Thought For The New Year

[foxpaws]

And you do you know? If you have not sought any evidence, you have not attempted to prove it, then, by default, you are taking it on faith. There IS no other option.

Everyone has faith in many things, big and small, weather they realize it or not. You have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow. You have faith that the next step you take won't be your last, etc. None of these things can be conclusively proven. There is a degree of faith in much more then you realize.

You really should look into Descartes reasoning on this. I have already given you his beautifully simple answer; I think, therefore I am.

Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true. However, do you need persuasion that you are 'real'? I don't. Do I need to persuade myself that the sun will come up tomorrow - nope. It will. Will my next step be my last - I don't know - it doesn't matter. These aren't matters of faith... they 'are'.

Isn't when you come down to it Descartes quote more like - I think therefore I am not. If you have to have faith in everything - which is basically what you are saying (especially if you use the Matrix model, that we are in or are not in a fabricated existence, a constant question of faith if you use that model) then we can never achieve "I am".

Actually, it is. Your attempt to manufacture a gray area only confuses things.

Nope - it is why things change. If you never ask about the gray, then nothing ever changes. You never look or view the world differently. If people never ask 'why' then you are stuck just where you are. Why is the way humanity moves forward. Gray is the world of why.

Philosophers have confronted these issues for centuries. While the implications of these things can get very complex and very abstract, at it's core, it is black and white. If you cannot prove something, but still accept it with certainty, you are taking it on faith.

I think it is more that you don't LIKE the definitions and the implications of those who have spent far more time then you and me thinking about these things.

And they think that much better than I do? Don't you question shag? You can't just cling to the philosopher of the day at school. Everyone of those philosophers asked why. And they would expect you to do the same. We are doomed if we don't.

 

[fossten]

We are doomed if we don't.

DOOMED!

 

[shagdrum]

Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true.

No, faith is not a "persuasion", it is not a "predisposition" or any other such nonsense. If you are going to start trying to define down things to allow for your preconceived notions; if you are going to rationalize in order to avoid having your world view challenged. Then you are wasting my time and everyone else's time here.

Isn't when you come down to it Descartes quote more like - I think therefore I am not.

You clearly do not understand what he was saying. If you don't understand an idea then is if foolish and highly presumptuous to try and challenge it.

Nope - it is why things change. If you never ask about the gray, then nothing ever changes. You never look or view the world differently. If people never ask 'why' then you are stuck just where you are. Why is the way humanity moves forward. Gray is the world of why.

Can we move beyond the high school cliche's here?

If you don't have a strong foundation in the theory and in the ideas you seek to challenge, then you are ill equipped to reasonably challenge them.

Everyone of those philosophers asked why.

You are a fool if you are simply going to dismiss out of hand what they say without understanding what they say and why they say it. And if you cannot allow your views to be challenged, if you cannot be skeptical of your own views, then it is impossible to understand any other views.

If you are simply going to try and distort things to fit into your own worldview (again) then this conversation is over. I am not going to play this game. Reality is not subjective.

 

[fossten]

You clearly do not understand what he was saying. If you don't understand an idea then is if foolish and highly presumptuous to try and challenge it.

You need to move on to something she knows a lot about, like Ayn Rand.

 

[hrmwrm]

Weather or not they look for evidence or not is irrelevant since there is no evidence do prove that there is no God.

so, everything exists just because one cannot prove it doesn't?
that's pretty lame, even for you shag.
there needs to be a reason as to why you would believe it's existence in the first place.
all gods sit in a long line of mythology without explanation.
evidence of some kind needs to exist for verification.
otherwise you have nothing.

let's try your scenario out of can't disprove.

your honor. i have a witness to the criime. you cannot see or hear this witness, so i'll ask the questions and interpret the answers. trust me, there's something there. you cannot touch or feel this something either, nor can it reciprocate. but it's there.

sure, works good, don't it.
that is your scenario of god.
yep, that takes faith to disbelieve that.

that's where you keep failing in explaining. the world isn't your ideal.
disbelieving does NOT takea leap of faith.

your scenario is like asking to disprove a childs imaginary friend.
while true, it can't be absolutely disproven in your sense, it also is not a true entity that has evidence going for it in reality.
so, i reiterate. just because you cannot DISPROVE something, doesn't make it real either.

 

[shagdrum]

so, everything exists just because one cannot prove it doesn't?

That is not what I am saying and you know it. If all you have is straw men, then you have no argument.

there needs to be a reason as to why you would believe it's existence in the first place.

Not if you have faith.

There also needs to be a logical reason to affirm that something does not exist; unless you take it on faith.

 

[shagdrum]

You need to move on to something she knows a lot about, like Ayn Rand.

Or F.A. Hayek?

 

[KD00LS]

I can see the leap of faith to believe in the supernatural or divine, but I don't see how someone fixes on a certain religion. I feel like it's taking another leap to choose a religion.

 

[hrmwrm]

There also needs to be a logical reason to affirm that something does not exist.

so now we're full circle. as i stated, there is no evidence.
you make it easy sometimes.

 

[shagdrum]

so now we're full circle. as i stated, there is no evidence.

I never said their was evidence. But again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Are you simply unable to grasp the point I am raising, or are you unwilling to grasp it?

 

[fossten]

so now we're full circle. as i stated, there is no evidence.
you make it easy sometimes.

YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS CLAIM FOR THE 1 MILLIONTH TIME.

 

[KD00LS]

No, I just have to have intimate knowledge of God---and I do !
KS

Explain. You said you had a conversation with him. Do tell.

 

[hrmwrm]

Are you simply unable to grasp the point I am raising, or are you unwilling to grasp it?

no, you are unwilling to grasp mine and instead wish to fall into philosophical arguement.
you wish to keep being dishonest. your true aim is not why i don't believe in god, it's why don't i believe in YOUR god.

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

and you know as well as i do that this is irrelevent to this arguement.
accepting that arguement also would allow for any imaginary thing to exist, wouldn't it. are you that unintelligent.

 

[hrmwrm]

YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS CLAIM FOR THE 1 MILLIONTH TIME.

why not? this is fosstens ideal of life we are playing here?
you are judge,jury, and prosecutor and lawmaker?
i think not.

 

[shagdrum]

no, you are unwilling to grasp mine and instead wish to fall into philosophical argument.

As I have pointed out, the core of this issue is in the realm of philosophy. The differences center around the basic metaphysical assumptions that the different sides make. To IGNORE that is to ignore the heart of the issue. But it does keep you from having to justify and defend your self-serving materialist standard.

I grasp your argument better then you do because you are either unwilling or unable to grasp the basic metaphysical assumptions that your argument is based on.

and you know as well as i do that this is irrelevent to this arguement.
accepting that arguement also would allow for any imaginary thing to exist, wouldn't it. are you that unintelligent.

You are mistaking the logical claim that "an absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence" with the illogical claim that "an absence of evidence is proof of existence". Never mind that my argument couldn't be any clearer in what it is AND IS NOT saying. You are perpetuating a straw man.

 

[cammerfe]

Thought For The Day

A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell. C.S. Lewis

KS

 

[hrmwrm]

no, the core issue has always been in reality.
as in the above case of the child with an imaginary friend.
no, i cannot truly prove the imaginary friend is not real.
but there is no evidence of it's existence beyond the claim of said child.
it does not take a leap of faith to disbelieve the existence of the imaginary friend.
it does however, take a leap of faith to believe in the imaginary friend, seeing as there is nothing but said claim of said child to prove existence by.

since there is no evidence for god, we are at the same position of the imaginary friend.
so no, agnosticism is not the only choice, as per your arguement.
your philosophical arguement is not the only one.
no belief IS the natural choice, as a person must be told of an existence of any belief. one is not born knowing, and without being told would not come to that conclusion.

There also needs to be a logical reason to affirm that something does not exist;

no evidence is not a logical enough reason?

and no, the arguement is not as complicated as you wish to make it out to be. but in defending the imaginary, you'll make it as complicated as you can.

self-serving materialist standard.

you mean as opposed to make believe?

 

[hrmwrm]

A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell. C.S. Lewis

at least the sun's real.

 

[fossten]

why not? this is fosstens ideal of life we are playing here?
you are judge,jury, and prosecutor and lawmaker?
i think not.

Oh my Lord.

You're claiming the 'You're not the boss of me' defense?

Man, that's weak.

You can't claim this because it's impossible to prove, by your own standards.

Duh.

There's no use even discussing this with you. Your brain is made of stone.

 

[cammerfe]

C S Lewis

at least the sun's real.

God is real---And if you have an open mind---read "Surprised by Joy" by C S Lewis. He went through a period of time when he doubted God's existence. You might find it worthwhile.
KS

 

[foxpaws]

So, college boy - lets make this simple-and since Descartes was a mathematician before he was a philosopher
Believe in God equals set which includes {1}
Atheist equals set which includes {0} (actually interesting fact, Pascal, and other contemporaries of Descartes believed Descartes was an atheist)
Agnostic equals set which includes {1 & 0}
So, now we have one set remaining - someone to whom God 'isn't' - ∅

And I am the one questioning here Shag - You are the one that is stuck in a non-challengeable viewpoint - downright antithesis to any one of those philosophers you are so fond of quoting. Why can't there be something other than believe, atheism, and agnostic. Why not question, ask, think outside of norms? You dismiss out of hand, clinging onto your ivory tower elitism. "Philosophy begins when one learns to doubt - particularly to doubt one's cherished beliefs, one's dogmas and one's axioms." -Will Durant

Oh, and since your Hayek could use some brushing up as well..

 

[hrmwrm]

Oh my Lord.

You're claiming the 'You're not the boss of me' defense?

Man, that's weak.

You can't claim this because it's impossible to prove, by your own standards.

Duh.

There's no use even discussing this with you. Your brain is made of stone

it's even been admitted in this thread, there is no evidence for god.
but you keep grasping bible boy.

 

[hrmwrm]

God is real---And if you have an open mind---read "Surprised by Joy" by C S Lewis. He went through a period of time when he doubted God's existence. You might find it worthwhile.

if he's real, i challenge you to prove it. if he's real, there will be some evidence somewhere he exists.

and i don't quite think you understand. a book will not change my mind either. as stated, i want evidence. cold, hard, factual evidence.
depending on your belief, i think in the 4.5Bil. years or the 6000yrs of existence, there should be something. not mythical stories which is propaganda for your own god ideal and religion, but true evidence of any god, currently deemed real or myth.
good luck.

 

[fossten]

it's even been admitted in this thread, there is no evidence for god.
but you keep grasping bible boy.

Nobody's admitted anything of the sort.

The fact is that we are both looking at the same evidence and choosing to interpret it differently. You start with the presupposition that the Bible is false, and I start with the presupposition that the Bible is true. Facts are neutral.

But you cannot deny this truth - the facts of the real world really do conform to, and confirm, the Bible. If you want to mock and belittle, then you're not having a scientific conversation, and thus you're undercutting your own credibility.

 

[hrmwrm]

who said i was having a scientific conversation?
i am arguing as to the reality of a god. science is not necessary here.
as for the bible, well, it's not even accepted as truth and factual from believers. you are among a minority.

many of the biblical stories are taken from life experiences, so i would expect them to conform to real life.
it is the supernatural power to which they claim all is from, that is fantasy.
and much in the bible may be correct in historical accuracy as far as rulers and wars, just as a fictionary novel of today might have conflict and political leaders correctly identified.
but it still doesn't prove the "imaginary friend" is real.
why would i believe in your god over one even more ancient that has been put to the realm of mythology? or even a more ancient one still being worshipped? like i said. run along, and come back with evidence.