Knowledge vs Faith

Originally posted by Xevious
There is still a burdon of proof placed upon those making a negative claim. You are falling back on the argument that if you don't see it for yourself, it can't be real. The Egyptian philosopher Aesop wrote a very good fable on this. I will try to recall it as best as I can.

There was a boy in a small village, who went out one day to watch the crows along the Nile. One day while he was looking, he thought he saw one crow that was white, instead of black. Filled with excitement, he ran back to his parents and exclaimed to them "Mommy! Daddy! I saw a white crow by the river!" His parents both frowned at him and shook their heads. "Son, there is no such thing as a white crow. All crows are black." The child wouldn't budge. "But mom, I SAW a white crow with my own eyes!" Angry at their childs defiance, they punished him and sent him away. The next day, the boy went back to the Nile again, and this time I managed to see the Crow up close, and he spoke to it. "Are you a crow?" he asked, unsure of what he was seeing. "Yes, I am a crow," the bird answered. The boy, now torn between what he sees with his own eyes and what his parents taught him, spoke again. "I thought all crows were black," he said. "I know, " the crow replied, "but I am white. I am the only one like me that I have ever seen." The boy at once ran home, and exclaimed to his parents "Mommy! Daddy! I saw the white Crow again!" His parents, angry that their child did not accept their word, punished him far more severely.

I can offer you no proof God exists accept that God is real to me. You cannot in turn, offer any evidence that God DOES NOT exist, accept that you cannot find any. In science, a lack of evidence has NEVER foreclosed the possiblity of the existance of something. It only states that a conclusion cannot be drawn. By stating that a lack of evidence leads to a conclusion, you aren't following science very well. This is the point I am making when I say that you bear a burdon of proof, and I can indeed turn all the arguments you are useing on me against your own claim.

Seccularist: "God does not exist."
Theist: "Really, why do you think that?"
Seccularist: "Because it is true."

Who bears the burdon of proof here?
Click to expand...

I will not attempt to further argue on this burden of proof matter. In case you don't know, you make a claim. you bare burden of proof. This is not in my interest to debate, it is the back bone in which logic and reason is govern by. To not understand this concept and attempt to twist it upside down demonstrates lack of sufficient rationality. In which case, I will withdraw from further debate, as you and I do not speak the same language. Reason will only work with people who speak the language of reason. And in the language of reason, burden of proof is carried by the claimer. For "negative claims" as you so put it, does not exist. It should also be understood that a "negative claim" (I can't help but laugh) is no difference than no claim. Therefore, no claim means no burden of proof. To use such notions as "negative claim" in this language of reason, is clear indication that the culprit is not speaking the language of reason, but rather the language of religion.

P.S. please don't interpret "language of reason" in a literal sense. (Damn I even have to say this.) It is a metaphor.
 
Originally posted by Xevious


Seccularist: "God does not exist."
Theist: "Really, why do you think that?"
Seccularist: "Because it is true."

Who bears the burdon of proof here?
Click to expand...

The theist does because the statement "god exists" must have preceded the secularist's claim. Further, you have improperly stated the argument. Generally, a secularist would assert "there is no evidence to support your claim" rather than "god does not exist". Twisting the argument to support your ignorance is inneffective to those whose ignorance is less than yours.
 
To use such notions as "negative claim" in this language of reason, is clear indication that the culprit is not speaking the language of reason, but rather the language of religion.
Click to expand...

Reason will only work with people who speak the language of reason. And in the language of reason, burden of proof is carried by the claimer.
Click to expand...

You are rather arrogant to profess your own thinking as the "language or reason" while ignoring the irrationality and emotionalism of your own arguments. The crux of my argument is not that I am not making a claim, but that by stating God does not exist, you are too. You conveniently ignored also how I pointed out that ALL you can say based on the evidence is "I cannot confirm your claim."

Incidently, this is EXACTLY what I said, Wesmoris, in a previous post you obviously didn't read. I don't think I'm the one twisting arguments to support my ignorance.
 
Originally posted by Xevious
Incidently, this is EXACTLY what I said, Wesmoris, in a previous post you obviously didn't read. I don't think I'm the one twisting arguments to support my ignorance.
Click to expand...

First of all, I DID read your posts and then read them AGAIN to see what you think I've missed and I still think you're wrong about part of it.

You say that you claim "god is real to me". Well, that's an assumption. It is perfectly unreasonable to assume that someone else should assume that since it's real to you, you've provided some kind of objective evidence to support your claim, or that your "grasp of reality" is sufficient to proclaim such an astounding truth with no actual evidence (acceptable by the party questioning your claim).

Your argument is based around the premise "god is real to me". While that may be a true statement, why should I believe you? If that is your claim I assure you, I can believe you in the same sense that I believe that schizophrenics believe that gay people have a network of spies watching their every move and plotting the destruction of all non-gays. Sure it's real to you, but you're fucking crazy so uh... jeez good luck with all that. I have a hard time thinking that you didn't already know all that, so I'll have to wonder why you would persist unless you're merely trying to say:

I would contend that (logically) either argument "god exists" or "god doesn't exist" is equally irrational (- though the burdon of proof would fall on the first before falling on the second) (in which case, you should have just said that instead of confusing me you bastard :D )

I do think that one might be able to logically prove though, that the belief "god exists", is unreasonable.
 
I am left wondering how much you really know about how mental disorders work, but that is okay. ADHD is probably a very good example. It is not something imbedded in the concious / subconcious mind of the person... it is not something "created" in their own mind. The psycological problems you see are the result of the major organ in which the concious mind inhabits not functioning properly. It is far more akin to a heart murmur or a liver disorder, while lots of conditions such as insanity or sociopathy are caused by a single traumatic event in ones life totally damaging ones concious or subconcious functions with unresolved emotions.

I do not think belief in God fits in to either of these categories, and it is very extreme to liken Religious people, which account for close to 90% of the people on Earth, to psychopaths. Maybe it has occured to you that since you are in the far minority, that it is your beliefs which are far more extreme?
 
Originally posted by Xevious
I am left wondering how much you really know about how mental disorders work, but that is okay. ADHD is probably a very good example. It is not something imbedded in the concious / subconcious mind of the person... it is not something "created" in their own mind. The psycological problems you see are the result of the major organ in which the concious mind inhabits not functioning properly. It is far more akin to a heart murmur or a liver disorder, while lots of conditions such as insanity or sociopathy are caused by a single traumatic event in ones life totally damaging ones concious or subconcious functions with unresolved emotions.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the "lesson", but you should know that I have a healthy understanding of what you've said which predates this conversation by many years. I even understand how drugs are assigned to conditions. Yay me. :rolleyes: You got it right though, so good for you.

My question might be though, what makes you think that "belief in god" would be excluded from that which you describe as a "mental disorder" (especially in context that I put it in)? It makes me doubt your reading comprehension or worse, it makes me wonder if your curiousity regarding the topic is just a ruse constructed by the defense mechanism charged with protecting your unreasonable belief. Since you're so hep to the ways of "mental disorders", can you hypothesize a condition under which such a defense mechanism might be an integral part of consciousness? I can - and will be glad to enlighten you if you are interested.
Originally posted by Xevious

I do not think belief in God fits in to either of these categories, and it is very extreme to liken Religious people, which account for close to 90% of the people on Earth, to psychopaths. Maybe it has occured to you that since you are in the far minority, that it is your beliefs which are far more extreme?
Click to expand...

That was very convoluted IMO.

The term psychopath isn't necessarily applicable to people with "emotional stuntedness" or rather "people who are not emotionally healthy", though far too often the condition of "poor emotional health" leads to debilitating conditions in a person's life and sometimes they end up with some psychosis, the process is interesting to me. It's basically sinks and wells. An emotional problem, if left to "fester" will become a huge sink - through which one's input/subconscious/consciousness are filtered. The personality of the individual reflects this condition. The person's actions and demeanor become affected by the condition. It's a self-perpetuationg cycle that is like all other self-perpetuating conscious mental processes, difficult to break. In many cases though, what is the motivation for the person to CHANGE this condition? Unresolved emotional issues have a tendency to want to hide. There is good reason for that, though it takes a while to explain and I'll save it for some other time.

I will say that the cycle of emotional need relating to the need for an answer to the question "is there a god" can easily result in an irrational answer with a defending mechanism given what follows from the reasoning above. *shrug*

This is all quite superfluous though, since you really just misunderstood my analogy to begin with. I was comparing irrational behaviors, not saying that you're friggin mental if you believe in god. Since I've broached the topic, I would say that the belief in god can only result from an irrational emotional need for satisfaction of an issue to which there is no "logically acceptable" answer. The proper conclusion is "oh, there's no answer"... but you seem to wildly defend your position, regardless of the logic you're faced with. Generally, that's representative of a weak mind or emotional need that outweighs the need for logical validity in the mental schema of the individual faced with the issue in the first place.

But maybe it's me.


(oh, and your "maybe your extreme perspective is just extreme" assertion (or whatever) is simply assenine. It's obvious that I'm highly intelligent (I'm not saying you aren't). My ability to anylize data and derive logical conclusions is FAR SUPERIOR to the average person. I'm not saying that makes me all cool or whatever, I'm saying that I'm simply better and reaching logical conclusions that 99 percent of everyone... so why should I doubt my conslusions based on the sheer volume of people to think otherwise? I don't think that would be wise.. do you?)
 
Originally posted by Xevious
You are rather arrogant to profess your own thinking as the "language or reason" while ignoring the irrationality and emotionalism of your own arguments. The crux of my argument is not that I am not making a claim, but that by stating God does not exist, you are too. You conveniently ignored also how I pointed out that ALL you can say based on the evidence is "I cannot confirm your claim."

Incidently, this is EXACTLY what I said, Wesmoris, in a previous post you obviously didn't read. I don't think I'm the one twisting arguments to support my ignorance.
Click to expand...

Don't you see? How you are missing something? Let's back track just a little. So I am making a claim am I? what is that claim oh great one? I never made any claims whatsoever. Please show me where I made a claim. I only stated that the burden of proof lies with you since you are claiming something exist. It's pretty simple.

By the way, this is not about my own thinking being what is reasonable. Apparently you don't know; the simple rule regarding burden of proof isn't something that I myself magically made up. It's a vital part of the foundation of reason. JUST LIKE, cause and effect is one of the foundations for logic. AGAIN, no I am not magically making these things up. These laws of logic and reason are used by scholars from philosophy, science and history alike. If you still can't grasp this simple concept I really have nothing else to say. Those who speak in your manner simply cannot have a healthy debate on any subject. Your goal isn't to logically reach conclusions but rather to loop forever trying to defend your cause regardless how much more sense the opposition makes.
 
wow wesmoris...why do you say that ? what makes you think that you can reach logical conclusions better than the 99% of people? thats a very illogical statment because you dont even know a fraction of a percent of the people on earth. you sound like a guy at my school. he thinks he's all smart and crap. he think's he is "superior" to everyone. bah, he will learn his lesson by meeting some one smarter and some one bigger.......
 
Originally posted by edgar
wow wesmoris...why do you say that ? what makes you think that you can reach logical conclusions better than the 99% of people?
Click to expand...
experience (and testing)
Originally posted by edgar

thats a very illogical statment because you dont even know a fraction of a percent of the people on earth.
Click to expand...
no, IMO edgar, if you're a man, you know where you stand. 99% of people is not that much. oh and edgar.. apparently logic isn't your forte'. get educated and you'll maybe get smartificated.
Originally posted by edgar

you sound like a guy at my school. he thinks he's all smart and crap.
Click to expand...
edgar, i'm not THE smartest, but I'm definately all smart and crap.
Originally posted by edgar

he think's he is "superior" to everyone.
Click to expand...
doesn't mean I'm superior edgar, just generally smarter.
Originally posted by edgar

bah, he will learn his lesson by meeting some one smarter and some one bigger.......
Click to expand...

edgar, I'm 33, I have a family, I'm a man. you're a kid. no insult, but when you're a man you might understand. a smart man knows his strengths and weaknesses. One of my strengths is my intellect. *shrug* what you don't seem to understand is that I'm absolutely not bragging. I'm stating facts.
 
If you still don't grasp that by stating definitively that something does not exist that you are making a claim, you obviously know enough about logic to suit your own beliefs and no more.

How do you know love exists? You can't prove love exists. You can logically state that a man who takes a girl on a date wants something from her - her company and attention at the least, at the most he might be trying to sleep with her. But, how do you know that he is in love with her? You cannot rationally prove conclusively that he does, because if he is a good actor he can make her think what he wants to, for whatever reason he wants to. Love only becomes real to the couple if he and she both experience it, and give it value.

By your own way of thinking, no one can prove that any emotion is real unless you yourself experience it. That is certanly the crux of what you are saying - it isn't real at all unless I can somehow see, touch, taste, hear, or feel it. Unless it has physical reality, it is beyond your ability to understand and. Such black and white ways of thinking are a symptom of a psycological disorder - it is called depression.

These laws of logic and reason are used by scholars from philosophy, science and history alike.
Click to expand...

You know, Plato, Archemetes, and Aristotle would have lots of fun debating this one with you, particularly when it comes to philosophy - the real crux of this discussion. Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end, nor is it the ONLY tennent of wisdom, which again seems beyond your comprehention. I'm not worried though. Some day you will grow up and realize it for yourself.
 
Originally posted by Xevious
If you still don't grasp that by stating definitively that something does not exist that you are making a claim, you obviously know enough about logic to suit your own beliefs and no more.

How do you know love exists? You can't prove love exists. You can logically state that a man who takes a girl on a date wants something from her - her company and attention at the least, at the most he might be trying to sleep with her. But, how do you know that he is in love with her? You cannot rationally prove conclusively that he does, because if he is a good actor he can make her think what he wants to, for whatever reason he wants to. Love only becomes real to the couple if he and she both experience it, and give it value.

By your own way of thinking, no one can prove that any emotion is real unless you yourself experience it. That is certanly the crux of what you are saying - it isn't real at all unless I can somehow see, touch, taste, hear, or feel it. Unless it has physical reality, it is beyond your ability to understand and. Such black and white ways of thinking are a symptom of a psycological disorder - it is called depression.



You know, Plato, Archemetes, and Aristotle would have lots of fun debating this one with you, particularly when it comes to philosophy - the real crux of this discussion. Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end, nor is it the ONLY tennent of wisdom, which again seems beyond your comprehention. I'm not worried though. Some day you will grow up and realize it for yourself.
Click to expand...

Ok, if you still insist that I made a "claim" . What claim did I ever made?????????????????????? read through my posts and show me this "claim" that I made. Where is this claim that you speak of?
And stop trying to sound intelligent or educated by making lousy statements like "logic is the beginning of wisdom" which has nothing to do with this arguement.

You said god exist, I simply said, prove it. WHERE'S MY CLAIM?
 
I used to skate when I was younger and skaters know that rain sucks.
I had a friend that would say "its not going to rain tommorrow" in a serious tone as though he heard it on the weather channel or something. Even if it had been raining all week he would say that on friday hoping we could skate happily on saturday. What he hoped turned into a fact in his mind because he really really hoped it was true.
This is faith. Its hoping something is real even though you have absolutely no reason to think it is real. The word faith is funny. Especially when used seriously as though it has any merrit whatsoever. Its hope. That is all. And in the case of faith in god its even more ridiculous. People adamantly believe in god because they really hope there is an afterlife. They simply can't deal with the possibility that an afterlife doesn't exist. So they live their whole life restricted to apease something they have been told might exist.
Knowledge is the opposite. If knowledge contradicts what you have faith in, it is beyond stupid to keep having that faith. Thats like skating in the rain and telling yourself its not raining.
Knowledge VS Faith? Knowledge wins by way of knockout.
 
Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
I used to skate when I was younger and skaters know that rain sucks.
I had a friend that would say "its not going to rain tommorrow" in a serious tone as though he heard it on the weather channel or something. Even if it had been raining all week he would say that on friday hoping we could skate happily on saturday. What he hoped turned into a fact in his mind because he really really hoped it was true.
This is faith. Its hoping something is real even though you have absolutely no reason to think it is real. The word faith is funny. Especially when used seriously as though it has any merrit whatsoever. Its hope. That is all. And in the case of faith in god its even more ridiculous. People adamantly believe in god because they really hope there is an afterlife. They simply can't deal with the possibility that an afterlife doesn't exist. So they live their whole life restricted to apease something they have been told might exist.
Knowledge is the opposite. If knowledge contradicts what you have faith in, it is beyond stupid to keep having that faith. Thats like skating in the rain and telling yourself its not raining.
Knowledge VS Faith? Knowledge wins by way of knockout.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% Wish we would put more effort into science. Then at least we'll be able to extend this life :)
 
Back in the old days before DNA testing, the birth of a baby was a Faith vs Knowledge proving grounds.
The mom has knowledge it was her's, and the dad has faith it was his :)
 
pink elephants

Originally posted by Xevious
As I said earlier: PROVE God does not exist. If you cannot do that, then you cannot make a case that purely naturalistic forces are all that are at work in the universe. It boils down to the psycological decision of what is more comfortable for you to believe.
Click to expand...
prove that pink elephants dont exist
 
These arguments are just plain ridiculous because there is no answer to it. religion is a philosophy. No right or wrong answer. Just a beleif.

Most people believe in a god. Can they prove it. Hell no. That is why it is a belief, not a fact. People that beleive in a god say that they just know. How? I don't know how they do, they just do and thats fine with me.

Other believe that there is no god. Can they prove it. Hell no. That is why it is a belief, not a fact. People that don't believe is usually because there is no proof. No proof does not mean no existence.

The rest of society throws their hands up in the air and say. "hell, I don't know" We call them agnostic. They will say there is no proof for or against. There could be, and there could not be. No one will ever know.

The last catagory of people are probably the most opean minded of all of the bunch. In my opinion of course.
 
REduce it to its simplist terms

If we try to reduce the god created the universe argument to it's simplist terms, there are 2 primary concepts which emerge, those being the ideas of "existence" and that of "consciousness".

Now, we may ask, which of these has primacy (which comes first). In the universe we know and can measure, we must accept (bte, that Descartes was wrong) and that existence must take precedence over consciousness. If we try to reverse these (i.e. that Consciousness has primacy over existence), then we must ask, "Consciouss of what ?", and there is no logical answer.

Further, to "exist" can only be defined within space-time, our universe, cosmos (whatever you want to call it).

Thus, the only logical answer is that existence takes precedence over consciousness. Thus you must first exist in order to have consciousness.

The early philosophers and religionists apparently inherently recognized this, because they relegate the "god" to a special case, that of the "super-natural", which they define as existing outside/above/beyond our known universe.

To me, this special case simply creates more conundrums than it solves. It is now valid to ask, is there a super-super-natural, etc ? Is this yet another dimension, are ther more, etc.

And even in the realm of the super-natural, we must ask, it is conscious of what (assuming that it had not yet created a universe and humans to amuse itself) ?

Personally, I relegate all of this to the realm of mythology and metaphor. Is it merely the ancients trying to express that which they could not understand ?

IT seems that many humans need to believe that something greater than themselves created them. So be it.

Go out tonight and look at the night sky, and ask yourself if that alone is not greater then ourselves. Do you see order in the disorder ? Or, is what we call "order", only the tendency of nature itself ? And who defined "order" anyway (we did !)

Remember when applying the 3rd law that it is only the Total Entropy that must always be positive. Or, as Herman Hess might say, A small backwash in the river is easily cancelled out by the fact that the entire river flows downstream.
 
When I first read these messages on this thread I was most certainly distraught. I have for the longest time believed absolutely that there was a God, yet just as some of you here now are saying I would think of how this could be. Of course blind faith is not the best way to go around proclaiming God, I wish to show some others and maybe you might too. Yet before I do this I must recommend G. K. Chesterton as a source of reason to this, all those who agree that there is indeed a God should look into his book Orthodoxy.

Firstly, I have heard a theory indicating the existance of God. Basically all it is, is that just because we argue for or against a God means there must be one. Since the beginning fo time man has yearned to see Gods, yearned for some higher being, some purpose to his life. Indeed other creatures do not do this, so is it just mans nature to fool himself? Or perhaps a divine notion among humans granted to us to seek out the true light?

Furthermore, knowledge and faith DO NOT go against or fight each other. It is perfectly possible to argue the credibility of God with knowledge as Thomas Aquinas did so elequantly. Here are some quotations by the first man I have mentioned before;

"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried."

"The riddles of God are more satisfying than the solutions of man." -

"Theology is only thought applied to religion."

"One of the chief uses of religion is that it makes us remember our coming from darkness, the simple fact that we are created."

If you wish to discuss any of these quotes you may, they are not mine and shouldn't be labeled as so (G. K. Chesterton)
Now this debate has gone on for longer than any of us here have been alive and we will only come to agree to disagree. Personally though I do believe that science and religious views are interconnected and do not in the least contradict each other. Seven days could have been any lenght of time for God. I mean take the Big Bang for example something just doesn't appear and then explode, we need a starting point something that made this happen, even if we shall only come to the resolution of agree to not agree the discussion is vastly interesting and I shall like to hear other viewpoints upon it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top