I mean how does electrochemical reactions explain qualities of mind.

I suppose there'd be a Nobel prize for anyone who can bridge the gap.

It's mind numbingly stated that the brain states, feelings, and actions represent what goes on in the mind fully, by way of electrochemical reactions. It's claimed so much, and said to be observed, but abstracts cannot be observed.

Has anyone ever witnessed a thought as a mental object? It's pure genius, or a fools' errand to be able to model this in a purely scientific way.

It's like asking for value, and someone points to physical money.

 

[Trailblazer]

So your claim to know God is based on revelation through scriptures and not objective evidence nor philosophical proof. You claim that scripture reveals events unfolding and events that already unfolded. You claim that these events are accurately explained and sufficiently explained.

Is there any other scriptural basis by which God is known of?

So what you are saying is verify it to yourself if one feels compelled to do so.

Is there any other way to verify this?

Are you asking if there is any way to verify that scripture came from God or are you asking if there is any other way to verify that God exists besides scripture?

 

[Trailblazer]

You, neither.

There is a reason for me to believe that if something is undetectable that it exists. YMMV.

No, you don't. There's more fallacy. Scripture is not evidence that its claims are correct.

I committed no fallacy because I never said that scripture is evidence that its claims are correct.
Claims are not evidence of anything except that people can make claims.

Nobody can prove that the claims in scripture are either correct or incorrect.
All people can do is have a personal opinion or a belief.

 

[Trailblazer]

You know, you decide he's correct despite you using flawed thinking.

Correction: What you believe is flawed thinking.

And no facts to demonstrate any messengers are genuine, thus faith. That means guessing.

No, it means faith.

Thus no basis to believe.

Not for you.

Stating beliefs in a forum is a claim. Fact.

No, personal opinion. A belief is not a claim. Fact.

None that you or others have presented, so we default to remaining unconvinced.

That's fine by me.

 

[osgart]

Are you asking if there is any way to verify that scripture came from God or are you asking if there is any other way to verify that God exists besides scripture?

No I'm asking if there is other scriptural evidence besides prophetic events?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I committed no fallacy because I never said that scripture is evidence that its claims are correct.

Yeah, you did: "We know the attributes of God by what the messengers reveal in scripture." That's a belief, a claim, an implied argument, and a fallacious one at that.

A belief is not a claim.

It is once it's expressed as your belief. If you keep it to yourself, nobody can say you claimed it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why don't you?

And I predict a reflex response of you claiming you do.

I don't think like you because I am not you so your prediction was wrong.

And you aren't using logic. I see @blü 2, @Ella S., @It Aint Necessarily So, @Subduction Zone, @ChristineM, and numerous other members who have debated your comments. There is a small number of us who are consistent, and you seem to assume this means others agree with you? Or what? You can't seem to consider the problem is yours in dealing with all these critical thinkers. Maybe think outside your box.

Straw man. I never said that I think that others agree with me. I said we can get along despite our disagreements.
Despite the fact that I do not agree with most people on this forum there are only two posters on this forum I do not get along with.

The problem is not mine since I get along with everyone except two posters who constantly talk about how they are superior to me because they are critical thinkers. I cannot make you see what you do not see.

We are debating in good faith and you have a problem with this, likely because you can't rebut comments and criticisms. It's not a matter of getting along, this isn't personal.

Why keep telling me I have a problem with debate when I do not have a problem with it?
For me it is a matter of getting along with people, it is not and never has been about winning a debate.
There is no way to win a debate over God exists vs. God does not exist since that can never be proven either way.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yeah, you did: "We know the attributes of God by what the messengers reveal in scripture." That's a belief, a claim, an implied argument, and a fallacious one at that.

Straw man fallacy. I never said that scripture is evidence that its claims are correct.

I was asked how I can know the attributes of God and I said "we know the attributes of God by what the messengers reveal in scripture."
That is a belief, not a claim or an argument.

It is once it's expressed as your belief. If you keep it to yourself, nobody can say you claimed it.

You can say whatever you want to say but it is still a belief and not a claim.
I alone know if it is a belief or a claim since I am the one who stated it.
Logic 101.

 

[Trailblazer]

No I'm asking if there is other scriptural evidence besides prophetic events?

Yes, all the scriptures are evidence, not only the prophecies.

 

[osgart]

Yes, all the scriptures are evidence, not only the prophecies.

Sounds like comparative study; one scripture with other scriptures.

 

[CG Didymus]

The Baha'i can hijack threads pretty quickly. I don't see their theology very well designed. The writings are poorly written and have such little content that it is tedious to mull through. Baha'u'llah really needed a creative writing class so he could learn to be concise. But even the supernatural claims are so vague and improbable that a mountain of faith is needed to buy into it.

I've noticed a truce between fairly fervent Christians and the Muslim, and they limit their interactions to the narrow set of ideas they agree on. Oddly the Abrahamics believe in a God they can connect with, so a huge disagreement with Baha'i. That is a major issue and I'm surprised more Abrahamics don't argue for their view of God. It could be a realization that all theists are agnostic at the core, and personal belief is hands off at the risk of exposing the self's view.

Fifty years ago I was happy to hear Baha'is "teach" me about their religion. But everybody had new spiritual/religious teachings back then. And several people were claiming to be Jesus, the Buddha or some prophet. But then the last religion I thought that had even a remote chance of being true was Christianity got to me. One of my best friends got "saved" and "witnessed" to me. My problem back then was that I was too gullible and believed everybody's story about God and truth.

Now... I don't trust anyone that claims that their guy is the one... that he has the truth for today. Because I know, that people that go "teach", or "witness" or somehow go out and tell others are only doing it because their religion tells them to. How much do they know? How well do they actually live it themselves? How much do they actually believe themselves?

I'm impressed by people that live their spiritual and religious beliefs and don't go out pushing them.

 

[CG Didymus]

I think most RF Baha'i participating in these threads in the last year or two are tired of all non-Baha'is. None of them seem to like anybody who challenged their claims, and most become emotional and defensive in the process, all the while insisting that they have the answer to world unity. This is the value of the lab section of humanism school. This denomination is distinct from all of the others, but rather homogeneous in the RF sample.

Baha'is have the common ground they can work with in Humanism. Baha'is don't believe in the many Gods of Hinduism. or the no God of some Buddhists, or the Trinitarian God of some Christians. They have that in common with Atheists. Why don't they stop there? But instead, they focus on their concept of God and get nowhere. What do they expect Atheists to do? Accept some unknowable and invisible spirit being? Just because their prophet said that he was sent by that invisible spirit being? Two years of going nowhere with them saying that it is our fault, because we are "spiritually" blind? They are not the only religion that says that. Christians and some Muslims have said that too. Yes, some of us don't see things the way they see them. But is it because we are blind? Or that they have those rosy colored glasses that allows them to see everything exactly how their religion tells them to see it?

 

[Apostle John]

You can have faith your aged car will get you to work, you can have faith in any tinpot god to help you out when you die but only faith in the one true God as described in the Bible will get a spirit/soul to heaven.

 

[blü 2]

All good and fine til you hone in on the abstract phenomenon itself. No one has ever observed a concept, nor a care. They can't be fully explained with physical terminology.

An "abstract" phenomenon is itself purely conceptual bu definition. It way be an abstraction, like 'love', 'justice', 'flatulence', or a generalization like "a chair", "engines", "royalty" and so on. If you've watched infants learning to speak ─ and if you haven't, take the chance when it comes your way ─ you'll have noticed how instinctive the process is, both on the part of the carer and of the infant. The carer points at something real ─ 'bus', 'doll', 'chair' ─ and the infant turns to look at what is pointed at and tries to say the word. Thus we, from infancy, learn in categories of this kind, and the we're equipped by evolution to realize quite quickly that 'bus' is a generalization, and applies to anything like 'that bus', while 'Daddy' is a particular person.

These categories of specificity and abstraction are how the brain works, all our lives. They're how we can do maths, since all numbers are abstractions and you never see an uninstantiated 2 running around in the wild.

A 'care' is the name of an emotion. Our brain generates our emotions by releasing this or that or these or those biochemicals, our hormones, and causing us to feel. Thus something startling happens, your brain instinctively releases adrenaline, and from that release (usually with other biochemicals as well) you get the sensation of a fright, and you're immediately on guard against a possible or identified threat.

The brain is material, and we're creatures of our biology, all the way down to the basement, all the way up to the roof.

 

[blü 2]

or read about in a particular book of scriptures.

God doesn't exist in the text. [He] only exists in the brain reading the text ─ or hearing the story, or debating the theology or the politics or as the case may be. And only brain by brain. Which is why you've heard of Jehovah but not (till now) of Tangaroa.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sounds like comparative study; one scripture with other scriptures.

No, but I believe that the Baha'i scriptures are the latest scriptures from God.

 

[Trailblazer]

God doesn't exist in the text. [He] only exists in the brain reading the text ─ or hearing the story, or debating the theology or the politics or as the case may be. And only brain by brain. Which is why you've heard of Jehovah but not (till now) of Tangaroa.

No, God does not exist in the text, nor in the brain of the person reading the text.
If God exists, God exists somewhere far beyond our reach.

 

[Truthseeker]

No, God does not exist in the text, nor in the brain of the person reading the text.
If God exists, God exists somewhere far beyond our reach.

Time for our meeting

 

[osgart]

An "abstract" phenomenon is itself purely conceptual bu definition. It way be an abstraction, like 'love', 'justice', 'flatulence', or a generalization like "a chair", "engines", "royalty" and so on. If you've watched infants learning to speak ─ and if you haven't, take the chance when it comes your way ─ you'll have noticed how instinctive the process is, both on the part of the carer and of the infant. The carer points at something real ─ 'bus', 'doll', 'chair' ─ and the infant turns to look at what is pointed at and tries to say the word. Thus we, from infancy, learn in categories of this kind, and the we're equipped by evolution to realize quite quickly that 'bus' is a generalization, and applies to anything like 'that bus', while 'Daddy' is a particular person.

These categories of specificity and abstraction are how the brain works, all our lives. They're how we can do maths, since all numbers are abstractions and you never see an uninstantiated 2 running around in the wild.

A 'care' is the name of an emotion. Our brain generates our emotions by releasing this or that or these or those biochemicals, our hormones, and causing us to feel. Thus something startling happens, your brain instinctively releases adrenaline, and from that release (usually with other biochemicals as well) you get the sensation of a fright, and you're immediately on guard against a possible or identified threat.

The brain is material, and we're creatures of our biology, all the way down to the basement, all the way up to the roof.

Care is to genuinely, actively regard and will someone or something's well being. Care is a desire and an intention that results in that emotion from the brain. It's formed by relationship and understanding. The emotions that care generates can be many different kinds. Emotions do make sense like a language; the experience of joy, or concern, or even worry triggers different kinds of emotions regarding care.

I think it a mistake to define the chemistry as literally being the care. The emotions are telling but not the whole story. Emotions are responses to the care.

Thanks for your input!

 

[Trailblazer]

Time for our meeting

Gotcha.