I'm asking Infohawk actually
But since you answered...
Next question. Can it be proved God does not exist?
But since you answered...
Next question. Can it be proved God does not exist?
Originally posted by: alchemize
I'm asking Infohawk actually
But since you answered...
Next question. Can it be proved God does not exist?
OK, I'll play along then
No, I don't think it can be proven that God does not exist. That's why I've always considered myself an agnostic -- I've never seen any compelling evidence either way.Originally posted by: alchemize
I'm asking Infohawk actually
But since you answered...
Next question. Can it be proved God does not exist?
Can it be proved ONE exists? If so, can you prove it's uniqueness?
Originally posted by: InfectedMushroom
Originally posted by: alchemize
I'm asking Infohawk actually
But since you answered...
Next question. Can it be proved God does not exist?
Can it be proved ONE exists? If so, can you prove it's uniqueness?
Why are you answering a question with another question? Oops, I just did the same.
I'm sure we could go endlessly down this path. So, No, and No. I can't prove either. I'm just trying to establish a framework for the OP to respond to. It is a valid counter-arguement to his. I doubt he will answer (or at least truthfully) like DM did.
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: alchemize
I'm asking Infohawk actually
But since you answered...
Next question. Can it be proved God does not exist?
OK, I'll play along then
I'll just pretend you are Infohawk since he won't answer (or at least not in time for me to finish my arguement)
So if you don't believe that God's non-existance can be proven, and you would accept proof if you saw it, you would agree that it is an unknown, correct? Therefore, can the reasonableness of a person (or lackthereof), be determined by their belief (or lack thereof) in an unknown?
To answer someone's question, if there was enough evidence to support the existence of Allah, I would believe. Of course even most religious scholars admit you cannot prove the existence of god, and that's why you need faith.
"If you believe than then you must logically believe that reason is capable of making sense of any and all situations which will ever be encountered"
I don't see how that follows.
"Wrong. Sorry. You're making the freshman mistake of confusing correlation with causality. In almost every instance the impetus for so-called "religious" wars has been secular. Religion has been pasted on top of conflicts that would have occured with or without the presence of faith."
I'm not confusing correlation with causation. I think faith specifically has caused human suffering because it prevents people from communicating and because it supports religion, which itself generates conflict. "Religion has been pasted on top of conflicts that would have occured with or without the presence of faith." I don't have enough time to address this question right now (that's a gigantic topic) but I disagree with it.
"Otherwise, to abandon reason would have to be acceptable in certain instances"
Abandoning reason is never acceptable. Making mistakes in reasoning is permissible.
""What if the most basic levels of reality are either too complex or too simple to comprehend?""" Sufficient for the work you purport it to be able to do, i.e. everything."
I don't see how that throws a monkeywrench into anything. I am not clear on what reason being able to do everything has to do with the current debate. What are you getting at? We need faith because reason does not accomplish everything?
"If you believe than then you must logically believe that reason is capable of making sense of any and all situations which will ever be encountered"
I don't see how that follows.
"Wrong. Sorry. You're making the freshman mistake of confusing correlation with causality. In almost every instance the impetus for so-called "religious" wars has been secular. Religion has been pasted on top of conflicts that would have occured with or without the presence of faith."
I'm not confusing correlation with causation. I think faith specifically has caused human suffering because it prevents people from communicating and because it supports religion, which itself generates conflict. "Religion has been pasted on top of conflicts that would have occured with or without the presence of faith." I don't have enough time to address this question right now (that's a gigantic topic) but I disagree with it.
"Otherwise, to abandon reason would have to be acceptable in certain instances"
Abandoning reason is never acceptable. Making mistakes in reasoning is permissible.
""What if the most basic levels of reality are either too complex or too simple to comprehend?""" Sufficient for the work you purport it to be able to do, i.e. everything."
I don't see how that throws a monkeywrench into anything. I am not clear on what reason being able to do everything has to do with the current debate. What are you getting at? We need faith because reason does not accomplish everything?
Kyteland
Diamond Member
- Dec 30, 2002
- 5,747
- 1
- 81
Infohawk:
I can't prove this, but I am willing to take it on faith.
I bet a number of the editors and contributors to the Merriam-Webster dictionary are men/women of faith. It would be statistically unlikely that all of the entries were compiled by your so-called "men of reason." On what basis do you claim that your provided definition was coined by reason, and not by faith.
It seems to me that your underlying belief is that a man can be reasonable. I believe that man is inherently unreasonable. Since there is no proof either way, I guess by your definition we are both taking this on faith.
Edit: I feel so dirty now.
<-- Normally doesn't post in P&N
I can't prove this, but I am willing to take it on faith.
I bet a number of the editors and contributors to the Merriam-Webster dictionary are men/women of faith. It would be statistically unlikely that all of the entries were compiled by your so-called "men of reason." On what basis do you claim that your provided definition was coined by reason, and not by faith.
It seems to me that your underlying belief is that a man can be reasonable. I believe that man is inherently unreasonable. Since there is no proof either way, I guess by your definition we are both taking this on faith.
Edit: I feel so dirty now.
<-- Normally doesn't post in P&N
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 36
- 91
If abandoning reasoning is never acceptable, it must necessarily be therefore able to address every single issue that could conceiveably confront man. If there exists any instance that reason cannot make sense of, then in that particular instance reason must be abandoned. Since you say that reason cannot ever be abandoned, you are making the tacit claim that there exists no situation that is beyond the realm of reason. Yet you have claimed that you do believe it possible for there to be things that are outside of reason. Those two positions are contradictory.
If reason can address everything, then it would indeed be foolish to abandon reason. However, you have admitted that there are situations outside of reason by denying our assumption that you found the totality of existence amenable to reason.
You implication is that you believe there are situations that reason cannot touch. If reason cannot touch them, then it must necessarily be abandoned in those situations. This directly contradicts your statement that reason cannot ever be abandoned.
ZV
- Oct 9, 1999
- 46,775
- 10,398
- 146
Gee Infohawk, I have just read through approxiamately the first half of this thread, and your arguments are so seriously flawed, so ridden with your precious "logical fallacies" that I thought, in the spirit of brotherly helpfulness that you also often profess, that I should so inform you.
Please re-read your first five or six posts, or so. You will certainly see your shoddy reasoning, and your numerous logical fallacies. Please correct them, as I know you will wish to.
No need to thank me explicitly. I'm sure you were just having a seriously sub-par night.
Please re-read your first five or six posts, or so. You will certainly see your shoddy reasoning, and your numerous logical fallacies. Please correct them, as I know you will wish to.
No need to thank me explicitly. I'm sure you were just having a seriously sub-par night.
I'm not about marginalizing people who choose to have religious faith in a way that does not infringe on my freedom not to do the same. But faithful zealots will kindly get their fascist religion-based politics out of my Deistic country.
PS- Ozoned, start making sense and maybe you'll get more direct responses.
PS- Ozoned, start making sense and maybe you'll get more direct responses.
HeroOfPellinor
Lifer
- Dec 27, 2001
- 11,272
- 1
- 0
Originally posted by: alchemize
I'll just pretend you are Infohawk since he won't answer (or at least not in time for me to finish my arguement)
So if you don't believe that God's non-existance can be proven, and you would accept proof if you saw it, you would agree that it is an unknown, correct? Therefore, can the reasonableness of a person (or lackthereof), be determined by their belief (or lack thereof) in an unknown?
Well Alchemize, after all that, I don't think you've substantially changed my mind. I still maintain that anyone who believes in God, or disbelieves in God, is arriving at their belief (or non-belief) in a vaccuum of facts and evidence. It is that willingness to accept something that has not (or potentially cannot) been proven that is the issue at-hand.
- Let me give a clear example of where reason has problems. This is the simple tool of causality within the area of reason. If it is true that every event is a consequence of a previous event, then there must always be a previous event because there is a current event. Thus, there could be no beginning to this universe ala Big Bang, because that Big Bang, by the idea of causation, would have to be a consequence of some previous event. Clearly, if reason can be applied to every situation, then there could be no true beginning to our universe. Whether this is true or not, I do not know, but it's is hard to understand how there could be no beginning, and everything just simple exists.
- I think infohawk is making large errors in his reasoning, and I think it is easily shown that humans need faith just as much as reason. Maybe Infohawk is confusing religion with faith. My big problem is not with faith, but with organized religion. The main religions are based on the ideas that one type of faith is right, and all other types of faith are wrong. I'm not a Christian and do not have faith in their god, so I'm going to hell. This is just absurd. Religion is based on faith, and faith is "firm belief in something for which there is no proof." So you are going to tell me that my type of faith is wrong? There is no reason in saying that my faith is wrong.
- The big problem with organized religion is that its ideas say that other faiths are wrong. That is, "i have faith that your faith is wrong based on my faith." When faith is used to attack other faiths, big problems pop up. (I think in most other situations, faith can be a good thing, such as in describing the unknown/unreasoned) This battle of faiths can be used to support existing struggles, to conquer other peoples. Example - the Crusades, Muslim/Hindu fighting in India and Pakistan, battle between Jews and Muslims in the middle east.
- Maybe even organized religion isn't that bad, but just their ideas that all other faiths are wrong is bad. But - I don't think the idea that all other faiths are wrong is inherent in the idea of faith, it's just something that comes socially as organized religion pops up. If the world could have faith without this nasty type of faith, I think it would be much better off.
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: alchemize
I'll just pretend you are Infohawk since he won't answer (or at least not in time for me to finish my arguement)
So if you don't believe that God's non-existance can be proven, and you would accept proof if you saw it, you would agree that it is an unknown, correct? Therefore, can the reasonableness of a person (or lackthereof), be determined by their belief (or lack thereof) in an unknown?
Well Alchemize, after all that, I don't think you've substantially changed my mind. I still maintain that anyone who believes in God, or disbelieves in God, is arriving at their belief (or non-belief) in a vaccuum of facts and evidence. It is that willingness to accept something that has not (or potentially cannot) been proven that is the issue at-hand.
I don't think I was trying to change your mind. I agree with what you say. Believing in something unproven is, well, faith
You were the only one that would banter with me
HeroOfPellinor
Lifer
- Dec 27, 2001
- 11,272
- 1
- 0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: alchemize
I'll just pretend you are Infohawk since he won't answer (or at least not in time for me to finish my arguement)
So if you don't believe that God's non-existance can be proven, and you would accept proof if you saw it, you would agree that it is an unknown, correct? Therefore, can the reasonableness of a person (or lackthereof), be determined by their belief (or lack thereof) in an unknown?
Well Alchemize, after all that, I don't think you've substantially changed my mind. I still maintain that anyone who believes in God, or disbelieves in God, is arriving at their belief (or non-belief) in a vaccuum of facts and evidence. It is that willingness to accept something that has not (or potentially cannot) been proven that is the issue at-hand.
Scientists have no plausible explanation for the origin of the universe, yet they believe, with no proof, that it definitly wasn't created by God. Isn't that faith?
Ever been in love? Well, I hate to break it to you, but what you thought was love was just a reaction of chemical impulses...try telling your girlfriend that next time you see her.
The only way to categorically deny the existence of a higher power who has instilled within us souls, is to believe we are nothing more than extra smart animals. I know we have souls. The very fact that we are capable of the very faith you despise when no other being on this planet is is evidence.Well, scientists have the big-bang theory. Whether or not it's plausible is up for debate I suppose.Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Scientists have no plausible explanation for the origin of the universe, yet they believe, with no proof, that it definitly wasn't created by God. Isn't that faith?
Ever been in love? Well, I hate to break it to you, but what you thought was love was just a reaction of chemical impulses...try telling your girlfriend that next time you see her.
Only some of the animals are extra smart, Hero, only some of them.
And for the record, I don't despise faith, I just don't understand it. Like I've said, I'm more agnostic than atheistic. I certainly don't believe God doesn't exist, I just haven't seen any compelling evidence either way. And for those who believe, it's always been easy to fill in the holes -- meaning, if you already believe you can reverse-engineer valid reasons for why you do. That's why I imagine the faithful constantly see evidence of their own faith -- they attribute God's hand to everything. The smallest occurance can quickly become a "miracle."
Makes sense I suppose, one always wants to justify their beliefs or somehow validate them from time to time.
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Religious faith is the basis for so much arguing and petty hatred here at P&N. Abortion threads, evolution vs intelligent design threads, threads about Israel. On and on. It just goes nowhere, you're right Infohawk. The faithful don't think they're right, they know they're right. And even Moonbeam will tell you, we really don't know anything.
It isn't the beliefs that people have, be they religious or rational, that worries me. What worries me are people who feel their beliefs are more important than other human beings. This happens to the religionist and the secularist alike. It happens because we are unaware that we have been made to feel like we are the worst in the world. That feeling is a lie, but because it is so painful to dredge up and remember we seek other respite. We do that in being right. My ego is my defense and my ego is what I believe. Attack my belief and you remind me of what I'm hiding. The original purpose of religion wasn't to provide you with an ego boost, but to help you die to your ego. A man or woman who has no ego, no self, is not, well, normal. I would say such a person is the Image of God. What is image and what is God? Well.............
This is why the meek shall inherit the earth. They are not so attached to their egos.
--------------------------
Love you Winston and your deep humility. You shine.
Zemnervolt,
"If abandoning reasoning is never acceptable, it must necessarily be therefore able to address every single issue that could conceiveably confront man."
I am uncertain if I agree with this but for the sake of moving this argument forward, let us assume I agree with that.
"If there exists any instance that reason cannot make sense of, then in that particular instance reason must be abandoned."
That makes sense.
"Yet you have claimed that you do believe it possible for there to be things that are outside of reason. Those two positions are contradictory."
I did? Can you remind me? If I did, I made a mistake now that you put it in those terms. If I did, how does this effect my main argument? (It's starting to get hard for me to track all this, sorry).
In response to totalcommand, I would just say I do understand the difference between faith and religion (my thread description was not clear though). Here we are specifically discussing faith. I still think faith causes problems.
"If abandoning reasoning is never acceptable, it must necessarily be therefore able to address every single issue that could conceiveably confront man."
I am uncertain if I agree with this but for the sake of moving this argument forward, let us assume I agree with that.
"If there exists any instance that reason cannot make sense of, then in that particular instance reason must be abandoned."
That makes sense.
"Yet you have claimed that you do believe it possible for there to be things that are outside of reason. Those two positions are contradictory."
I did? Can you remind me? If I did, I made a mistake now that you put it in those terms. If I did, how does this effect my main argument? (It's starting to get hard for me to track all this, sorry).
In response to totalcommand, I would just say I do understand the difference between faith and religion (my thread description was not clear though). Here we are specifically discussing faith. I still think faith causes problems.
Perknose, feel free to point out my logical fallacies. Here, you haven't shown me that any exist. To paraphrase your fellow poster "Michael" saying something is so doesn't make it so. And it's possible that I use fallacious arguments from time to time by mistake, but they should be quoted and explained.
I am not going to thank you because your post was baseless, you failed to use any examples. I would point you to Zemnervolt as an example of a good poster. He brings reasoning to the discussion and focuses his attacks on my arguments instead of on me.
Finally, you still seem angry to me. I wish I could help you but I do not know much about curbing anger. I have heard that anger is a result of fear. What do you fear? Were you so traumatized by our previous discussions that you feel the need to lash out day after day? I'm not sure, but I don't see how your emotions are adding to this discussion.
I like being reasonable as much as the next guy, I think, but when I gotta go pee I don't much fancy explaining to myself why. I just like to get up and go with full faith that when I get there I will.
The centipede was happy quite
until the toad in fun
said, 'pray which leg goes before which?'
This left his mind in such a pitch
he lay distracted in a ditch
considering how to run.
The centipede was happy quite
until the toad in fun
said, 'pray which leg goes before which?'
This left his mind in such a pitch
he lay distracted in a ditch
considering how to run.
- Your attacks on faith are based on "since there is no proof, there's no reason to believe," faithful people do not respond to reason, etc. I'm trying to say that the problem is not with faith itself. It's with the misuse of faith. When faithful people do not respond to reason, it is a misuse of faith. Having reason does not preclude a person from having faith, nor does having faith preclude a person from having reason.
- You brought up the definition of faith: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof." You're only way to directly attack faith, therefore, would be to show that having firm belief in something for which there is no proof is wrong. You cannot attack faith based on its use; that is, showing that use of firm belief in something for which there is no proof is wrong. If you try to attack faith based on its use, one can simply say that it is being misused in the circumstance you give. You will be hard pressed to show that the disutility (the bad use) of faith outweighs the utility (the good use) of faith, which I think is what you are trying to do at the moment. For every example you give where faith has been used to a bad outcome, there are counterexamples where faith has been used to a good outcome (keep in mind the definition of faith - it has nothing to do with God). I'm guessing you like science; science itself is based on faith. The scientific method is inductive, and induction by definition cannot be used to prove 100% that something is true. All scientists have "faith" in this inductive method - the inductive method cannot be proven to work (a famous philosopher showed this, I forget who). Please, if you can, show me how faith in itself is wrong (show that having firm belief in something for which there is no proof is wrong).
"When faithful people do not respond to reason, it is a misuse of faith."
You must be using a different definition of faith than I am then and that makes it hard to discuss the issues. It appears to me that your definition is contradictory.
faith = firm belief in something for which there is no proof
Your statement does not make sense when using this definition:
When faithful people do not respond to reason, they are being consistent with the above definition of faith.
You must be using a different definition of faith than I am then and that makes it hard to discuss the issues. It appears to me that your definition is contradictory.
faith = firm belief in something for which there is no proof
Your statement does not make sense when using this definition:
When faithful people do not respond to reason, they are being consistent with the above definition of faith.
These statements: "When faithful people do not respond to reason, it is a misuse of faith."
"When faithful people do not respond to reason, they are being consistent with the above definition of faith."
Are consistent with each other. One statements involves the use of faith, one involves the definition of faith itself. Not responding to reason is consistent with the definition of faith, but it is a misuse of faith if we say that faith should not be involved in cases that can be reasoned. The use or utility of faith is not present in the definition of faith itself. When it is appropriate to use faith is not present in the definition of faith. Your attack that faithful people do not respond to reason is therefore an attack not on faith itself, but faith's use as a guard against reasoning. You have not shown explicitly that "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" itself is wrong. This discussion has degenerated into a debate over the uses of faith in armed conflict in the middle east, etc, not over the idea of faith itself - not over the idea that a person can have firm belief in something for which there is no proof. I think when you said that since there is no proof, there's no reason to believe was the only attack you made on faith itself. I am wondering if you have any further attacks on faith itself, rather than its uses, such as that of being used as a shield against reasoning.
"When faithful people do not respond to reason, they are being consistent with the above definition of faith."
Are consistent with each other. One statements involves the use of faith, one involves the definition of faith itself. Not responding to reason is consistent with the definition of faith, but it is a misuse of faith if we say that faith should not be involved in cases that can be reasoned. The use or utility of faith is not present in the definition of faith itself. When it is appropriate to use faith is not present in the definition of faith. Your attack that faithful people do not respond to reason is therefore an attack not on faith itself, but faith's use as a guard against reasoning. You have not shown explicitly that "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" itself is wrong. This discussion has degenerated into a debate over the uses of faith in armed conflict in the middle east, etc, not over the idea of faith itself - not over the idea that a person can have firm belief in something for which there is no proof. I think when you said that since there is no proof, there's no reason to believe was the only attack you made on faith itself. I am wondering if you have any further attacks on faith itself, rather than its uses, such as that of being used as a shield against reasoning.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter