Community - Guide on the Theistic argument

Community (http://www.totse.com/community//index.php)

- My God Can Beat the Shit Out of Your God (http://www.totse.com/community//forumdisplay.php?f=163)

- - Guide on the Theistic argument (http://www.totse.com/community//showthread.php?t=2184370)

Guide on the Theistic argument

Alot of people on here attempt to use logic or science to justify or argue for the existence of God, for the existence of a soul or for the existence of an afterlife.

Science and logic deal in knowledge. You cannot have knowledge about something that is unmeasurable, undetectable, untestable, and you cannot have knowledge and have faith.

You have to have faith without knowledge.

There is no way to have faith in these things AND have knowledge of these things.

Been awhile since I read it, but it seems the bible, for example, talks a great deal about having faith.

---------

When confronted on here, or your ideas are challenged, you should say: "I don't have any evidence or proof for what I believe in, but I do have faith that the things I believe in are true."

Your argument pretty much has to consist of this:

I have faith.

--------

Please stop attempting to use science and logic to justify your BELIEF.

Re: Guide on the Theistic argument

I can't say that I believe in God, but I think you should read the book The Language of God and then come back to this thread and edit some of the things you said.

Re: Guide on the Theistic argument

BP, right now, half my family has poured in for the holidays. In total, they are 13 people; 12 Catholics and one Atheist. Can you spot my dilemma? I received 5 books on faith, God, and religion. As fun as it is to debunk every single tidbit of type, they won't let up. Let me read you an excerpt from one of the books:

"There is an expression that helps much to understand this word (faith). "Faith is an acceptance of a truth that cannot be seen nor felt. One only believes in the veracity of He who has taught it (whatever you're believing in; in this case, Christianity) It would therefore be contradicting (to belief) to first see (proof) and then accept (the truth).

It (belief) is to accept without evidence only because He who has professed it deserves merit"

The words in parentheses are of my own construct; to aid you through the esoteric text.

I don't know what to make of that excerpt. Personally, I think it is just one gigantic "self-pwn". Your thoughts?

Re: Guide on the Theistic argument

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil (Post 10857593)

"There is an expression that helps much to understand this word (faith). "Faith is an acceptance of a truth that cannot be seen nor felt. One only believes in the veracity of He who has taught it (whatever you're believing in; in this case, Christianity) It would therefore be contradicting (to belief) to first see (proof) and then accept (the truth).

Man, if I ever needed an example to demonstrate the logical fallacy of an "argument from authority", this would be it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrokeProphet

Science and logic deal in knowledge. You cannot have knowledge about something that is unmeasurable, undetectable, untestable, and you cannot have knowledge and have faith.

So, the true atheist would declare no position at all, on any such matter, until evidence is produced in favor of it. Then would this not make any claims of death being nothingness, God not existing, and the soul imaginary, unatheistic?

Re: Guide on the Theistic argument

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrokeProphet (Post 10855586)

Everything you said is completely true, however, you lied by omission.
Science and logic do not deal exclusively in knowledge.
Much in science is based on knowledge or on other science that is also based on knowledge.
Scientific theories and most of what we think of as "science" is nothing but conjecture.
For example: Plate Tectonics is a theory based upon the theory of Continental drift, which is based upon the knowledge that there are similar plant and animal life on distant continents. Plate Tectonics assumes that heat always rises (not true), the earth's inner layers are high-pressure centers (a good idea, but not proven), and that the "mantle" of the earth is made of magma (again, just a good idea).
Most science isn't based upon knowledge, but lack of knowledge, we assume that everything anyone says is true until we replace that lack of knowledge.

I agree with you. Faith is not believing after it's proven. Faith is believing without knowing.

Re: Guide on the Theistic argument

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrokeProphet (Post 10855586)

Please stop attempting to use science and logic to justify your BELIEF.

BP your argument hinges on a duality, a supernatural God. It only works if one sees oneself as seperate from all else. If you consider, that which some call God, others call intuition, instinct, higher power, higher consciousness, the greater self - science and logic do support and justify belief. Witness for science: the Aspect experiment, which shows all things are connected on an apparently transcendent level; for logic: the philosophy of Parmenides and his successors who have shown the impossibility of nothingness guarantees something must exist and that something is logically one-thing.

Quote:

Who am I? How come I exist?

Come now and I will tell you – and you must spread my account when you have heard it – the only roads of enquiry to be thought of: the one of ‘is’, and that it is impossible for it not to be, is the path of Conviction (for Truth is her companion); the other of ‘is not’, and that it needs not be – that, I tell you, is a path that is altogether indiscernible. For you could not know or utter what is not (for that is impossible).

It is necessarily the case that saying and thinking are the reality. For being is and nothing is not. I bid you keep this in mind.

For surely this shall never be proved, that things which are not are. Restrain your thought from this way of enquiry.

Thinking and the thought of that which is are the same thing. For you cannot find thought without something that is, in respect of which it is uttered.

It [i.e. the path] never was, nor will be, for it is now whole, one and continuous. For what kind of origin will you seek for it? How and from what source could it have grown? I shall not let you say or think from what is not. For what is not can be neither uttered nor thought. And what need could have made it arise later rather than sooner if it began from nothing? Therefore it must either be completely or not at all. Nor will the force of argument allow anything else to come to be ever from what is not. Therefore Justice has never loosened her fetters to allow anything to come to be or pass away, but holds it fast. Our judgement concerning these things lies in this: it is or it is not. And it has been judged, as is necessary, to set aside the one [path] as unthought and unnamed (for it is no true path), and to take the other which is real and true. And how could what is be in the future? And how might it have come into being? For if it came into being, it is not, nor is it if it is going to be in the future. Thus coming into being is extinguished, and passing away unheard of.

************************************************** ********
"....... sublime in its simplicity: only being is, since nonbeing cannot be. Being is therefore one: the collateral existence of nonbeing would have meant two, from which an infinitude of divisions would then have arisen. Now, since it is the same thing that can be thought and can be, any thought of that which is not will be impossible. For a thought of that which is not will be a thought of nothing, and hence not a thought at all. It follows, moreover, that sameness and difference can have no meaning, since it requires at least two for this to be possible, and that both time and change are illusory, since only ‘is’ is."

In addition, personal faith sometimes comes from personal experiences, those things may be valid - to that individual. This does not mean you need to accept it, but it could help develop tolerance if you recognised it.

Re: Guide on the Theistic argument

Thx redzed,
I totally agree.
The argument here is valid exclusively when it's posed to a Judeo-Christian theist.
Judaism and Christianity are the only religions that ask for blind faith.

Re: Guide on the Theistic argument

Quote:

Originally Posted by HatterMaxwell (Post 10862021)

Thx redzed,
I totally agree.
The argument here is valid exclusively when it's posed to a Judeo-Christian theist.
Judaism and Christianity are the only religions that ask for blind faith.

Islam also?

HM, You wrote:"Faith is not believing after it's proven. Faith is believing without knowing." The Gospel of John includes the story of doubting Thomas. To my mind he is representative of those who require proof to have faith, your defintion seems to exclude those like him. My question: Are those, like BP and Thomas, who need proof to have faith, somehow lesser than those who 'believe without knowing'?

Re: Guide on the Theistic argument

Quote:

Originally Posted by redzed (Post 10862508)

My question: Are those, like BP and Thomas, who need proof to have faith, somehow lesser than those who 'believe without knowing'?

One day the Lord was walking with his disciples when He came to a used car lot. The owner of the lot cameth up to him and said, "Lourde, buyeth from me this Prius, it will cost you only 200 cisterci." The followers of the Lourd saideth unto him, "Let us go forth and look upon this Prius, that we may gauge if it is worth 200 cisterci". But the Luourde saideth unto them, "Is the man who needs proof to have faith, somewhat lesser than those who 'believe without knowing'? I will take your Prius, good man. Here is the money." "Excellent, said the owner of the lot. I will go fetcheth the paperwork from my office. The car you seek is in yonder garage."

But when the Luorude wenteth to the garage, it was empty, because they "owner" was actually just some guy looking for money.

Atredies 25:17.