SultanOfSurreal

[john9blue]

I guess I'll try that.

The known universe has certain fundamental traits, such as "all events have a cause" and "matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed". It is reasonable to conclude that these traits apply to the universe as a whole. This necessitates a Creator that exists outside of our Universe and possibly within it as well.

In response to jones... you cannot always fully rely on your senses. You may be sitting on a table with wires hooked up to your brain, and you would not know. If such a God did exist, he would likely be impossible to imagine.

[Neoteny]

Ignoring your lack of respect for a point of view different to your own:

Wait, don't ignore it. If you think a point of view deserves respect because it's different, then you're an idiot, and I want you to know it.

The definition of God is the creator of the universe(s). This is analogous to "supreme being". Seeing as it upsets you I won't use it again.

That is a terrible definition. Creating a universe doesn't seem all that "supreme" to me. "Supreme" carries a lot of connotations that go farther than just "creating a universe." You shouldn't use the term if that's all you mean.

I'm not trying to persuade you that God exists so don't worry on that score.

That's good. I don't want to waste your time.

Why do you believe so fervently that there is underlying logic in the universe? We only experience the world in 3 dimensions - how many are there?

At least 4, if you count time. I don't believe that there is underlying logic, I think there is underlying order, and that our logic can understand it. Big difference.

Newton's logic was absolutely correct for more than 3 centuries - had I argued against it I would have been perceived as a moron. We now no that it's "good, but it's not right."

Newton's logic was perfectly fine. It was his data that was incomplete. His logic based on the data he had was right logically, if not universally.

I suggest you get over your dependency on logic - it cannot explain everything.

Tell me the logic behind these things:

a) I'm attracted to Claudia Schiffer but not to Britney Spears

b) I dreamt about a sheep last night

c) Emotion

d) Why do we seek answers to life. To steal from Gaarder... If a ball rolls into a room, what does a cat do? It chases the ball. What does a human do? It looks to see where the ball came from. Why?

e) Why do we exist?

Frigidus gives a satisfactory explanation for these. Perhaps not my own opinions, but reasonable ones. Logic has done an excellent job of explaining nearly everything. There are areas on the frontiers of knowledge that might not be touchable yet, but it's irresponsible to say "Well. logic can't touch it, just have faith." Is it not? Especially when people have been saying that for hundreds of years and are consistently proved wrong.

There is nothing wrong with having faith - it's not a dirty word. I think you are used to the religious connotations, please do not apply them to me, I am not religious.

That's fine. I agree that there is nothing wrong with faith. But your defense of faith is a defense that I cannot stand by. I have faith in reason, because I have tested it myself and found it to be reliable. Faith on such a basis is ok by me. You are defending faith for the sake of faith. That's just silly.

[jonesthecurl]

"The known universe has certain fundamental traits, such as "all events have a cause" and "matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed". It is reasonable to conclude that these traits apply to the universe as a whole. This necessitates a Creator that exists outside of our Universe and possibly within it as well."


I think we've been at this point in the argument before. to quote myself, For any possible universe, there are two logical possibilities:

NO beginning. (Obvious Question 1:What came before? more of the same. Obvious Question 2: What came before that? See answer to Obvious Question 1).

OR

A beginning. (Obvious question 1: What came before ? Answer: weren't you listening? there is no before. This is when Time itself began. There are no prior events or causes. Obvious Question 2: What made it start? See answer to Obvious Question 1.)

In other words, either your first or your second assumption are incorrect.

[john9blue]

I think we've been at this point in the argument before. to quote myself, For any possible universe, there are two logical possibilities:

NO beginning. (Obvious Question 1:What came before? more of the same. Obvious Question 2: What came before that? See answer to Obvious Question 1).

OR

A beginning. (Obvious question 1: What came before ? Answer: weren't you listening? there is no before. This is when Time itself began. There are no prior events or causes. Obvious Question 2: What made it start? See answer to Obvious Question 1.)

In other words, either your first or your second assumption are incorrect.

Haha, circular logic to the extreme. I think you've made a good point, that no answer to the origin of the universe as we know it really makes any sense at all.

Choice number 1 seems thoroughly unscientific to me. The first and second laws of thermodynamics point towards a Big Bang-like event as the origin of the universe. I'm for choice number 2. You say that nothing came before, but that implies that the universe started by itself, which again is unscientific. There must be something else. Adding a God isn't making things needlessly complex, it's absolutely necessary. This God also must exist outside of our universe (because He started it), so it's entirely possible that such a being is unprovable.

[Neoteny]

Question: how is a god more scientific than no god?

I can say that it is not necessarily unscientific to say that there was a "first cause." That hypothesis (and it is merely such) is a valid one, scientifically. But once you start calling it god, you step far beyond the boundaries of science.

[john9blue]

Question: how is a god more scientific than no god?

I can say that it is not necessarily unscientific to say that there was a "first cause." That hypothesis (and it is merely such) is a valid one, scientifically. But once you start calling it god, you step far beyond the boundaries of science.

I guess you can call it whatever you want. I'm just trying to establish that such a thing likely exists. Then you can start giving it properties (omnipotent, infinite, etc.).

[Neoteny]

Well, it has not quite been established as existing yet. Just because it is valid does not mean it is likely. While in our universe everything requires a cause, who's to say that everything outside our universe needs a cause? And if that's the case, our universe may not have had a cause in whatever it is floating around in. God proponents are very fond of saying that our logic need not apply there, right?

Plus, there's always the issue of infinite regress... if everything has to have a cause, as you say here:

I guess I'll try that.

The known universe has certain fundamental traits, such as "all events have a cause" and "matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed". It is reasonable to conclude that these traits apply to the universe as a whole. This necessitates a Creator that exists outside of our Universe and possibly within it as well.

Why do the causes stop there? I bet I know why...

While in our universe everything requires a cause, who's to say that everything outside our universe needs a cause?

[InkL0sed]

Wait a second, since when is it a law that all events need a cause? I don't necessarily agree with that.

First of all, can you even tell me what a "cause" is?

Second, how do you prove that something causes something else? Because it happens all the time? How do we differentiate between causality, correlativity, and coincidence?

I think it's impossible to give an absolutely sure answer.

[john9blue]

Well, it has not quite been established as existing yet. Just because it is valid does not mean it is likely. While in our universe everything requires a cause, who's to say that everything outside our universe needs a cause? And if that's the case, our universe may not have had a cause in whatever it is floating around in. God proponents are very fond of saying that our logic need not apply there, right?

So basically you're saying that there's something outside our universe that has no cause... which is exactly what I'm saying too. You say it's some kind of "super universe" that contains our universe but doesn't follow some of its laws, and I'm saying that, even if that does exist, it was started by a conscious being. If you think that all of this weird stuff will someday be proven by science, well I don't know what to say except "believe what you want".

Wait a second, since when is it a law that all events need a cause? I don't necessarily agree with that.

First of all, can you even tell me what a "cause" is?

Second, how do you prove that something causes something else? Because it happens all the time? How do we differentiate between causality, correlativity, and coincidence?

I think it's impossible to give an absolutely sure answer.

ONE OF YOU GET A DIFFERENT AVATAR lol.

I'm not out to prove anything. I agree that it's either impossible or very difficult to give an absolutely sure answer.

[MaleAlphaThree]

You do realize that the only reason you think "God is necessary" is because your faith requires that "God be necessary" or else your belief would be automatically forfeit? Faith reproduces faith. That is the bare bones structure of organized religion and popular belief. If you stop having faith, you stop believing, if you stop believing, there is no faith left. Therefore, faith must survive by defending itself and it's components (which includes "God"). There was a logic in the creation of faith, even if faith itself denies logic.

Knowledge of the meaning of life and the creation of the universe is also an illusion of necessity. We don't need to know "why we're here", "how we got here", or "who done it (if there even is a "who")". We're just curious little humans, and we want answers. We couldn't find the answer to the best of our abilities, so people decided to just make up answers. Knowledge is power, and those clever people knew that, so they used that false power to control others, etc. etc. We all know basic history. We've been existing for a long time, and most people in most of that time weren't parading around with crosses etc. Obviously, we don't need religion/beliefs/faith to survive, whatsoever. If you think you do, you're merely suffering from an addiction of the mind.

If "God" exists outside our universe that's only because it is imaginary. See: the South Park episodes on the topic. If "God" is imaginary, then it had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of our entire universe, our existence, or our daily lives.

[Neoteny]

Well, it has not quite been established as existing yet. Just because it is valid does not mean it is likely. While in our universe everything requires a cause, who's to say that everything outside our universe needs a cause? And if that's the case, our universe may not have had a cause in whatever it is floating around in. God proponents are very fond of saying that our logic need not apply there, right?

So basically you're saying that there's something outside our universe that has no cause... which is exactly what I'm saying too. You say it's some kind of "super universe" that contains our universe but doesn't follow some of its laws, and I'm saying that, even if that does exist, it was started by a conscious being. If you think that all of this weird stuff will someday be proven by science, well I don't know what to say except "believe what you want".

Not quite. I'm not ruling it out, but I think that our universe was spontaneously created (no cause, see quantum physics to be just as confused as me), or always existed (despite current concepts of time; I think we can work out an always that is outside of our idea of time). I'm leaning toward the former. Parsimony says, the farther back the causes go, the less likely. I don't really see us going back farther than our universe. I'm not sure it will be necessary to go any farther to come to the "theory of everything."

[jonesthecurl]

I'll try this one again.

If there is a beginning, then the very first event was not caused by anything. If something caused it, it was not the first event.

If there was no beginning, there is no necessity, indeed no possibility, to say how it started.

Again: if there was a beginning, it just was the beginning, cause-free, gods-free.
if there was no beginning, it goes back as far as you like, cause and effect following each other infinitely, god-free.

[xelabale]

You do realize that the only reason you think "God is necessary" is because your faith requires that "God be necessary" or else your belief would be automatically forfeit? Faith reproduces faith. That is the bare bones structure of organized religion and popular belief. If you stop having faith, you stop believing, if you stop believing, there is no faith left. Therefore, faith must survive by defending itself and it's components (which includes "God"). There was a logic in the creation of faith, even if faith itself denies logic.

Knowledge of the meaning of life and the creation of the universe is also an illusion of necessity. We don't need to know "why we're here", "how we got here", or "who done it (if there even is a "who")". We're just curious little humans, and we want answers. We couldn't find the answer to the best of our abilities, so people decided to just make up answers. Knowledge is power, and those clever people knew that, so they used that false power to control others, etc. etc. We all know basic history. We've been existing for a long time, and most people in most of that time weren't parading around with crosses etc. Obviously, we don't need religion/beliefs/faith to survive, whatsoever. If you think you do, you're merely suffering from an addiction of the mind.

If "God" exists outside our universe that's only because it is imaginary. See: the South Park episodes on the topic. If "God" is imaginary, then it had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of our entire universe, our existence, or our daily lives.

I agree with most of that. Go read Berkley is all I can say.

[xelabale]

Ignoring your lack of respect for a point of view different to your own:

Wait, don't ignore it. If you think a point of view deserves respect because it's different, then you're an idiot, and I want you to know it. If you don't your an idiot - thesis, antithesis, synthesis anyone? Dialectics anyone? Humanity anyone? Respect everyone's views, just don't believe them.

The definition of God is the creator of the universe(s). This is analogous to "supreme being". Seeing as it upsets you I won't use it again.

That is a terrible definition. Creating a universe doesn't seem all that "supreme" to me. "Supreme" carries a lot of connotations that go farther than just "creating a universe." You shouldn't use the term if that's all you mean. I see it upsets you, I already said I won't use it.

I'm not trying to persuade you that God exists so don't worry on that score.

That's good. I don't want to waste your time.

Why do you believe so fervently that there is underlying logic in the universe? We only experience the world in 3 dimensions - how many are there?

At least 4, if you count time. I don't believe that there is underlying logic, I think there is underlying order, and that our logic can understand it. Big difference. Or possibly 7 at the last count

Newton's logic was absolutely correct for more than 3 centuries - had I argued against it I would have been perceived as a moron. We now no that it's "good, but it's not right."

Newton's logic was perfectly fine. It was his data that was incomplete. His logic based on the data he had was right logically, if not universally.So we agree, reason is a very useful tool, but it's not able to provide answers. Newton was right in context, but wrong in fact - well, the facts that we now know, anyway. What makes you think your reason is providing you with any correct answers now? That is supreme arrogance. It's simply a useful tool for progression.

There is nothing wrong with having faith - it's not a dirty word. I think you are used to the religious connotations, please do not apply them to me, I am not religious.

That's fine. I agree that there is nothing wrong with faith. But your defense of faith is a defense that I cannot stand by. I have faith in reason, because I have tested it myself and found it to be reliable. Faith on such a basis is ok by me. You are defending faith for the sake of faith. That's just silly.

I think you don't understand the concept of faith too well. Faith IS believing without proof - that's the whole point. Otherwise it wouldn't be faith.

I suggest you get over your dependency on logic - it cannot explain everything.

[Neoteny]

I am not playing the color game with you.

Ignoring your lack of respect for a point of view different to your own:

Wait, don't ignore it. If you think a point of view deserves respect because it's different, then you're an idiot, and I want you to know it.

If you don't your an idiot - thesis, antithesis, synthesis anyone? Dialectics anyone? Humanity anyone? Respect everyone's views, just don't believe them.

That's ridiculous, and I'm not sure you know the meaning of those words. Do you respect Hitler's views? Do you respect the views of the Hutu ethnicity in 1994? I hope not, because that would make you a bit of a monster. Those are extreme examples, but a view does not deserve respect based solely on its difference from your own. It deserves respect based on its inherent merit, which can be discerned through discourse. Only after that should opinions be afforded respect. I can respect opinions that I think are wrong, but they must have a more robust intellectual basis than "respect all opinions, and faith is better than logic because I say so."

The definition of God is the creator of the universe(s). This is analogous to "supreme being". Seeing as it upsets you I won't use it again.

That is a terrible definition. Creating a universe doesn't seem all that "supreme" to me. "Supreme" carries a lot of connotations that go farther than just "creating a universe." You shouldn't use the term if that's all you mean.

I see it upsets you, I already said I won't use it.

Why do you believe so fervently that there is underlying logic in the universe? We only experience the world in 3 dimensions - how many are there?

At least 4, if you count time. I don't believe that there is underlying logic, I think there is underlying order, and that our logic can understand it. Big difference.

Or possibly 7 at the last count

How is that relevant? If we are detecting all 7 of those mathematically, physically, or any other way, we are still detecting them, and examining them using reason, not faith. Or did I miss the quantum physics chapter of the Bible? Are you suggesting that I have faith in your faith in the logic of someone else who knows what they are talking about?

Newton's logic was absolutely correct for more than 3 centuries - had I argued against it I would have been perceived as a moron. We now no that it's "good, but it's not right."

Newton's logic was perfectly fine. It was his data that was incomplete. His logic based on the data he had was right logically, if not universally.

So we agree, reason is a very useful tool, but it's not able to provide answers. Newton was right in context, but wrong in fact - well, the facts that we now know, anyway. What makes you think your reason is providing you with any correct answers now? That is supreme arrogance. It's simply a useful tool for progression.

Not quite. Reason is a useful tool, and has provided us with all the answers that we have so far. It sure as hell wasn't faith that showed where Newton's flaws were. Also, the flaws were not in his logic, but in his inputs. You are not arguing against reason here; you are arguing against information. Go figure. Reason is providing more answers than faith ever will. And there you go using "supreme" again. I really do not think that means what you think it means.

There is nothing wrong with having faith - it's not a dirty word. I think you are used to the religious connotations, please do not apply them to me, I am not religious.

That's fine. I agree that there is nothing wrong with faith. But your defense of faith is a defense that I cannot stand by. I have faith in reason, because I have tested it myself and found it to be reliable. Faith on such a basis is ok by me. You are defending faith for the sake of faith. That's just silly.

I think you don't understand the concept of faith too well. Faith IS believing without proof - that's the whole point. Otherwise it wouldn't be faith.

I suggest you get over your dependency on logic - it cannot explain everything.

And I suggest you get over your dependency on faith. Faith, by definition, does not explain anything, as it requires you to suspend the faculties for explanation. Logic has at least explained something. More dependable, you see.

[xelabale]

I am not playing the color game with you.

Ignoring your lack of respect for a point of view different to your own:

Wait, don't ignore it. If you think a point of view deserves respect because it's different, then you're an idiot, and I want you to know it.

If you don't your an idiot - thesis, antithesis, synthesis anyone? Dialectics anyone? Humanity anyone? Respect everyone's views, just don't believe them.

That's ridiculous, and I'm not sure you know the meaning of those words. Do you respect Hitler's views? Do you respect the views of the Hutu ethnicity in 1994? I hope not, because that would make you a bit of a monster. Those are extreme examples, but a view does not deserve respect based solely on its difference from your own. It deserves respect based on its inherent merit, which can be discerned through discourse. Only after that should opinions be afforded respect. I can respect opinions that I think are wrong, but they must have a more robust intellectual basis than "respect all opinions, and faith is better than logic because I say so."

The definition of God is the creator of the universe(s). This is analogous to "supreme being". Seeing as it upsets you I won't use it again.

That is a terrible definition. Creating a universe doesn't seem all that "supreme" to me. "Supreme" carries a lot of connotations that go farther than just "creating a universe." You shouldn't use the term if that's all you mean.

I see it upsets you, I already said I won't use it.

Why do you believe so fervently that there is underlying logic in the universe? We only experience the world in 3 dimensions - how many are there?

At least 4, if you count time. I don't believe that there is underlying logic, I think there is underlying order, and that our logic can understand it. Big difference.

Or possibly 7 at the last count

How is that relevant? If we are detecting all 7 of those mathematically, physically, or any other way, we are still detecting them, and examining them using reason, not faith. Or did I miss the quantum physics chapter of the Bible? Are you suggesting that I have faith in your faith in the logic of someone else who knows what they are talking about?

Newton's logic was absolutely correct for more than 3 centuries - had I argued against it I would have been perceived as a moron. We now no that it's "good, but it's not right."

Newton's logic was perfectly fine. It was his data that was incomplete. His logic based on the data he had was right logically, if not universally.

So we agree, reason is a very useful tool, but it's not able to provide answers. Newton was right in context, but wrong in fact - well, the facts that we now know, anyway. What makes you think your reason is providing you with any correct answers now? That is supreme arrogance. It's simply a useful tool for progression.

Not quite. Reason is a useful tool, and has provided us with all the answers that we have so far. It sure as hell wasn't faith that showed where Newton's flaws were. Also, the flaws were not in his logic, but in his inputs. You are not arguing against reason here; you are arguing against information. Go figure. Reason is providing more answers than faith ever will. And there you go using "supreme" again. I really do not think that means what you think it means.

There is nothing wrong with having faith - it's not a dirty word. I think you are used to the religious connotations, please do not apply them to me, I am not religious.

That's fine. I agree that there is nothing wrong with faith. But your defense of faith is a defense that I cannot stand by.

I think you don't understand the concept of faith too well. Faith IS believing without proof - that's the whole point. Otherwise it wouldn't be faith.

I suggest you get over your dependency on logic - it cannot explain everything.

And I suggest you get over your dependency on faith. Faith, by definition, does not explain anything, as it requires you to suspend the faculties for explanation. Logic has at least explained something. More dependable, you see.

I'm not playing the embedded quote game with you. Using colours wasn't designed to piss you off, relax.

Seeing as you challenge my knowledge:
Thesis (philosophy) - an idea put forward - note there are other meanings
Antithesis (philosophy) - the opposite argument to a thesis - note there are other meanings
synthesis (philosophy) - the new thesis that emerges from the tension between the thesis and antithesis - note there are other meanings

dialectics - the triad above. The system of philosophical discussion proposed by Hegel.

You're right about respect for other views - not all demand respect. However is my view worthy of the scorn you seem to regard it with? I am not proposing genocide, I'm proposing god, and dismissing it out of hand is at best sad.

Why should there be underlying order? Where do you get that from? What determined this so-called order?

Faith isn't supposed to determine laws of nature and other incidentals (which are nevertheless very useful to us). We have logic to do that. I am not anti-logic. I believe completely in science. I just don't think it can be used to determine the existence of God. Please don't be so protective of logic, I'm with you for the most part. Faith comes at the point where we must accept that logic can't take us any further, the existence of God for example. Choose to believe or disbelieve in a God, but it's still faith.

Here I must quote you:
I have faith in reason, because I have tested it myself and found it to be reliable. Faith on such a basis is ok by me. You are defending faith for the sake of faith. That's just silly.

Not silly - faith IS believing without requiring proof - go look it up, as I told you this before.

I don't know if there's a quantum physics section in the bible, I don't remember one. As I am not Christian, nor do I believe in any one religion, this is utterly besides the point. I think you are arguing from your standard playbook without understanding what I'm saying. I suggest you take your time and read what I've been saying more carefully rather than trotting out glib retorts that aren't relevant.

If we both open our minds we can both learn something from this discussion. If you choose to argue for the sake of it without trying to understand that I'm not a "religious nutter", well what's the point? (Maybe we could even achieve some sort of synthesis )

[MaleAlphaThree]

I find any person with faith in anything besides substantiated relationships to be a religious nutter. I have faith in my relationship with my girlfriend. It is not faith in something that doesn't exist.... it is faith in things that simply are. You might as well use faith (in this example) as synonymous with confidence. However, having confidence in something that really does not exist by any modern standards, is overwhelmingly foolish. If this faulty confidence affects any decisions in your life, then it is no doubt harming you and anyone you interact with.

[xelabale]

I find any person with faith in anything besides substantiated relationships to be a religious nutter. I have faith in my relationship with my girlfriend. It is not faith in something that doesn't exist.... it is faith in things that simply are. You might as well use faith (in this example) as synonymous with confidence. However, having confidence in something that really does not exist by any modern standards, is overwhelmingly foolish. If this faulty confidence affects any decisions in your life, then it is no doubt harming you and anyone you interact with.

If I have faith in a God, and consequently this helps me, I have a substantiated relationship with God - whether it exists or not. Who are you to say that this is harmful or foolish? I'm harming people around me because of my personal beliefs which no-one knows about and I do nothing in the name of? That is irrational - an emotional response.
Please try to apply some logic to the situation.

You have faith in something that may not last, and worst of all that may harm you! You abandon reason and logic to apply this faith!! Logically people's partners may not be the best if you look at cold hard facts. Is she the wealthiest person you could choose? Is she the most beautiful person you could have chosen? I'm guessing logic wasn't a big factor in your choice.

Faith!! How ridiculous!!

[Haggis_McMutton]

I find any person with faith in anything besides substantiated relationships to be a religious nutter. I have faith in my relationship with my girlfriend. It is not faith in something that doesn't exist.... it is faith in things that simply are. You might as well use faith (in this example) as synonymous with confidence. However, having confidence in something that really does not exist by any modern standards, is overwhelmingly foolish. If this faulty confidence affects any decisions in your life, then it is no doubt harming you and anyone you interact with.

If I have faith in a God, and consequently this helps me, I have a substantiated relationship with God - whether it exists or not. Who are you to say that this is harmful or foolish? I'm harming people around me because of my personal beliefs which no-one knows about and I do nothing in the name of? That is irrational - an emotional response.
Please try to apply some logic to the situation.

If you actually acted in that manner, than your faith would indeed be of no consequence, however you(and almost every other "believer") don't actually act like that.
We know of your personal beliefs and you are now debating on this forum because of them. This shows that you have a certain level of conviction in said beliefs. You want us to believe that this conviction doesn't influence your RL decisions at all?

My main problem with moderate, reasonable christians or believers in general, is exactly the faith issue.

You have faith in something that may not last, and worst of all that may harm you! You abandon reason and logic to apply this faith!! Logically people's partners may not be the best if you look at cold hard facts. Is she the wealthiest person you could choose? Is she the most beautiful person you could have chosen? I'm guessing logic wasn't a big factor in your choice.

Faith!! How ridiculous!!

I have faith that the sun will rise next morning, because that's what it has done as far as i remember, because valid sources claim that it has been doing that for quite a few years before i was born, and because science explains why it does so.

I have faith in my relationship, because i know the girl for quite some time, because so far i have had no serious reason to be displeased with the way the relationship is going, and because it is useless to always worry about what might happen if it doesn't work out.

This is however quite a different level of faith. I have way, way more faith that the sun will rise again than that i will live happily ever after in my current relationship, why? Because, as opposed to the sun example, here, previous experiences and testimony of reliable sources all point towards the fact that most relationships don't last "till death". Science also explains how men an women are genetically wired, when it comes to reproduction and long term relationships, this also weakens my faith that in 20 years i'll still be with the same partner.

Now you see, that is the difference. Faith is inherit to being a human, however, we must use logic to decide how much faith we put in one idea or another, that's what i'm saying.

And a benevolent creator who looks after his subjects while always remaining barely out of sight requires quite a bit of faith indeed.

[xelabale]

Who said anything about a benevolent creator who is keeping quiet? You must be confusing me with the religious nutter over the road. I have said several times, I am not religious, I just believe in God as a creator. How illogical to think of God having human motives or thought processes!!

[=quote"haggis"] If you actually acted in that manner, than your faith would indeed be of no consequence, however you(and almost every other "believer") don't actually act like that.
We know of your personal beliefs and you are now debating on this forum because of them. This shows that you have a certain level of conviction in said beliefs. You want us to believe that this conviction doesn't influence your RL decisions at all?[/quote]

How do i act then, as you know me so well? Bearing in mind I am not religious. I do have conviction in my faith, I am willing to debate it and try to understand more. It affects my state of being. I am content with my world view, though constantly exploring it. Why else would I choose to debate it? I have said several times, I'm not proselytising God, I'm debating ideas. If being happy with my world view affects RL, so be it - this is a bad thing? I certainly never say "God made me", "God says..." etc. See above in bold.

[=quote"haggis"]I have faith that the sun will rise next morning, because that's what it has done as far as i remember, because valid sources claim that it has been doing that for quite a few years before i was born, and because science explains why it does so.

I have faith in my relationship, because i know the girl for quite some time, because so far i have had no serious reason to be displeased with the way the relationship is going, and because it is useless to always worry about what might happen if it doesn't work out.[/quote]
You do not have faith in the sun rising, you have empirical evidence. Faith is believing without having evidence. You may have faith in your relationship. What is a relationship? Can you prove that it exists? Is it tangible? Is it measurable? Is it reproducable? Your relationship fails every reasonable scientific test, and cannot be proven to exist. Yet you believe it does. Sound familiar?

Furthermore, smallness of faith is not measure of faith's worth, and neither is magnitude. It just is. If you admit faith comes into your life you have stepped beyond the bounds of the logical by definition. You are simply arguing over degree, which is nonsensical.

Faith is belief without proof. It is therefore an absolute. Either there is proof, or there is none. If there's proof it is not faith. If there is not it is faith and only faith that makes you believe it.

A third option exists, theory, after which we set out to prove or disprove. As we are incapable of proving or disproving the existence of God we must decide by faith and faith alone.

[Snorri1234]

You do not have faith in the sun rising, you have empirical evidence.

Actually, according to Hume it is impossible to be sure or know that the sun will rise tomorrow.


But I don't think we should discuss that as it's so ridiculous yet logical that it would derail the entire thread.

[Neoteny]

I'm not playing the embedded quote game with you. Using colours wasn't designed to piss you off, relax.

I'm not angry. It's just impossible to read after a couple of colors get thrown in. I don't want to deal with that.

Seeing as you challenge my knowledge:
Thesis (philosophy) - an idea put forward - note there are other meanings
Antithesis (philosophy) - the opposite argument to a thesis - note there are other meanings
synthesis (philosophy) - the new thesis that emerges from the tension between the thesis and antithesis - note there are other meanings

dialectics - the triad above. The system of philosophical discussion proposed by Hegel.

Very well, but none of that demands respect for the other side, was my point. Each side should be evaluated, sure, but I have already evaluated the arguments you're using before, and I do not respect them and do not expect to achieve a synthesis. We can try again if you feel you have the patience.

You're right about respect for other views - not all demand respect. However is my view worthy of the scorn you seem to regard it with? I am not proposing genocide, I'm proposing god, and dismissing it out of hand is at best sad.

See above. The reason I dismiss it out of hand is because I've already appraised it at length. It's not new to me. In fact, it's very tired. That's what's sad to me.

Why should there be underlying order? Where do you get that from? What determined this so-called order?

Nearly everything we observe has some sort of order to it, as we see it. Things are very much less than chaotic. Where that underlying order comes from, we might not be sure, but only leaves a gap for a creator, or any other hypothesis, to fill; it does not serve as proof that such exists.

Faith isn't supposed to determine laws of nature and other incidentals (which are nevertheless very useful to us). We have logic to do that. I am not anti-logic. I believe completely in science. I just don't think it can be used to determine the existence of God. Please don't be so protective of logic, I'm with you for the most part. Faith comes at the point where we must accept that logic can't take us any further, the existence of God for example. Choose to believe or disbelieve in a God, but it's still faith.

I'm very happy that you have come to terms with science. That is important, I think, and sets you aside from most of the religious nutters that you claim you are not. What bothers me is you give faith some sort of explanatory power, and fail to explain why it has that. Not only that, you are telling me that there are some things that I need to accept on faith, that logic cannot touch, and you are expecting me to take that on faith. You don't have a reason (or, at least, have not given one) why I should take your word on why our logic can't touch god. You say god is outside logic. Why? Is that necessary?

Let me back up a bit. What you are telling me, essentially, is that there are two ways of knowing our universe, correct? Logic will give us an accurate representation of the physical realm of our existence. We both agree on that. However, you are arguing that there is another realm that logic can't touch. That is my first issue with your perspective. It requires a presumption of a dualist nature of our existence that I do not share. I do not think dualism is a viable way to look at things (call me a determinist, it turns me on), but I don't think we need to argue about that (right now, anyway), so I'll carry on. We'll assume that there is a realm logic can't touch. The next part of your argument is that faith is a method (if not the only method, you haven't told me if there are any others) to evaluate this other realm (I won't call it the supernatural yet... do you have a term for it?).

I have several questions on that topic. What are the characteristics of faith that allow it to be useful in such an endeavor? What is it about faith, which is anchored in the same realm as logic, that allows it to transcend the barrier between the physical realm and the whatever, leaving logic to piddle itself with naturalism? Additionally, it seems to me that the varieties of faith in our world are a testament to the inaccuracy of faith in determining anything. Sure, there are many commonalities in all the different faith-based concepts of the world, but those are all easily explained by sociological idea transfer and the relatedness of our brains and their needs for explaining certain situation and events. Faith has no built-in system for eliminating the wrong ideas, and elevating the right ones.

"Sophisticated" theologians are merely those who have used logic (which isn't supposed to apply) to eliminate the faith-based ideas that do not coincide with a modern, civilized perspective. There is no way of knowing if their ideas, and, indeed, yours, are any more accurate, or useful, than any of the millions of other faith-based ideas conceived in our history as a species. Why, if there is no way to assess its accuracy, do you put faith on the pedestal as the means to discern what is going on in this other realm? My logic is telling me not to put my faith in your faith in faith.

Here I must quote you:
I have faith in reason, because I have tested it myself and found it to be reliable. Faith on such a basis is ok by me. You are defending faith for the sake of faith. That's just silly.

Not silly - faith IS believing without requiring proof - go look it up, as I told you this before.

Yeah, yeah, I know what faith is. I think faith without proof is silly for the above reasons. Mainly, there is no way to separate faith in Jesus as the savior and faith in Jesus as only a prophet and faith in Jesus as just a normal dude and faith in Jesus as just a normal chick except for what feels right. And so many people feel differently that it's clear that it's useless for determining anything.

I don't know if there's a quantum physics section in the bible, I don't remember one. As I am not Christian, nor do I believe in any one religion, this is utterly besides the point. I think you are arguing from your standard playbook without understanding what I'm saying. I suggest you take your time and read what I've been saying more carefully rather than trotting out glib retorts that aren't relevant.

If we both open our minds we can both learn something from this discussion. If you choose to argue for the sake of it without trying to understand that I'm not a "religious nutter", well what's the point? (Maybe we could even achieve some sort of synthesis )

You are right that I'm maybe less than serious in most situations. I have a sense of humor, and I'm going to use it. That's how I am. I don't mean anything personal by it, nor do I mean anything personal in any of this discussion. I am merely telling you how I feel. I would be lying if I didn't say that I think a reliance on faith is childish. If you are offended, I'm sorry, but that's not going to make me change my mind.

And come on. Quantum physics in the Bible? That was good.

And, I swear to god, if you tell me to ignore what I wrote because it is based too much on reason and insist on my having faith in my faith in your faith in faith, I'm going to just return to insulting you.

[Neoteny]

In before tl;dr.

[Frigidus]

tl;dr

[MaleAlphaThree]

Faith!! How ridiculous!!

I concur.

I am not religious, I just believe in God as a creator. How illogical to think of God having human motives or thought processes!!

Contradicting yourself within the same sentence is a common "religious person" thing to do. So is thinking that "God" is somehow incomparable to humans. What happened to that "in His image" stuff? Contradictions galore. Yeah, you sure don't think like a Christian or anything.... now way.

How do i act then, as you know me so well? Bearing in mind I am not religious. I do have conviction in my faith, I am willing to debate it and try to understand more. It affects my state of being.

Conviction in faith is also a very religious type of thing to uh.... have. Affecting your state of being is also a pretty religious trait. If it didn't affect your state of being, then no, we wouldn't be arguing over whether you're actually religious or not. It would be a moot topic.... as if it isn't, anyway.