First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
What if God was a skeptic?
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 9/25/08

crunchypibb wrote:
You have to accept the unknown to begin to understand it and you must have some understanding of that same unknown to continue believing in it (for it is safe to say that not everything you know is completely understood by you). In other words you need faith to start reasoning for it is pointless to reason if you don't believe in it and reasoning to have faith or else there is no point to reason such things. So evidence=faith, if you understood my ontological arguement.


All you need is an active imagination. Faith would be the lack of evidence...strictly speaking. With evidence, it no longer becomes faith.

Everyone I talk to, be it christians or atheist, don't understand what I mean by faith. I really should put it on my homepage or something. -____- When you say lack i'm assuming you mean very very little. Technically we humans have faith in a lot of things, we think we know about something a lot but we have only begun to scratch the surface. Especially when it comes to historical and archiological stuff.
When you get evidence, the evidence isn't faith obviously but supports your faith. Like if you thought Obama was going to win the American vote and it happened, then your faith is rewarded. You also continue to have faith in the guy. Your faith doesn't get destroyed but rewarded like i said.


In this situation, when you say we need to 'know' something to have faith in it - well, isn't this a case of
man creating God in his image?

Have you ever heard of the "egocentric predicament"? Basically we can only think about and describe things with what we know, the whole reason why Jesus uses parables in the New Testiment. So like Anselm said, how could we have conceived of a being greater than our thoughts? A more just question would be how did the Christian Church grow so big? If it was cultish like Scientology it wouldn't have so much influence.
Also Jesus is proof that the Judeo-Christian God is real, he fulfilled the prophesies in the Old Testiment, Jews think otherwise of course, and all the prophesies the pope talks about (Peter being the first pope as he was what Jesus called him, Peter the Rock, the foundation and visible church) do come true. Of course you'd love to have evidence of this but being the commoner I am, I can only refer you to two great authors I know who support and defend Christianity: Scott Hahn and Tim Staples. You can also read the popes' online recorded stuff too, just click one and read one of their encyclicals: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/index.htm.
Posted 9/25/08
Hahahahahahhah
We just have ONE god in the world Allah is the only god in the world
805 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / United States of...
Offline
Posted 9/25/08 , edited 9/25/08

crunchypibb wrote:
Everyone I talk to, be it christians or atheist, don't understand what I mean by faith. I really should put it on my homepage or something. -____- When you say lack i'm assuming you mean very very little. Technically we humans have faith in a lot of things, we think we know about something a lot but we have only begun to scratch the surface. Especially when it comes to historical and archiological stuff.
When you get evidence, the evidence isn't faith obviously but supports your faith. Like if you thought Obama was going to win the American vote and it happened, then your faith is rewarded. You also continue to have faith in the guy. Your faith doesn't get destroyed but rewarded like i said.


That is not faith. That is actually an educated guess. Whereas if you want something to happen, then that's just a desire.

And historical/archeological stuff is also based on evidence, not faith. They dig up artifacts/documents/etc, and formulate ideas based on the evidence to explain history.


crunchypibb wrote:
Have you ever heard of the "egocentric predicament"? Basically we can only think about and describe things with what we know, the whole reason why Jesus uses parables in the New Testiment. So like Anselm said, how could we have conceived of a being greater than our thoughts? A more just question would be how did the Christian Church grow so big? If it was cultish like Scientology it wouldn't have so much influence.

The fact that Jesus, was portrayed as a part of God, and that God is portrayed as human-like with human emotions - those elements already show that the Abrahamic God was created in man's image.


crunchypibb wrote:
Also Jesus is proof that the Judeo-Christian God is real....

Right, right... Buddha proved that Buddhism is real. Hinduism has proved that Brahaman is real. Lao Tzu has proved that the Dao is real. Mohammad/Moses/Jesus/Abraham has proved that Allah/Judeo-Christian God is real. All of these religions and beliefs have 'proof' that their deities are real.




805 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / United States of...
Offline
Posted 9/25/08 , edited 9/25/08

loversungmin wrote:
Hahahahahahhah
We just have ONE god in the world Allah is the only god in the world


Are you actually Korean?
Posted 9/25/08

Intranetusa wrote:


loversungmin wrote:
Hahahahahahhah
We just have ONE god in the world Allah is the only god in the world


Are you actually Korean?


What does being Korean have to do with Allah? Just curious...
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 9/25/08

leviathan343 wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:


mauz15 wrote:

Study ethics further because you are missing a whole lot factors from all the major ethical stances.

"The two basic philosophies are the feministic and culturalistic philosophy"

first time I heard of this. Two basic according to who?


is right in their own way or that there is only one right answer to each moral question


this is a fallacy of false dichotomy. The problem at hand can't be reduced to only those two limited options.

We're all doing our best to approach the truth but there can be only one answer and only one of us is going to be the closest to that answer.

It is foolish to think the point is who/what will get "closer" to Truth. I could care less about the answer, that's something I will worry about once I get there, what matters is the journey of getting to it.

And that extremely vague post does not add anything to the statement evidence=faith.


As for the feministic and culturalistic philosophies these are two basic ones that I know from reading the philosophy textbook "Philosophy: a text with readings" by Manuel Velasquez. If you know any more major or minor philosophies let me know. Otherwise just accept the idea, for the time being.
If you really think everything I said was false then why didn't you even give me a counter arguement? You kinda went politician there, accusing their opponent of being false. I really want to hear how everyone can be right in their own way when it comes to morals and ethics. If not, what else is out there that could oppose a set rule of morals or right-in-your-own-way morals?


Funny how this entire argument circles around a misuse of a definite article. Maybe a question about the use of "the" should have been brought up before a blatant barrage of insults began.

What type of evidence is faith based on? Empirical? Logical deduction or induction? A priori or a posteriori?

What type of morals are we talking about? Subjectivism/relativism/nihilism/conventionalism/divine command?


-Please forgive me of my rant, it's about my definition of faith, what kind of philosophy I use, and a more clearer way of linking the ideas of faith and reason together. I've done my best to bold the important stuff.
-Faith, it's such a funny word. I've seen many different uses for it to the point one is not similar to the other. I've seen the word faith used as blind faith, which is what it is generally most of the time. "Christians" (the non-denominationals and the protestants) use the word faith in God like they would have faith in their parents decisions and rules. Others like the atheist see the word as trust in the uncertainty and unsupported arguement.
-Faith, as I have learned, is trust in the uncertain and is like trusting your parents. Let's think outside the realm of religion. When your in the classroom and your teacher gives you a lecture, how do you know they're not twisting the truth? When the discovery of the Triceratops came out, everyone believed them. But when the truth got out, people found out that the triceratops was an invention: it was a mix of bones from different species.
-Faith is trust to be rewarded. I believe in a priori, since our five senses cannot tell us everything about the real world. But I'm also a big fan of Kant's trancendental idealism (I'm a big Kant fan in general). I believe in the objective morals. I think people think morals are subjective because of topics like murder where the line between that and killing (non personal) can get sketchy. Details are explained below.
-In the Ten Commandments, the original script said "Thou shall not murder". Murder is more specific than killing but people tend to see them interelatedly, thus they see murder as something subjective. This is why some versions of the bible say "Thou shall not kill". The Bible itself does define these laws more clearly as you read more of it. The Ten Commandments itself are just guidelines to what the general morals are.
-Jesus was questioned by the priests about which of the Ten Commandments was the most important but Jesus answers them (vaguely quoting) "Treat your neighbor as you would yourself" and "Love the Lord your God". Each of the Ten Commandments are consisted of one of these two things Jesus said. Kant came up with something similar to the first thing Jesus said. He came up with Categorical Imperative. Kant says that you should never do something unless (1) it is possible for everyone to do it and (2) you are willing to have everyone do it.
-Kant's theory does work in practice, but the only thing that is questioned about it is sexual consent. To support this, I think it says somewhere in the Bible that your body must be treated as a temple, you must respect your body. Also in the Old Testiment God made His wrath on the city of Sodom for it's sexual immorality, as well as inhospitality. Pope John Paul II as well made lots of speeches on "Theology of the Body". The book describes how you should treat your body, this includes avoiding recreational drugs and sex as a recreational activity and how to have a successful marriage.
-I might have went off topic there but that's how i shape my morals. I'm reading into the Buddists way of life as well as it is similar to christianity when it comes to morals and from there I would be able to explain morals from another perspective.
-I was baptized a Catholic and had no idea about the religion. Yet I stuck to it and my faith has been rewarded. I still don't know all of it, the church itself has gone far but we're still getting closer and closer to understanding the details, but just because I don't understand some of it means I should just drop it. As goes for all knowledge, you simply just don't drop a study because you don't understand some of it or someone discourages you. You only drop it when it is totally disproven, but that's usually hard to discern.
-A lot of people do like to run around without their faith proven, as in they can't even explain their learning from a different perspective, and other people see this faith as unrealiable. Thus they rely on "reason". Reason itself is useless you have faith in the thing you're reasoning. It's like when you hear smoking is bad. You have to believe that statement is true before reasoning it, otherwise there is no reason to reason in something you don't believe. Like if I reason for atheist and don't believe in anything they talk about, it's unreasonable.
-So my conclusion is that you need faith as a strong foundation, but you need to build a reason on top of that too. For what good is a foundation if you have no shelter from opposition? And what good is a shelter if it's not built on a foundation for the shelter will be an illusion of security. Read Matt 7:24-28. This is what I mean when I say faith=reason. Even if it is proven that reason is more important than faith, they are still two harmonizing ideas that need to work together in order to make the other one work.
805 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / United States of...
Offline
Posted 9/25/08

Kaminari12 wrote:

Intranetusa wrote:

loversungmin wrote:
Hahahahahahhah
We just have ONE god in the world Allah is the only god in the world

Are you actually Korean?


What does being Korean have to do with Allah? Just curious...


I'm just saying - most Koreans tend to be Buddhist-Daoist-Confucianist and Christian. Most Muslims in East Asia are usually Chinese Hui and Ughirs. Korean Muslims are very rare. That's why I asked.

So are you Korean?
805 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / United States of...
Offline
Posted 9/26/08 , edited 9/26/08
crunchypibb, since you keep pming me about how my definition of faith is incorrect, let's just discuss this in the forum topic.

The problem here is you're confusing the definition of faith with the term in everyday use as a figure of speech.

When you talk about "trust in you parents" - that's a decision based on prior experiences, and in a sense an educated guess. Trust in your parents is not faith, because you have actual reasons based on experience to believe what you believe.

As for "Faith is trust to be rewarded" - that's a very narrow perspective.
You don't need the promise of a reward to have faith. Those who believe in existence after death, but not in heaven, have faith in this afterlife.

As for saying you have to have faith in reason, again, you're confusing the term 'trust' with the term 'faith' used in religions/spirituality. Sure, in the layman's everyday use of the words, faith is interchangeable with trust. When you actually start to get technical in the full definitions of each term, the terms trust and faith are quite different.

Also, when you say Buddhism and Christianity are the similar in terms of morality, there are some similarities, but there are also huge differences. Judeo-Christianity-Islam has a strict definition of morality - good vs evil, determined by the Abrahamic God and passed down through the commandments. In Buddhism, there is no central God, and morality becomes subjective. There is no good vs evil in Buddhism and other philosophies such as Daosim - because they are a part of the same whole.

As for cherry picking Kantian articles and biblical texts for your definition of faith, that's a bit 'preaching to the choir.'
Posted 9/26/08 , edited 9/26/08

Intranetusa wrote: So are you Korean?



No, I'm Caucasian. I just didn't understand the sarcasm at first.

46535 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/26/08

crunchypibb wrote:


mauz15 wrote:

Study ethics further because you are missing a whole lot factors from all the major ethical stances.

"The two basic philosophies are the feministic and culturalistic philosophy"

first time I heard of this. Two basic according to who?


is right in their own way or that there is only one right answer to each moral question


this is a fallacy of false dichotomy. The problem at hand can't be reduced to only those two limited options.

We're all doing our best to approach the truth but there can be only one answer and only one of us is going to be the closest to that answer.

It is foolish to think the point is who/what will get "closer" to Truth. I could care less about the answer, that's something I will worry about once I get there, what matters is the journey of getting to it.

And that extremely vague post does not add anything to the statement evidence=faith.


As for the feministic and culturalistic philosophies these are two basic ones that I know from reading the philosophy textbook "Philosophy: a text with readings" by Manuel Velasquez. If you know any more major or minor philosophies let me know. Otherwise just accept the idea, for the time being.
If you really think everything I said was false then why didn't you even give me a counter arguement? You kinda went politician there, accusing their opponent of being false. I really want to hear how everyone can be right in their own way when it comes to morals and ethics. If not, what else is out there that could oppose a set rule of morals or right-in-your-own-way morals?


find me a link defining culturalistic philosophy because I have never heard of such term.

We are talking about ethics correct? then from the top of my head:

Utilitarianism
Virtue Ethics
Deontology
Egoism
Ethical relativism
Ethical subjectivism
Moral nihilism

etc.

I have never heard of the idea of feminist philosophy and 'culturalistic' being the basic of anything.
And I also searched the book you mentioned and found something that makes me doubt it. From Amazon.com one person who claims to be a professor gave it this review

" 10 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars Bias toward analytic philosophy, June 6, 2002
By A Customer
This review is from: Philosophy: A Text With Readings (Hardcover)

While this text is serviceable for introduction to philosophy classes, I haven't used it in the sections I teach. The reason is one all to common in current philosophy textbooks: the editorial slant is decidedly toward contemporary analytic philosophy. While this philosophical movement is certainly significant, those of us in the more traditional, realist tradition find the academic imperialism of analytic philosophy a bit troublesome. This has affected this particular text's treatment of Aquinas and natural law, for example. The study questions devoted to this section demonstrate a rather dismissive and superficial understanding of the related issues. Having graduated at the B.A. level from the institution where the author teaches, I am familiar with the institutional bias on campus toward ideological "multiculturalism," and other contemporary PC "isms." During my own doctoral studies in philosophy, I shed such trendy scholarly prejudices. Classical realism is, and always has been, what I find to be the most substantial approach to the discipline. Unfortunately, those swimming with the tide of scholarly fashion, like Velasquez, attract the majority of those teaching in the field today. In fairness, the book does have many strengths. The ample primary texts included are a definite plus. The slick illustrations and study aids should help attract the limited attention spans of today's students. But the overall editorial stance is one dimensional, and does not reflect any interest in academic "inclusiveness" or "tolerance" regarding other approaches to philosophical texts--other than that of the analytic school. The best policy, in any case, is to focus on a few complete primary texts rather than employing the shot-gun blizzard of scattered readings typical of an introductory text."


As for your question, please rephrase it because I do not understand it.


Lastly, in regards to the evidence=faith

Evidence is a support for the truth of a proposition
Faith is a voluntary act. I could have faith that 1+1=4 but the evidence says otherwise.
Just because reason and faith are related does not make them equal nor makes evidence of equal degree as faith.



805 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / United States of...
Offline
Posted 9/26/08

Kaminari12 wrote:

Intranetusa wrote: So are you Korean?

No, I'm Caucasian. I just didn't understand the sarcasm at first.


Wait, now I'm confused. I think my post was directed at 'loversungmin' lol

Posted 9/26/08

Intranetusa wrote:


Kaminari12 wrote:

Intranetusa wrote: So are you Korean?

No, I'm Caucasian. I just didn't understand the sarcasm at first.


Wait, now I'm confused. I think my post was directed at 'loversungmin' lol



Oh, that was meant for 'Loversungmin'. I'm sorry.
I think that wraps everything up, any more discussion and a moderator might show.
Posted 9/26/08 , edited 9/26/08

Intranetusa wrote:

Let's say God does exist, and there is only one God.
Let's say God is also a 'personal' God who intervenes in the universe. (ie. Abrahamic God)
Let's also say God actually cares whether we worship him or not.


Pascal's Wager states that it is better to believe in God because it is 'safer' to do so.

'If there is no God, believing or not believing in God will result in no long term adverse side effects. If there is a God, believing in God will result in infinite rewards, while not believing in God will result in infinite punishment.'

So Pascal's reasoning is that you should live out your life and believe in God.


However, that logic only works if God rewards faith. There is a common rebuttal - what if God rewards skepticism - that God disproves of faith, and rewards humans who questions his existence?

Essentially, what if God rewards people who value evidence over faith?



Lol, if you believe in God for the soul purpose of personal gain, say hello to hell. When the hell in church did they start telling people that all you have to do is worship God and you get into heaven? You actually have to, you know, have your heart and soul in it. And if you are doing it just because its "safe", then your not safe at all.

Also, your speaking of a specific God, who made a bible that never told people to be skeptical. If your NOT speaking of the exact same God Pascal's was, then whatever your saying is irrelevant. And if you are, then whatever you say is illogical, because then he would be going against his own word, and wouldn't be perfect, just a liar, because by definition to be perfect you cannot have sin, and lying is a sin.
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 9/26/08
Guess what else is illogical? A God that exists separate from time yet can cause change in the universe.
757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 9/26/08
Well, People define God as something completely out of logic. No wonder That Guy who's sitting in heaven is illogical.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.