1818 replies to this topic

[serp777]

 

 

 

addx: Ok, I'll try and make it simple for you.

I have a desire to be the best at everything others find important to be good at.

I have a desire to control everything others find important to control.

That's it.

Wow that is simple!

1.  There is a best at everything you can be good at that you desire.  It is real.
2.  Others really desire to control things and you really do also.  What you desire is real!

What you desire is real. You explained it quite well.
-----------------------------------
Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.
Premise 2:  But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.

Conclusion:  Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.  It is real.

 

 

 

"My desire" satisfies both premise 1, as it corresponds to real objects, but also 2 as nothing (real) can ever satisfy it even though it corresponds to real objects it's always needing more real objects and never being able to predict and set things so that you are free from this desire. 

 

I become better than someone, than someone else becomes better than me and then I have to become better and then he has to become better and so on.

 

Notice how you keep evolving your arguments on this forum, you keep repeating the same things over and over again, learning where people will disprove you, finding more arguments to have over them, endlessly.  -> That's "my desire" in effect and your denial of "my desire"(your god in fact) makes you into a puppet of this "desire" causing you to do this endlessly.

 

So your premises are just your bad introspection and selfdeceit.

 

So you created a straw man and proceeded to knock it down declaring victory.  You need to listen to the debate to see how this misses the issue entirely.

 

[sthira]

How well is god aging? He looks a little confused here. Do we have any diet and supplement recomendations for the almighty? More kale, blueberries and $50 a bottle for NR? How about metformin for god, good idea? And he doesn't look like he's practicing CR -- tisk, tisk, CR is the only monkey-proof to slow the assaults of aging, god should know this science. Is he fiddling around with c60oo and the mitoq skin cream stuff? And while He seems to rock a lovely mane of hair and beard, do you think the creator would prefer to be without the gray? Did that hippie son's drama from the desert a few thousand years ago add to god's gray?

[addx]

 

 

 

addx: Ok, I'll try and make it simple for you.

I have a desire to be the best at everything others find important to be good at.

I have a desire to control everything others find important to control.

That's it.

Wow that is simple!

1.  There is a best at everything you can be good at that you desire.  It is real.
2.  Others really desire to control things and you really do also.  What you desire is real!

What you desire is real. You explained it quite well.
-----------------------------------
Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.
Premise 2:  But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.

Conclusion:  Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.  It is real.

 

 

 

"My desire" satisfies both premise 1, as it corresponds to real objects, but also 2 as nothing (real) can ever satisfy it even though it corresponds to real objects it's always needing more real objects and never being able to predict and set things so that you are free from this desire. 

 

I become better than someone, than someone else becomes better than me and then I have to become better and then he has to become better and so on.

 

Notice how you keep evolving your arguments on this forum, you keep repeating the same things over and over again, learning where people will disprove you, finding more arguments to have over them, endlessly.  -> That's "my desire" in effect and your denial of "my desire"(your god in fact) makes you into a puppet of this "desire" causing you to do this endlessly.

 

So your premises are just your bad introspection and selfdeceit.

 

So you created a straw man and proceeded to knock it down declaring victory.  You need to listen to the debate to see how this misses the issue entirely.

 

 

No, I corrected your bad introspection which resulted in bad premises and a wrong conclusion. 

 

You made the decision about the conclusion(that there is some maximal deity) before even forming the premises and based on no evidence so you must now resort to bad premises to somehow steer logic into the desired conclusion.

 

When your premises are corrected, your argument falls apart. It shows that humans are installed with an "evolutionary drive" and that religion is in general conceived as a way to reduce the suffering caused by this drive (or rather the inability to ever satisfy it) in a placebo manner. Since placebo works on anxious and depressive disorders (caused by the perpetual inability to satisfy the evolutionary drive) up to 40% so does religion. It works. It doesn't mean it's true, but it "works" as a way to reduce suffering(in a simple "all will be well" manner). Some from the other 60% see this, but they can't apply it on themselves, so they experience it as everything but what it is meant to do - reduce suffering. The other 60% sees religious belonging as social markings, ego inventory, whatever. Some of them reject it and are atheists, some of them abuse it for their own goals. Some of them stare into it and just can't get it to work, so they persuade others that it works(like you) even though they clearly show a lack of serenity (you obviously are not serene).

Edited by addx, 15 August 2014 - 01:32 PM.

[DukeNukem]

 

This thread exposes how desperate and threadbare the arguments for gods are.

 

If creator-of-the-universe gods actually existed that apparently wanted human belief, they wouldn't make themselves so invisible and so illogical.  Gods really are about the dumbest idea modern humans can believe in.

First you provide no evidence but typically just call names.  Talk about a threadbare argument.

 

You seem to claim you know what God should do.  You even once proposed he should put a sign on the moon advertising that yes there was a god.  That is the way you would do it.

 

The Christian God is both knowable and mystery, Kataphatic and Aphophatic.  We have discussed this in section one.   (See below)

If you fully knew God it would mean your so called "modern." brain was capable of such a task.  Dumb idea.  It would not be God!

APOPHATIC AND KATAPHATIC, negative and positive.
http://www.longecity...570#entry645162
http://www.longecity...570#entry645404
http://www.longecity...570#entry645484
http://www.longecity...570#entry645490
 

 

 

My evidence is a total lack of evidence.  For which you've strongly reinforced.

 

[luv2increase]

Watch God's Not Dead. I watched last night. Awesome!!

[twc111]

 

 

 

That's hilarious actually. I'm not sure what relevance this picture could have to the thread.

 

 

 

 

Now SH is derailing his own thread, which is even more amusing. I at least have to give SH some credit for being entertaining.

 

shadowhawk==please allow me to educate you as to why i think the picture is relevant. The BOOk by our GOD tells us that the heavens are a picture of GOD --infinite,everlasting,----------its the word of GOD sent to those who  are here and have not heard the WORD but can see.Its a well known fact that groups of people who were not given the words of life by others but they just lived by the voice of conscience----and had a knowing of right wrong and a greater being!

 

 Its the proof------of existence-----No physical body of Jesus is proof of LOVING -and some of these words spoken are proof-"the wise will be as fools--we love u anyway

 

 

 

 

Based on your last few posts, I'm having a hard time deciding whether or not you're just trolling.

 

Your above post sounds quite similar to any Christian fanatic's rant based completely on subjectivity and personal beliefs. The heavens/cosmos are not proof of the existence of your Christian God.

 

In your last post, you mentioned that the Books of Genesis and Revelation are solid examples of "proof". Have you, in reality, ever read either of those books? The bulk of Genesis has long been disproven, and the rest is extremely improbable (and, as a result, unprovable). Revelation is a man's psychedelic trip (similar to the Doors of Perception). An experience that sounds straight out of Narnia. 

 

 

         Let us not make the mistake of trying to explain a book based on the few pages when the book is more of a total novel where the meaning is only in the total -not the few. For example--if one takes a novel such as "Moby Dick" or War Peace' and reads a few chapters in the beginning and attempts to understand the total of the book. Genesis is just one of many that make up the total. Yes i read it from Genesis to Revelation.

 

      On the earth i live in it seems that all humans speak from what their experience has taught . Total objectivity is what I and others reach for but never reached.

 

     The Heavens are WAY more then a little acid trip. I am really confounded how one can see facts such as  1-State of Israel and how its treated from its enemy's, 2-How one can see feel the EVIL in a world that also has such LOVE all active==3-N Narnia and psychedelic trips came AFTER---not before--Genesis.

 

    I think we all been there-------just doing what we had to do--feed the family, party when we can----laugh at those religious nuts-----have disgust or jealously when those money lusting preachers seem to leach off the old vulnerable---but the KNOCK OUT PUNCH that KNOCKED TRUTH IN ME -----came from the WORD OF GOD___Church is not a building---fake phoney is everywhere----lust fun lasts for a time---but so empty later --
 

[shadowhawk]

 

 

This thread exposes how desperate and threadbare the arguments for gods are.

 

If creator-of-the-universe gods actually existed that apparently wanted human belief, they wouldn't make themselves so invisible and so illogical.  Gods really are about the dumbest idea modern humans can believe in.

First you provide no evidence but typically just call names.  Talk about a threadbare argument.

 

You seem to claim you know what God should do.  You even once proposed he should put a sign on the moon advertising that yes there was a god.  That is the way you would do it.

 

The Christian God is both knowable and mystery, Kataphatic and Aphophatic.  We have discussed this in section one.   (See below)

If you fully knew God it would mean your so called "modern." brain was capable of such a task.  Dumb idea.  It would not be God!

APOPHATIC AND KATAPHATIC, negative and positive.
http://www.longecity...570#entry645162
http://www.longecity...570#entry645404
http://www.longecity...570#entry645484
http://www.longecity...570#entry645490
 

 

 

My evidence is a total lack of evidence.  For which you've strongly reinforced.

 

Yes, you have a total lack of evidence but perhaps it is because fully knowing anything is beyond all of us.  We all live by faith.

[twc111]

 

 

 

The argument is deductively valid--i.e., you're not going to be able to wiggle your way out of it. You lost the debate, but you're still refusing to concede the point.
 

 
 
 This quote of yours demonstrates of what I see is the big obstacle of we human have when attempting to  know reality. Are you more invested in winning a debate or are you wanting to gain understand know the truth!
 
   I have been in, a guest of and participator of many debates. I see it as a playtime for some who enjoy bouncing around words, ideas in a way to subdue the opponent. I find in my short time experiencing the intellectual world, the similarities to the muscle bound weight lifters were amazing. One practices words and how to use them in an defensive offensive manner to prove their intellect while the other flexes and maybe a wrestling match.
 
   My point is that Truth or Reality will never be revealed where overbearing ego is present. Think tanks will only become viable when no agenda is  attempting to be proved or unproved.When you have humanistic Scientist dogmatic against God, Spirit-----and the other side religious zealots all u have is a all in wrestling match. Whoever wins means NOTHING-

Philosophy and logic are riddled with argumentation by their very natures. Sometimes extremely useful things come of it. The scientific method is one such product. Rationalism heavily relies on argumentation. None of the moral philosophies would exist without debates. Logicians spend their lives poring over proofs and arguing over methods of reasoning. Philosophers of science are constantly debating how we should do science, what effects our own inherent biases have on experiments and result interpretation, etc. It all ery much does have meaning


I'm sorry but your sentiments are naive and poorly presented.

 

 

What I was speaking of was my personal experience. Debates are a productive form of communicating diverse ideas. I think a person who practices,learns and understanding debating is a well versed individual.I total agree with you in the advantages of debating.

 

 I was just speaking from my experience and others who I have talked to where the issue of debate,reasoning can become a obstacle and ruin the objective goal. If one reveals a negative within many positives, PLEASE do not take it as a attack on the whole.

 

 Actually, just imagine how many have discussed issues of morality,objective truth and reasoning. All in a effort to improve us humans. ----hmmmmmmmmmm-----

 

  wonder how the mass tribes such as American Indians and many others who never went to our schools,colleges, but some how how a manageable moral law in place? oh yaaaa-not perfect-----some confusion here and there but overall a community that cared and lived-----

 

  It seems in order to NOT believe in God, To POLLUTE our life with ahh name it!!!!!its everywhere---one must go and study under scholars--

-

 WOW__U KNOW____TO GET ignorant one must study under scholars======

 

 to get relevant to life in this world one will study the Heavens and live with its understanding!

 

[shadowhawk]

addx: No, I corrected your bad introspection which resulted in bad premises and a wrong conclusion.

 You corrected nothing but you did construct a straw man which has nothing to do with the argument from desire.

You made the decision about the conclusion(that there is some maximal deity) before even forming the premises and based on no evidence so you must now resort to bad premises to somehow steer logic into the desired conclusion.

 Actually the argument was formulated before I was ever born so I could not make it up.

When your premises are corrected, your argument falls apart. It shows that humans are installed with an "evolutionary drive" and that religion is in general conceived as a way to reduce the suffering caused by this drive (or rather the inability to ever satisfy it) in a placebo manner. Since placebo works on anxious and depressive disorders (caused by the perpetual inability to satisfy the evolutionary drive) up to 40% so does religion. It works. It doesn't mean it's true, but it "works" as a way to reduce suffering(in a simple "all will be well" manner). Some from the other 60% see this, but they can't apply it on themselves, so they experience it as everything but what it is meant to do - reduce suffering. The other 60% sees religious belonging as social markings, ego inventory, whatever. Some of them reject it and are atheists, some of them abuse it for their own goals. Some of them stare into it and just can't get it to work, so they persuade others that it works(like you) even though they clearly show a lack of serenity (you obviously are not serene).

1.  I have not been corrected.  Your argument is a logical fallacy, straw man and as such it falls apart.

2.  Evolutionary drives are toward things that are real.  In evolution, if it works, it is true..  Perhaps an evolved desire for God, means God is real.  The rest of this is pure gobligoop.

[bor]

WHAT IS FAITH??? We hear all kinds of definitions of faith which are mindless, without evidence. Is this what faith is?

 

Faith is being convinced about what you think is right. Then , you can still be convinced about right or wrong things, but this is where you start. Are you truly believe in your heart what you believe? This is faith. If your faith is good it should result in something good. I'm not aware of any other evidence about faith. 

[serp777]

 

addx: No, I corrected your bad introspection which resulted in bad premises and a wrong conclusion.

 You corrected nothing but you did construct a straw man which has nothing to do with the argument from desire.

 

You made the decision about the conclusion(that there is some maximal deity) before even forming the premises and based on no evidence so you must now resort to bad premises to somehow steer logic into the desired conclusion.

 Actually the argument was formulated before I was ever born so I could not make it up.

 

When your premises are corrected, your argument falls apart. It shows that humans are installed with an "evolutionary drive" and that religion is in general conceived as a way to reduce the suffering caused by this drive (or rather the inability to ever satisfy it) in a placebo manner. Since placebo works on anxious and depressive disorders (caused by the perpetual inability to satisfy the evolutionary drive) up to 40% so does religion. It works. It doesn't mean it's true, but it "works" as a way to reduce suffering(in a simple "all will be well" manner). Some from the other 60% see this, but they can't apply it on themselves, so they experience it as everything but what it is meant to do - reduce suffering. The other 60% sees religious belonging as social markings, ego inventory, whatever. Some of them reject it and are atheists, some of them abuse it for their own goals. Some of them stare into it and just can't get it to work, so they persuade others that it works(like you) even though they clearly show a lack of serenity (you obviously are not serene).

1.  I have not been corrected.  Your argument is a logical fallacy, straw man and as such it falls apart.

2.  Evolutionary drives are toward things that are real.  In evolution, if it works, it is true..  Perhaps an evolved desire for God, means God is real.  The rest of this is pure gobligoop.

 

Edited by serp777, 16 August 2014 - 08:09 PM.

[shadowhawk]

 

WHAT IS FAITH??? We hear all kinds of definitions of faith which are mindless, without evidence. Is this what faith is?

 

Faith is being convinced about what you think is right. Then , you can still be convinced about right or wrong things, but this is where you start. Are you truly believe in your heart what you believe? This is faith. If your faith is good it should result in something good. I'm not aware of any other evidence about faith. 

 

Faith is belief in a person or thing without complete evidence.  Everything has incomplete evidence, therefore we all live by faith.  Faith is not blind, but intelligent and commences with the conviction and commitment of the mind based on adequate but incomplete evidence.

American biblical scholar Archibald Thomas Robertson stated that the Greek word pistis used for faith in the New Testament (over two hundred forty times), and rendered "assurance" in Acts 17:31 (KJV), is "an old verb to furnish, used regularly by Demosthenes for bringing forward evidence."  To be persuaded by belief that has warrant, a trust in and commitment to what we have reason to believe is true.  It is belief that the hypotheses we hold will be substantiated in the future, in fact.  Trust.  Faith should be defined as “trusting, holding to, and acting on what one has good reason to believe is true in the face of incomplete evidence and difficulties.”

“Faith in Christianity is based on the work and teachings of Jesus Christ. Christianity declares not to be distinguished by faith, but by the object of its faith. Rather than being passive, faith leads to an active life aligned with the ideals and the example of the life of Jesus. It sees the mystery of God and his grace and seeks to know and become obedient to God. To a Christian, faith is not static but causes one to learn more of God and grow, and has its origin in God.

In Christianity, faith causes change as it seeks a greater understanding of God. Faith is not fideism or simple obedience to a set of rules or statements.  Before Christians have faith, they must understand in whom and in what they have faith. Without understanding, there cannot be true faith, and that understanding is built on the foundation of the community of believers, the scriptures and traditions and on the personal experiences of the believer. In English translations of the New Testament, the word faith generally corresponds to the Greek noun (pistis) or the Greek verb (pisteuo), meaning "to trust, to have confidence, faithfulness, to be reliable, to assure".”

http://en.wikipedia....Faith#Criticism











 

[serp777]

 

 

WHAT IS FAITH??? We hear all kinds of definitions of faith which are mindless, without evidence. Is this what faith is?

 

Faith is being convinced about what you think is right. Then , you can still be convinced about right or wrong things, but this is where you start. Are you truly believe in your heart what you believe? This is faith. If your faith is good it should result in something good. I'm not aware of any other evidence about faith. 

 

Faith is belief in a person or thing without complete evidence.  Everything has incomplete evidence, therefore we all live by faith.  Faith is not blind, but intelligent and commences with the conviction and commitment of the mind based on adequate but incomplete evidence.

American biblical scholar Archibald Thomas Robertson stated that the Greek word pistis used for faith in the New Testament (over two hundred forty times), and rendered "assurance" in Acts 17:31 (KJV), is "an old verb to furnish, used regularly by Demosthenes for bringing forward evidence."  To be persuaded by belief that has warrant, a trust in and commitment to what we have reason to believe is true.  It is belief that the hypotheses we hold will be substantiated in the future, in fact.  Trust.  Faith should be defined as “trusting, holding to, and acting on what one has good reason to believe is true in the face of incomplete evidence and difficulties.”

“Faith in Christianity is based on the work and teachings of Jesus Christ. Christianity declares not to be distinguished by faith, but by the object of its faith. Rather than being passive, faith leads to an active life aligned with the ideals and the example of the life of Jesus. It sees the mystery of God and his grace and seeks to know and become obedient to God. To a Christian, faith is not static but causes one to learn more of God and grow, and has its origin in God.

In Christianity, faith causes change as it seeks a greater understanding of God. Faith is not fideism or simple obedience to a set of rules or statements.  Before Christians have faith, they must understand in whom and in what they have faith. Without understanding, there cannot be true faith, and that understanding is built on the foundation of the community of believers, the scriptures and traditions and on the personal experiences of the believer. In English translations of the New Testament, the word faith generally corresponds to the Greek noun (pistis) or the Greek verb (pisteuo), meaning "to trust, to have confidence, faithfulness, to be reliable, to assure".”

http://en.wikipedia....Faith#Criticism











 

 

[shadowhawk]

1. Are the Mysterious ways of God to be compared to random chance?  No, the ways of God are purposeful and willed.  They are a mystery because they are they are BEYOND our ability to understand.  Random chance is not purposeful or willed.  It is just pure luck.

2.  Do we die because of the acts of others?  (Two People)   Many have died because of the acts of others.  It happens all the time.  A captain on an airline or ship may make an error that costs everyone their lives.  In the case of Christianity each person separates him or her self from God. Yes we have all sinned but through the sacrifice of one we can all be saved.  Grab hold of the lifeboat or you may experience the consequences of the acts of others.

3.  A designer is free to design what ever they want.  What is an an infallible creation?  That is not in the Bible and Christians do not use this word.  This short video deals with this question.




 

 

[serp777]

1. Are the Mysterious ways of God to be compared to random chance?  No, the ways of God are purposeful and willed.  They are a mystery because they are they are BEYOND our ability to understand.  Random chance is not purposeful or willed.  It is just pure luck.

2.  Do we die because of the acts of others?  (Two People)   Many have died because of the acts of others.  It happens all the time.  A captain on an airline or ship may make an error that costs everyone their lives.  In the case of Christianity each person separates him or her self from God. Yes we have all sinned but through the sacrifice of one we can all be saved.  Grab hold of the lifeboat or you may experience the consequences of the acts of others.

3.  A designer is free to design what ever they want.  What is an an infallible creation?  That is not in the Bible and Christians do not use this word.  This short video deals with this question.




 

1. You have no evidence of a specific deity, especially a deity who cares and coincides with Christian beliefs, even more especially a deity who created a universe with purpose. The world seems to follow random chance pretty well; quantum physics is good evidence of that.

 

2. Hope you guessed the correct religion and hope you guessed the right interpretation of sin and morality. 

 

3. The bible was written and then edited/ abridged by people, not God. 

[sthira]

Shadowhawk: if you were God is this the world you would have created?

[DukeNukem]

SH:  >>> We all live by faith.

 

In what way do I live by faith???

[shadowhawk]

Shadowhawk: if you were God is this the world you would have created?

No sence I am not God I don't even start to have the brains or wisdom to do it..

[shadowhawk]

SH:  >>> We all live by faith.

 

In what way do I live by faith???

Faith is belief in a person or thing without complete evidence.  Everything has incomplete evidence, therefore we all live by faith.  Faith is not blind, but intelligent and commences with the conviction and commitment of the mind based on adequate but incomplete evidence.

 

Since you do not have complete knowledge of anything, you live by faith.  You trust in order to live.

 

Edited by shadowhawk, 19 August 2014 - 12:53 AM.

[sthira]

Shadowhawk: if you were God is this the world you would have created?

No sence I am not God I don't even start to have the brains or wisdom to do it..

Can you imagine a better world than this world?

[serp777]

 

SH:  >>> We all live by faith.

 

In what way do I live by faith???

Faith is belief in a person or thing without complete evidence.  Everything has incomplete evidence, therefore we all live by faith.  Faith is not blind, but intelligent and commences with the conviction and commitment of the mind based on adequate but incomplete evidence.

 

Since you do not have complete knowledge of anything, you live by faith.  You trust in order to live.

 

 By completely skewing the definition of faith, you have proven that religious faith is the same thing  or similar to that, and is therefore reasonable. Over generalization fallacy is over generalizing. 

[sthira]

SH: >>> We all live by faith.

In what way do I live by faith???

You live in faith by assuming, eg, that tomorrow morning the sun will rise. Or that the earth will continue its rotation, or oxygen will remain breathable or that gravity isn't suddenly disrupted and we're all slung into far out craziness. We all live in this sort of "faith" that the natural order of reality will continue to support us with the same consistently from prior experience. But that's not really an absolute given, as we all clearly know. So I agree with Shadowhawk on this point (if that's the claim, anyway)

[serp777]

 

SH: >>> We all live by faith.

In what way do I live by faith???

You live in faith by assuming, eg, that tomorrow morning the sun will rise. Or that the earth will continue its rotation, or oxygen will remain breathable or that gravity isn't suddenly disrupted and we're all slung into far out craziness. We all live in this sort of "faith" that the natural order of reality will continue to support us with the same consistently from prior experience. But that's not really an absolute given, as we all clearly know. So I agree with Shadowhawk on this point (if that's the claim, anyway)

 

 

Ok none of that redifining of faith justifies religious faith. just because you attempt to use the same word does not mean that supernatural beliefs suddenly become valid. 

[sthira]

SH: >>> We all live by faith.

In what way do I live by faith???

You live in faith by assuming, eg, that tomorrow morning the sun will rise. Or that the earth will continue its rotation, or oxygen will remain breathable or that gravity isn't suddenly disrupted and we're all slung into far out craziness. We all live in this sort of "faith" that the natural order of reality will continue to support us with the same consistently from prior experience. But that's not really an absolute given, as we all clearly know. So I agree with Shadowhawk on this point (if that's the claim, anyway)

Ok none of that redifining of faith justifies religious faith. just because you attempt to use the same word does not mean that supernatural beliefs suddenly become valid.

Right, and I agree with you. But you certainly must agree that we live by a certain "faith" that reality "today" will remain generally consistent with the reality of "tomorrow." Is this semantics? Shrug... I dunno. Is this "faith" a reasonable justification for supernatural beliefs? I don't really know that, either, since I don't know if the supernatural exists. Maybe it does, or maybe supernatural realities do not exist: ha: no one knows.

[serp777]

 

 

 

SH: >>> We all live by faith.

In what way do I live by faith???

You live in faith by assuming, eg, that tomorrow morning the sun will rise. Or that the earth will continue its rotation, or oxygen will remain breathable or that gravity isn't suddenly disrupted and we're all slung into far out craziness. We all live in this sort of "faith" that the natural order of reality will continue to support us with the same consistently from prior experience. But that's not really an absolute given, as we all clearly know. So I agree with Shadowhawk on this point (if that's the claim, anyway)

Ok none of that redifining of faith justifies religious faith. just because you attempt to use the same word does not mean that supernatural beliefs suddenly become valid.

Right, and I agree with you. But you certainly must agree that we live by a certain "faith" that reality "today" will remain generally consistent with the reality of "tomorrow." Is this semantics? Shrug... I dunno. Is this "faith" a reasonable justification for supernatural beliefs? I don't really know that, either, since I don't know if the supernatural exists. Maybe it does, or maybe supernatural realities do not exist: ha: no one knows.

 

I don't have faith that reality today will be reality tomorrow. I think it is likely but I am not certain. Perhaps because of the higgs boson mass, the universe will fall to a lower state of energy, and all the particles we know of now will cease to exist. 

[sthira]

I don't have faith that reality today will be reality tomorrow. I think it is likely but I am not certain. Perhaps because of the higgs boson mass, the universe will fall to a lower state of energy, and all the particles we know of now will cease to exist.

But you still had "faith" that when you typed those words that I would read them, right? And you do still plan to go to class or work tomorrow, right? Is that sort of faith in the natural order transferable to the supernatural? Who knows, man. We can't say with certainty that god does not exist. Nor can we say with certainty that god does exist. Both atheism and theism are "faith". Is agnosticism also "faith"? Do I have "faith" when I say "I don't know"?

[shifter]

Couldn't 'I don't know' Also be considered 'Maybe'?

 

It still is somewhat 'faith' then if you (in your mind) keep the jury out on the matter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't have faith that reality today will be reality tomorrow. I think it is likely but I am not certain. Perhaps because of the higgs boson mass, the universe will fall to a lower state of energy, and all the particles we know of now will cease to exist.

But you still had "faith" that when you typed those words that I would read them, right? And you do still plan to go to class or work tomorrow, right? Is that sort of faith in the natural order transferable to the supernatural? Who knows, man. We can't say with certainty that god does not exist. Nor can we say with certainty that god does exist. Both atheism and theism are "faith". Is agnosticism also "faith"? Do I have "faith" when I say "I don't know"?

 

 

[serp777]

 

I don't have faith that reality today will be reality tomorrow. I think it is likely but I am not certain. Perhaps because of the higgs boson mass, the universe will fall to a lower state of energy, and all the particles we know of now will cease to exist.

But you still had "faith" that when you typed those words that I would read them, right? And you do still plan to go to class or work tomorrow, right? Is that sort of faith in the natural order transferable to the supernatural? Who knows, man. We can't say with certainty that god does not exist. Nor can we say with certainty that god does exist. Both atheism and theism are "faith". Is agnosticism also "faith"? Do I have "faith" when I say "I don't know"?

 

No, I thought you might read them. You possibly could have had a stroke and wouldn't have been able to read my writing. And I might not go to work tomorrow if I am not feeling well. But now you'll probably try to argue that I have faith that I would not know for certain. It's just pointless semantics. It does not justify religious faith in the slightest. And no intelligent athiest is an actual athiest. No person can prove God doesn't exist, but neither can they disprove leprechauns or the celestial teapot. 

[DukeNukem]

 

SH:  >>> We all live by faith.

 

In what way do I live by faith???

Faith is belief in a person or thing without complete evidence.  Everything has incomplete evidence, therefore we all live by faith.  Faith is not blind, but intelligent and commences with the conviction and commitment of the mind based on adequate but incomplete evidence.

 

Since you do not have complete knowledge of anything, you live by faith.  You trust in order to live.

 

 

No, I don't live with by faith in the least.

I absolutely know my iPhone and other electronics will work as I expect them too (unless they break), I know the sun will appear each day, I know eating certain foods will keep me healthier, etc.  I have compelling evidence, statistics, and reasoning behind these truths, that puts them will beyond the the flimsy idea of faith.

I do not live my life with any thought of faith -- it's a concept I do not need or use.

I don't even say that I have "faith" that humans will one day live greatly extended lifespans -- instead I have the expectation that breakthroughs will come to pass that allow this, likely in this century.  So really, in no way does faith play any role in my life.

[shadowhawk]

 

 

Shadowhawk: if you were God is this the world you would have created?

No sence I am not God I don't even start to have the brains or wisdom to do it..

Can you imagine a better world than this world?

 

Yes, heaven.