Who made God? One Big Circle.

[Celpha Fiael]

Your entire analysis is pathetic, especially when accounting that the people who wrote the gospels were not as educated in the Old Testament as the Rabbis of the time. Some were fishermen, another was a tax collector, and so forth. The Rabbis would logically be the ones who would understood the prophecies better than anyone else and one Rabbi named Paul did write some of the letters in the New Testament, but before that he persecuted the church of God. What did it benefit him to betray his Jewish roots, be put in jail, and persecuted for Christ when he was enjoying his status as a Rabbi for the Jewish cause? Consider also that there were no printing presses, and the Torah was in the hands of a select few.

Just to be fastidious, the term "gospels" most commonly refers to the 4 books in the New Testament that give accounts of Jesus's life (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). Old Testament people didn't write the gospels (see your opening sentence).

But now to analyze your apology seriously: you say that my argument is weak because the ones writing in the fulfillments were more learned than those who first spoke them. Hm. Not sure how this is a counter argument at all, in fact it seems to support my analysis; if gospel authors were as learned as you say, they would be even more aware of what they had to write in in order to fulfill the prophecies. (It would have been a more effective objection to say that the gospel writers weren't learned, as they would then have no way to say they were influenced by earlier prophecies and I wouldn't be able to make this suspicion in the first place.) Aside from all of this, we are talking about prophecies of God here. It wouldn't matter at all the level of education for the tools God chose to speak his prophecies through; the education lies in the source, namely God. So that also is not a very good attempt at an egress from my analysis as a plausible one. That didn't work out as well as you thought, huh?

Well that's okay, you give another reason below, let's look at that one. "Consider also that there were no printing presses, and the Torah was in the hands of a select few." Now this seems like a much more fitting objection backing the claim that the writers weren't learned, because if the writers WERE learned, as you say, then they would be the very ones that had this esoteric access to ancient scripts. I think that it is obvious that they were learned, because they could read and write (a self-evident observation). So, they would have been able to read the ancient scripts, and therefore would have been aware of what prophecies needed to be written in as fulfilled. So not only does this second reason betray your first, but it only testifies to my original analysis as well. Thanks for the supporting points.

But let's not stop there, oh no! I should give reasons for why some think, including me, that the gospel authors (not Old Testament people) were intentionally trying to fulfill scriptures in order to portray Jesus as the prophesied one. My reasoning is very in line with Christopher Hitchens's, though I differ from him at points, and he says it more eloquently than I can, so I will be quoting to you a passage from his book, God is Not Great. This is a long quote, but is filled with points I think you owe it to yourself to consider:

"...if you pick up any of the four Gospels and read them at random, it will not be long before you learn that such and such an action or saying, attributed to Jesus, was done so that an ancient prophecy should come true...If it should seem odd that an action should be deliberately performed in order that a foretelling be vindicated, that is because it is odd. And it is necessarily odd because, just like the Old Testament, the "New" one is also a work of crude carpentry, hammered together long after its purported events, and full of improvised attempts to make things come out right."

[Dang, that is quite a claim Mr. Hitchens. Can you back it up?
Mr. Hitchens: Yes I can...
Watch this, you are going to love this part...]

"However, he [speaking of Mel Gibson's claim that his anti-Semitic depiction of the Jews in his 2004 film, The Passion of the Christ, was based on the reports of "eyewitnesses."] fell into the same error as do the Christians, in assuming that the four Gospels were in any sense a historical record. Their multiple authors--none of whom published anything until many decades after the Cruicifixion--cannot agree on anything of importance. Matthew and Luke cannot concur on the Virgin Birth or the genealogy of Jesus. They flatly contradict each other on the "Flight into Egypt," Matthew saying that Joseph was "warned in a dream" to make an immediate escape and Luke saying that all three stayed in Bethlehem until Mary's "purification according to the laws of Moses," which would make it forty days, and then went back to Nazareth via Jerusalem...The Gospel according to Luke states that the miraculous birth occurred in a year when the Emperor Caesar Augustus ordered a census for the purpose of taxation, and that this happened at a time when Herod reigned in Judaea and Quirinius was governor of Syria...but Herod died for years "BC," and during his rulership the governor of Syria was not Quirinius. There is no mention of any Augustan census by any Roman historian, but the Jewish chronicler Josepheus mentions one that did occur--without the onerous requirement for people to return to their places of birth, and six years after the birth of Jesus is supposed to have taken place. This is, all of it, quite evidently a garbled and oral-based reconstruction undertaken some considerable time after the "fact." The scribes cannot even agree on the mythical elements: they disagree wildly about the Sermon on the Mount, the anointing of Jesus, the treachery of Judas, and Peter's haunting "denial." Most astonishingly, they cannot converge on a common account of the Crucifixion or the Resurrection."

So much for a harmony of said prophecies. But let's listen to what he has to say concerning those in a bit more detail:

"Notwithstanding all that, the jumbled "Old" Testament prophecies indicate that the Messiah will be born in the city of David, which seems indeed to have been Bethlehem. However, Jesus's parents were apparently from Nazareth and if they had a child he was most probably delivered in that town. Thus a huge amount of fabrication--concerning Augustus, Herod, and Quirinius--is involved in confecting the census tale and moving the nativity scene to Bethlehem (where, by the way, no "stable" is ever mentioned). But why do all this at all, since a much easier fabrication would have had him born in Bethlehem in the first place, without any needless to-do? The very attempts to bend and stretch the story may be inverse proof that someone of later significance was indeed born, so that in retrospect, and to fulfill the prophecies, the evidence had to be massaged to some extent. But then even my attempt to be fair and open-minded in this case is subverted by the Gospel of John, which seems to suggest that Jesus was neither born in Bethlehem nor descended from King David...Thus, and as usual, religion arouses suspicion by trying to prove too much."

I'll stop there, and that is to my aching regret as I am leaving out other wonderful bits that would further support my analysis as one that is highly probable, not pathetic in the slightest. If this is insufficient for you still, I have plenty more to throw out here.

 

[cole grey]

The beauty of my beliefs is that I can know for sure that they are true and enjoy the stability and satisfaction that provides. Faith is an unnecessary (and destructive) addendum in my views.

There are many many things in life you will never know. The fact that those things never trouble you is not a badge of honor or a mark of shame - it is simply one way to think.

My beliefs are that truth, solid truth, can only be discovered in a scientific and mathematical sense.

sorry, but that sounds like a bunch of crap. You have your subjective truths about any number of things you experience in life. If you mean that there is truth that can all, eventually, with tools far beyond our point on the timeline of the universe, be worked out, and you will allow for many unreconciled truths that are (by necessity) held as subjective beliefs at this point in time, then nevermind - that isn't a bunch of crap.
This illusion that it is possible to be human and have proof for all that you believe is ridiculous. I am sure you are not ridiculous, so please be more clear. The spread of this common misconception pains me.

Because faith by definition is belief in the absences of evidence or in the face of opposing evidence.

Faith is belief without conclusive proof - something exercised by all human beings. Faith in God is no different than faith in any other relationship - it requires belief based on evidence that can be false, and therefore belief that cannot be proven.

 

[SnakeLord]

Faith is belief without conclusive proof - something exercised by all human beings.

Nonsense.

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence is the realm of 'faith', and is not something done by all people. It is quite common for theists to try and make out that everyone has faith because then it doesn't seem quite as stupid as they know it really is.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Celpha Fiael,

Just because a book presents something it wishes you to take as factual doesn't mean it is fact.

What??

But we can't progress the debate because you refuse to even consider that they might be false.

.

My/your considerations either way, make no difference to whether they are false or true.

Point taken but the next step is how we observe truth, in which evidence is crucial. This is a relevant point because you claimed the truth of the scriptures can be known, in which case, there would need to be some sort of evidence to know it by.

Truth isn't observed, it is realised. To stand outside of truth and say "there is a truth", while remaining separate to it, is a deliberate and foolish lie (the fool has said in his hear there is no God). Truth is, period.

Everything material; of it, there is nothing that requires the insertion of a God or a supernatural realm for that matter.

This implies that you have knowledge of everything, why you can make such a confident statement. But the truth is, you don't. Now how do I know that?

To say "that truth has always been, regardless of our understanding of it," requires understanding of that truth to begin with.

That is your personal goal, not a universal necessity. The "truth" is, period.

[/quote]How do you think we got to understanding gravity in the first place?[/QUOTE]

Every living being has some understanding of gravity, and that understanding is perfect for each species. They may not be able to articulate it, or they may not realise how it works outside of their environment, but what they know is sufficient to their being.

Here is a source for you to check out: God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens. I've given you a source, now it is your turn to decide whether or not you really want to know.

I'm not going to read a whole book
for the purpose of this debate.
I am convinced that you have absolutely no evidence for the seriousness of your wild accusations.

If that example wasn't good enough for you, here is another: religions, at least the one you seem to argue for, base belief in the truth of their holy books on faith. Once again, you've noted this already in our conversation, so I don't know why you need me to keep pointing these out to you:

Again you have misunderstood my point, this is very tedious. Please read the quote carefully.

I think you are being too insidious; I don't have a wealth of information on the Qu'ran but I am familiar enough with it to know that it promotes the idea of faith, and that was enough to answer your question. Slow down there Jan.

Faith isn't an idea, it is natural human phenomenon.
It instucts muslims to utilise their faith because it give information which they cannot know from themselves due to the human limitations and condition. We all have faith, you, Dawkins, Dennet, everyone, you and they simply choose not utilise it in that way.

I guess you'd first have to define what you think devout means in order for us to dispute this further. In my views, being a devout Muslim doesn't mean by default being an advocate of violence.

Being a devout muslims means strong faith in God, which by your standards means potential murderers because they have faith in God.

I understand very clearly, but in order for you to ever have any understanding of any truth, you will first have to consider some sort of evidence attesting to it, otherwise you wouldn't know that it existed in the first place.

Truth is not necessarily
an intellectual pursuit, truth just is.

You can be effected by it and have an intuitive sense of it, as in the case with gravity, but in terms of understanding it, tests have to be made and evidence has to be presented.

Then that is the truth (bolded).
All understanding is derived from that.

This differs from what you are saying because while, yes you have a point that all these truths existed before humans' view of it, evidence is essential if we are to wish to begin to view it in the first place. That is what I think you haven't considered yet.

The type of evidence, and how one pursues the evidence is very important in order to yield understanding, which is why there are instuctions to adhere to.
In the case of science there is the scientific method, in the case of God realisation, there are scriptures which impart instruction on how one may become liberated, saved, etc...

It seems as though your primary interest is to find an excuse to say all my objections are irrational and be done with it.

Not really. You have made an accusation stating that the people who did 911, did so because of their faith in God, implying that faith in God leads people to commit these kinds of acts.
You have not (i suspect can not) backed up these vicious claims at all, and as such they can only be irrational claims (not to mention dangerous).

In any case, the claim in question ("The high-jackers drove the planes into buildings because they believed they would get a heavenly reward.") is something that can neither be proven or disproven;

So why say it as though it is a proven fact?

...you
couldn't prove to me that they weren't thinking that.

Right, so I'll keep my personal thoughts to myself, I suggest you do the same unless you're ok with being a religion/Islam hater.

It is therefore in the realm of speculation, which we must apply our rationality and logic to if we are to arrive at any answer.

Why would you speculate that?
Why not speculate that if the bombers were indeed muslims, they totally pissed of at the foreign policy of the US, and decided to strike back the only way they could. In light of the past few decades, doesn't that seem more probable?

Not necessarily, people who don't have faith in God are also capable of horrible atrocities.

gasps in amazment.

Never!

I'm saying that in the wrong hands, faith is all that is needed to justify such heinous acts.

There are alot of things which justify alot of heinous acts, but in the end, it all boils down to human activity.

I know plenty who have faith in God who would never commit suicide for him or other things of the sort, but in my views, they have committed intellectual suicide by adhering to faith in the first place.

That's you opinion which, imo, stems from a lack of intellect on your part.

Perhaps some of the things religion offers today; comfort, security, community.

I was right, you haven't
got a clue as to what "religion" is, you've simply jumped on a bandwagon, and now feel confident to spout nonsense.

Exactly, and by the same token we shouldn't believe what the Bible says about the matter either. It is the exact same criticism.

You are not in a position to tell others what they should and should not do, just deal with yourself.

Would you sacrifice your own child if God told you to do so?

If God actually told me to do something, I have no idea what state of mind I would be in a that time.
My present level
of thinking is that I wouldn't.

Jan.

 

[SnakeLord]

My present level
of thinking is that I wouldn't

It's amusing to see that when it comes to the crunch most theists would ignore god, and yet before that moment spend their entire lives telling everyone else they must obey god.

Quite amusing.

 

[cole grey]

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence is the realm of 'faith', and is not something done by all people. It is quite common for theists to try and make out that everyone has faith because then it doesn't seem quite as stupid as they know it really is.

No. your stament is the nonsensical one. There is a lack of completeness of proof within most subjective experience. You should stop lying to yourself. I never said faith rests on a complete lack of proof, but rather conclusive, i.e. irrefutable, complete proof - a thing which is lacking from most everything that we call truth. Try to prove conclusively and logically that the universe is infinite or is not; that it started with a bang, or goes in cycles - yet most everyone on earth picks one or the other without knowing for sure. I'm going to laugh if you pretend that there is conclusive proof on those questions - and I haven't even gotten into things such as personal desires, understanding of relationships from one perspective (as is necessarily our experience), altered states of consciousness...
and then of course there are any number of beliefs that make up all of our psyches (yes I said ALL, and if you don't get my point yet I'm perplexed) - faith in government as an institution, faith in one's own government, faith in people, faith in some particular people; or lack thereof; etc. etc. etc.

It's amusing to see that when it comes to the crunch most theists would ignore god, and yet before that moment spend their entire lives telling everyone else they must obey god.
Quite amusing.

Sad, actually, that humans can't respect each other as sentient individuals and let them come to their own conclusions - the way God obviously does.

 

[SnakeLord]

You should stop lying to yourself. I never said faith rests on a complete lack of proof, but rather conclusive, i.e. irrefutable, complete proof

The lack of conclusive, irrefutable, complete proof does not indicate 'faith'. When it also lacks evidence it then becomes a matter of 'faith'.

'Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence'

If I believed that leprechauns existed without any evidence, (don't worry about proof that's a long long way away), that would be a matter of faith.

of course there are any number of beliefs that make up all of our psyches (yes I said ALL, and if you don't get my point yet I'm perplexed) - faith in government as an institution, faith in one's own government, faith in people

Faith or confidence based upon evidence? I would only have confidence in government if I saw they had done some good for the country etc. These are all based upon evidence, 'faith' is not.

 

[Sarkus]

I never said faith rests on a complete lack of proof, but rather conclusive, i.e. irrefutable, complete proof - a thing which is lacking from most everything that we call truth.

Spot the difference:

A) I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow.

B) I have faith that an afterlife exists.


In (A) there is a plethora of evidence that the sun has risen every day so far, and there is nothing to indicate that anything else will happen. This is the same case as having faith in a government, in a friend, in not getting run over as you cross the road etc.

In (B) there is no evidence. It is the same "faith" that one has in God.


The same term ("faith") is used in both but masks the vast difference in evidence on which that "faith" is based.


Do you appreciate the differences?

 

[nova900]

Faith is the only thing that can allows belief in God, as their is no universal evidence which says God is real,outside of interpretation, to make us know for sure that God is real.

How about phychic phenomena? Or all those thousands of cases of Near Death Experience?
These are what I base my belief in God on and also my own intuition of course.
An atheist will NEVER be convinced on belief simply because someone tells he/she "this is the truth". As each persons interpretation of the truth will vary from one individual to the next.

I look for the commanality of scriptural passages between various religions and then compare them to the overall pattern I see in NDEs'. If they line up ,I accept them,if not I chalk them up to the ignorance or agenda of the author in question.

While I can appreciate many spiritual messages from scriptures they also in my opinion are badly corrupted by the ignorance of mans' ego.Hence the often contradictions and downright idiotic portrayals of God.(the OT is a classic example of this)

 

[Jan Ardena]

nova900,

How about phychic phenomena? Or all those thousands of cases of Near Death Experience?

Belief in God would still require faith, because these phenomenon can possibly be explained via a natural medium, or they could be a natural occurance that we have yet to discover.

These are what I base my belief in God on and also my own intuition of course.

But as they are not conclusive proof or evidence of Gods' existence you still require faith that God exists due to such occurances.

An atheist will NEVER be convinced on belief simply because someone tells he/she "this is the truth". As each persons interpretation of the truth will vary from one individual to the next.

I don't blame them.

I look for the commanality of scriptural passages between various religions and then compare them to the overall pattern I see in NDEs'. If they line up ,I accept them,if not I chalk them up to the ignorance or agenda of the author in question.

How do you come to the point of belief in God, based on NDE's?

While I can appreciate many spiritual messages from scriptures they also in my opinion are badly corrupted by the ignorance of mans' ego.Hence the often contradictions and downright idiotic portrayals of God.(the OT is a classic example of this)

Can you give an example of such portrayals?

Jan.

 

[nova900]

nova900,



Belief in God would still require faith, because these phenomenon can possibly be explained via a natural medium, or they could be a natural occurance that we have yet to discover.

True. I keep the book open that they may be a "natural occurance" we have yet to discover.
However, faith..no . A belief ,yes. Based on what I feel is suggestive evidence.
Example:
I believe a small number of cases of UFO reports could be legitimate..this is not faith but a belief.Or perhaps crop circles are a legimate phenomena and not all of them are due to smart ass college kids using boards,ropes and planks. Same thing..a belief, not faith.

How do you come to the point of belief in God, based on NDE's?

The sheer number of cases worldwide from people of all walks of life, believers or non-believers. The pattern I see from what people have seen in the afterlife and came to understand about God. Not just one or two cases in particular but the overall consensus.

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/research21.html

Can you give an example of such portrayals?

Jan.

From a study of the OT:
A male God often afflicted with many of the negative emotions(anger,jealousy,vengefull,pettiness) that most of us as humans realize are qualities that degrade our lives.

 

[Celpha Fiael]

sorry, but that sounds like a bunch of crap. You have your subjective truths about any number of things you experience in life. If you mean that there is truth that can all, eventually, with tools far beyond our point on the timeline of the universe, be worked out, and you will allow for many unreconciled truths that are (by necessity) held as subjective beliefs at this point in time, then nevermind - that isn't a bunch of crap.
This illusion that it is possible to be human and have proof for all that you believe is ridiculous. I am sure you are not ridiculous, so please be more clear. The spread of this common misconception pains me.

Yes, I'm glad to clear things up, as you haven't quite grasped what I mean. I don't think there is such thing as proof; only evidence. Of that evidence, material proof is incontrovertibly the strongest kind of proof we have (even if you believe in the supernatural, this holds true, as we have to operate in this material world are are tied to its restrictions); the kinds of evidence that back a God are not sufficient enough to be considered as (for lack of a better term) proof, as opposed to, say, Newton's theory of gravity.

This particular example allows for me to show why I don't think there is such thing as total proof; this theory, for all its great success, was superimposed by quantum theory; a higher degree of discovered truth. It's this mindset that I apply my beliefs to (and I think so should everyone); there is always a possibility of what is considered truth to later be discarded by by a higher degree of it. This is why I allow for the possibility that there is a God, but regard it as highly improbable based on scientific evidence (the strongest type of evidence) and as good as dead by my own personal empirical evidence (which is admittedly a weaker type).

Mathematics is a bit different as is founded purely in the mind and on logic and reason. It is the most efficient system of logic ever conjured up by our species brains I think, and I'll give you an example. You cannot deny that the angles in a triangle add up to 180 degrees. It is impossible to doubt that, which makes it a very efficient and strong lens through which to look at and analyze the universe, as well as a a very proficient way of acquiring truth. The role that mathematics plays in acquiring truth is through its implications and applications to everything it can touch (predicting to impressively accurate degrees that an eclipse will happen on a precise day, at a precise time, last for a certain time, and travel a very specific pathway). Indeed, nobody would believe the madness of quantum theory if it wasn't for the stupefyingly accurate predictions that it results from its calculations. God of course cannot be analyzed through mathematics either, which makes it an even weaker theory than if you were to just consider it in light of the scientific realm.

That is, in a tight nutshell, why and how I believe truth can only be spoken of in a scientific and mathematic sense.

 

[Celpha Fiael]

What??

What do you mean, "what?"? That is what I said in response to this: "The source (scriptures) do not "provide justification" as there is no need.
Any book which imparts knowledge or factual information is justified by the reader." You are reading the scriptures and viewing what they present as factual information, and then you say that you yourself the reader, justifies it. That is not true in the slightest, it will take much more than just your skimming of the words to justify it as truth or factual information for that matter. That is why I said what I did.

My/your considerations either way, make no difference to whether they are false or true.

I don't think you actually think that, because if you did, you would have been okay with considering that the scriptures might not be true for argumentative purposes in our debate. Allow me to remind you:

If we are to debate this, we need to be honest indeed; you will need to be willing to consider that the scriptures might not be true at all.

Such a consideration is pointless, my only retreat is to not believe it.

Truth isn't observed, it is realised. To stand outside of truth and say "there is a truth", while remaining separate to it, is a deliberate and foolish lie (the fool has said in his hear there is no God). Truth is, period.

I really don't think you are listening to my counterpoint to this, either that or you just don't want to hear it. I know truth is, period, it would have to be so if it were truth. But this says nothing of our interaction with it. If we are to interact, then there must be some observation of it in some way. How can you realize it if you don't interact with it first? Indeed, observation and consideration is a necessary prerequisite to realizing anything! How do you suppose you come to a realization? Just randomly out of the blue? Even if you were to say "revelation" which is what I would guess as your answer, that requires cognitive observation.

And what about it is a lie? You advocated the example of gravity earlier, you looked at that in your mind and said; gravity is true whether or not we think of it or interact with it or observe it. You are right in saying this, but my point here is that you must be aware of that truth before you are ever able to think about it in your mind.

This implies that you have knowledge of everything, why you can make such a confident statement. But the truth is, you don't. Now how do I know that?

Quite the contrary, there is so much of the material that we do not know. This is the fuel upon which science operates; it works and feeds upon the unknown and beautifully shifts it into what we do know. I never said I know everything, all I said is that the material (which as I said above, is the strongest type of evidence we have available, and is what science works with) does not require the insertion of the idea of God. You think I'm wrong about that? If science came across something that beckoned God as a required descriptor or introduction, then the question of whether or not God exists would be over.

That is your personal goal, not a universal necessity. The "truth" is, period.

(1) That's not a goal, that's an observation. (2) It is not just my personal one, but one for anyone who cares about what truth is. You can't lazily sit back and expect to be randomly blasted with truth; it requires some sort of effort, observation, consideration, and an applied mind. This is true with any sort of medium in which someone could think truth goes through; science, mathematics, and even your way of acquiring truth, revelation.

Every living being has some understanding of gravity, and that understanding is perfect for each species. They may not be able to articulate it, or they may not realise how it works outside of their environment, but what they know is sufficient to their being.

This is why I said earlier in response to this "truth is" point of yours;

"In order to know of gravity, there has to be some sort of interaction with it. In order to understand gravity [or "articulation of it, as you would say], there has to be some sort of pursuit of that knowledge which highly involves evidence. You can be effected by it and have an intuitive sense of it, as in the case with gravity, but in terms of understanding it, tests have to be made and evidence has to be presented. This differs from what you are saying because while, yes you have a point that all these truths existed before humans' view of it, evidence is essential if we are to wish to begin to view it in the first place. That is what I think you haven't considered yet."

I still don't think you've considered that yet.

I'm not going to read a whole book
for the purpose of this debate.
I am convinced that you have absolutely no evidence for the seriousness of your wild accusations.

If you are going to make blind judgments such as "you have absolutely no evidence for the seriousness of your wild accusations", then you are first expected to look at what sources I do give you. And I have given you one here. What you've basically done is say, "I don't want to put forth the effort to check to see if you have evidence or not, so I'm going to continue with assuming you don't have any at all." There's nothing other to say about that except; intellectually lazy. If you really wanted evidence, you would read that book. You obviously don't; you're not looking for evidence, you're looking for an argument.

Again you have misunderstood my point, this is very tedious. Please read the quote carefully.

I've read the quote again and am at a loss how I've misunderstood anything. In fact, I answered it with a quote of your own, which means you had really already answered the question yourself. The question was this, "What do they [the Christian and Islamic religion] actually base on faith?" Let's see what YOU have to say about this question:

The bible makes no claims of holyness, it is holy due to its association of divinity, and if you align yourself to it, you will understand it, and if you don't, you won't.
There can be no higher authority regarding any scripture otherwise it has no value. You either develop faith and surrender, or you stick to your guns and shut up shop, as no one can prove whether it is authentic or not. This is the beauty of scriptures.

One answer: scripture's truthfulness.

Faith is the only thing that can allows belief in God, as their is no universal evidence which says God is real,outside of interpretation, to make us know for sure that God is real.

Another answer: God's existence.

Jan, this is the second time I've given you these, your very own words, as answers to your question. You've given yourself answers already. These are things that require faith, even according to you. Are you wanting to recant these quotes? It's almost as if you are being willfully ignorant of your own words.

Faith isn't an idea, it is natural human phenomenon.
It instucts muslims to utilise their faith because it give information which they cannot know from themselves due to the human limitations and condition. We all have faith, you, Dawkins, Dennet, everyone, you and they simply choose not utilise it in that way.

Those are quite some strong claims Jan, I hope you intend to back them up. (How is faith a natural human phenomenon? How do Dawkins, Dennet, everyone, me use faith?)

Being a devout muslims means strong faith in God, which by your standards means potential murderers because they have faith in God.

You're making wide leaps in connecting my points here, I never said that believing in God therefore makes you a potential murder. We all are potential murderers (you are physically capable of doing it). I said the idea of faith (which is necessary for belief in God) easily justifies acts of violence and further promotes this unhealthy and pejorative way of thinking.

Then that is the truth (bolded).
All understanding is derived from that.

Oh? How do you know that is truth? Are you saying that something has to resonate with our intuition and experience in order for it to be true? Furthermore, of what good is truth if we don't try to understand it?

The type of evidence, and how one pursues the evidence is very important in order to yield understanding, which is why there are instuctions to adhere to.
In the case of science there is the scientific method, in the case of God realisation, there are scriptures which impart instruction on how one may become liberated, saved, etc...

I agree with everything that I've bolded. With that last bit placed next to the others, it seems you are ready to fall right back into the trap of assuming that what is said in the scriptures is true. They may impart instruction on those things, but is it good instruction? Is it truth? You haven't given answers for why we should consider them truth at all as of yet. Another note; realization is not an adequate way of finding the truth. I could suddenly realize that everything you say is incorrect. But that doesn't make it true does it? Certainly you would object and at least ask me to provide a more substantial line of conclusions that have lead me to think that. If realization is all that God is riding on, then he has a crappy deal indeed (a deal that he would have had to create and force upon himself).

Not really. You have made an accusation stating that the people who did 911, did so because of their faith in God, implying that faith in God leads people to commit these kinds of acts.
You have not (i suspect can not) backed up these vicious claims at all, and as such they can only be irrational claims (not to mention dangerous).

(Bolding mine)

This is funny to me, because it is obvious you responded to this before reading all of my post, notably the last part where I give you clear and incontrovertible evidence backing that explicitly backs my claims.

So why say it as though it is a proven fact?

Here is the rest of that passage of mine: "...It is therefore in the realm of speculation, which we must apply our rationality and logic to if we are to arrive at any answer. My conclusion is one that is a rational possibility one can come to after giving it some thought; what drove the high-jackers to do that? It is not a concealed secret of any kind that Muslim fundamentalists in particular are willing to commit suicide for heavenly rewards. I'd be happy to consider an alternative argument."

Does that sound like I am presenting it as proven fact?

Right, so I'll keep my personal thoughts to myself, I suggest you do the same unless you're ok with being a religion/Islam hater.

We are on this message board to talk about our thoughts, if you are concerned about keeping them to yourself then I suggest you do something better with your time. I shared mine because I was positing what I see as a problem, that's why. And for what seems like the hundredth time, I am not attacking religion/Islam, I am attacking their use of faith. Why do you continuously return to this false accusation time and time again, after I've explained to you at least twice how this is not so?

Why would you speculate that?
Why not speculate that if the bombers were indeed muslims, they totally pissed of at the foreign policy of the US, and decided to strike back the only way they could. In light of the past few decades, doesn't that seem more probable?

It is probable yes. More probable? No. I'm glad you've finally offered an alternative possibility, which leaves the 9/11 example's possibilities up for whichever you prefer. But there are other examples, like the article I gave you as a source, that show other attacks of this nature are clearly not in speculation.

There are alot of things which justify alot of heinous acts, but in the end, it all boils down to human activity.

This has some empirical resonance to it, but it is largely an over-generalization; it discounts all the elements and variables that may encourage such heinous acts of humanity. If a satan-worshiper brainwashed your friend into blowing up a building, would you not point to that satan-worshiper as somewhat responsible? Or would you, like you are doing now, throw your hands up and shrug, attributing it and blaming it all on just the human activity of your friend?

That's you opinion which, imo, stems from a lack of intellect on your part.

I understand that is your opinion, which means by definition that it is not necessarily true, but I would like you to explain why you think it stems from a lack of intellect.

I was right, you haven't
got a clue as to what "religion" is, you've simply jumped on a bandwagon, and now feel confident to spout nonsense.

I'm sorry? Would you disagree that religion offers comfort, security and community?

You are not in a position to tell others what they should and should not do, just deal with yourself.

Haha the cry of defeat.

Jan, you seem to be eerily silent concerning the source I gave you. I think that it quite effectively demonstrates the thesis I have been making all along, and nails the final coffin in your counterarguments. What do you think of it?

Also, upon rereading our conversation, there are several questions of mine that you did not answer. I will list them below so you can find these and their contexts easier and come up with a response:

How do you mean? I don't see how it is clear at all. But if I am, then put me to the test! I wouldn't mind brushing up on my old theistic stances, if just for nostalgia.
...
Think about this; what would someone have to tell you in order for you to recklessly hi-jack a plane and drive it into a building, killing yourself and others that you don't even know?
...
You might as well believe in fairies or leprechauns, there is no scientific evidence against or for their existence yet I'm sure you don't. (The only difference is that God is a potentially more meaningful concept than trivial fairytale creatures and so has voluminous books debating people's speculations of him.) How is this not a double-standard?
...
Ignoring that this is a circular argument, why would you say this is this so? Perhaps you discovered this via revelation?
...
I said these reasons are the same ones theists give, and you say you agree; which means that you also think that these reasons theists give are also not "good reasons"?
...
How is tasting a pineapple using faith?

I have taken considerable care to answer your questions concerning my posts, and I think it is only fair if you do the same for mine (this includes the questions I have asked in this post). There seems to be a lot of ignoring going on here on your part, I hope it isn't because you don't have answers.

 

[cole grey]

Spot the difference:A) I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow.B) I have faith that an afterlife exists.
In (A) there is a plethora of evidence that the sun has risen every day so far, and there is nothing to indicate that anything else will happen. This is the same case as having faith in a government, in a friend, in not getting run over as you cross the road etc.In (B) there is no evidence. It is the same "faith" that one has in God.
The same term ("faith") is used in both but masks the vast difference in evidence on which that "faith" is based. Do you appreciate the differences?

Sorry guys, but there are not only two classifications for cognitive assertions. That is the impossible problem your definition of faith creates. There are many levels in between ideas which are provably correct, like the idea that gravity will affect objects on the surface of the earth, and ideas which are provably false, like the idea that the earth is made entirely of gaseous helium. There is a vast range of "faith" in between accepted knowledge and accepted falsehood.

"Faith" is not a belief based on no evidence whatsoever, but rather, a belief that cannot be proven.

The idea that the U.S. government has taken care of its citizens is not provable - it depends on whether you adhere to the legal definitions of various components over history, and also how you account for consequences we may not have experienced yet for actions the government has taken (iraq, global warming, etc.) There is evidence for and against the idea, it is unprovable, based on perspective, and is "faith". This is very close to what we see with religious faith or faith in a human relationship.

The space between fact and fiction is very large indeed, and MUCH of EVERYONE'S ideas about EVERYTHING fall into that space - yours too.

P.S.

This particular example allows for me to show why I don't think there is such thing as total proof;

I think your ideas on that are quite sound. But for practical purposes I see a value in allowing for some types or quantities of evidence to be considered "proof" - one much more stringent than the practicalization of criminal prosecution, i.e. "beyond a reasonable doubt", but similar. Also, mathematics are just a system mankind has created and by it's very nature no falseness can be tolerated within it - but it is an abstraction, and there is no inherent truth in a triangle really (it is just a name for something we designed), but that is probably a different discussion.

 

[Celpha Fiael]

I think your ideas on that are quite sound. But for practical purposes I see a value in allowing for some types or quantities of evidence to be considered "proof" - one much more stringent than the practicalization of criminal prosecution, i.e. "beyond a reasonable doubt", but similar. Also, mathematics are just a system mankind has created and by it's very nature no falseness can be tolerated within it - but it is an abstraction, and there is no inherent truth in a triangle really (it is just a name for something we designed), but that is probably a different discussion.

I do too see practical purposes, as there is no other term that is as convenient as "proof". So we use it but understand that we don't really intend what it means. But only the fundamentalist says he/she is ever 100% certain in their beliefs. I don't think we need to discuss the dreadfulness of that. What you say concerning mathematics is true, but I assert that because it is so efficient, it is a wonderful addition in the search for truth whereas opinionated and reinforced speculation (probably as close to a definition of faith that you will hear from me), is not. Especially when you compare the two. There is an obvious and powerful correlation between our devised system of mathematics and the deep mysteries of our universe.

Now that I've mentioned faith, I might as well add my two cents in to the conversation you are having with two of our other resident atheists (or at least I think they are atheists, they will surely correct me if I am wrong). While there are a spectrum of degrees of cognitive assertions, Sarkus is right to propose the dichotomy he does. There is a threshold somewhere in that spectrum where assertions will jump from the type of speculation that (A) presents to the type of speculation type (B) presents. There is some degree of speculation, however small you wish to imagine it as, where any more will make it into this concept that we are referring to as faith. I hope you see my point. It's not an impossible problem, just a hard dichotomy to pin-point. I think the rest of the disagreement is purely semantics. I hope you'll consider what I've posited.

 

[cole grey]

There is a threshold somewhere in that spectrum where assertions will jump from the type of speculation that (A) presents to the type of speculation type (B) presents.

So you are saying that all ideas are either as sure as anything can be or completely unfounded by any evidence? And there is an arbitrary line somewhere that separates the two? Good luck finding that.
Even if there were only two categories, and I am laughing at your chances to show that idea makes sense (but do go ahead), the line can't possibly be thought of as separating the two categories in such a way that a human being could operate only upon ideas that are as sure as the sun rising - which is what some people here seem to like to assert.

P.S. I personally think the correlation between mathematics and the universe would be just as consistent if we had made it up in a completely different way, but that is as hard to show as the idea that math has inherent "qualities" of some kind, not entirely created by man - so that one is just a thought.

 

[Celpha Fiael]

So you are saying that all ideas are either as sure as anything can be or completely unfounded by any evidence? And there is an arbitrary line somewhere that separates the two? Good luck finding that.
Even if there were only two categories, and I am laughing at your chances to show that idea makes sense (but do go ahead), the line can't possibly be thought of as separating the two categories in such a way that a human being could operate only upon ideas that are as sure as the sun rising - which is what some people here seem to like to assert.

P.S. I personally think the correlation between mathematics and the universe would be just as consistent if we had made it up in a completely different way, but that is as hard to show as the idea that math has inherent "qualities" of some kind, not entirely created by man - so that one is just a thought.

No, that is not what I am saying; I think you detracted from that strict of a standpoint yourself. That threshold is honed in upon with higher forms of the pursuit of truth, i.e. science/math, which is used as a compass of sorts. For example, a claim that God exists would most certainly fall upon the "faith" side of the spectrum, as it has no support scientifically and cannot be approached via mathematics. And actually, yes it can (in response to operating upon ideas like the sun rising), those kinds of certainties are the benefits of adopting a world view that defenestrates anything not solidified enough to be falsifiable. These ideas (God being a prevalent one in my mind) have not earned their way into "proof", and indeed cannot. "A claim that is unfalsifiable is to that same extent a weak one."

As for your commentary on the deep workings of the universe and our methodology in approaching them, I find your considerations inspiring and poetic. Perhaps math does, and perhaps it doesn't; either way, we have been able to achieve in beautiful strokes, with whatever lies at the core of this harmony, unbelievable insights that are too potent and too painstakingly discovered to be even remotely shadowed by concepts that have no substantial backing whatsoever, like one of God. That is at least what I think.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Full article here

Being an Atheist, I've researched this topic over and over again, and can never get a solid answer of where God (any god, if he/she/they) came from. They all say he/she/they just is/are. This seems like a cheap way out.

That article says God has always existed, but where did the material for this god come from?

They argue themselves into one big circle.

As the creater of the universe, God must clearly have existed before the universe.

Anyway, science does no better in answering your question. The universe was created via the big bang. What caused that and where did the material that exploded into existance come from? Ummmmmmmmm. Errrrrrrr.........

 

[Sarkus]

Sorry guys...
...
"Faith" is not a belief based on no evidence whatsoever, but rather, a belief that cannot be proven.

Most of what you say is irrelevant / neither here nor there.

However, the bit above intrigued me.
So what evidence do you have for God - evidence that can rationally only be FOR God?

"Faith" is either based on evidence (i.e. probabilistic faith) or on no evidence (blind faith).
There is NO evidence that can rationally be concluded as being FOR the existence of a God.


The idea that the U.S. government has taken care of its citizens is not provable - it depends on whether you adhere to the legal definitions of various components over history, and also how you account for consequences we may not have experienced yet for actions the government has taken (iraq, global warming, etc.) There is evidence for and against the idea, it is unprovable, based on perspective, and is "faith". This is very close to what we see with religious faith or faith in a human relationship. [/quote]I agree it's like faith in a human relationship but it's nothing like religious faith. It is a "faith" based on a plethora of evidence.

"Religious faith" - the faith that God exists - has no rationally attributable evidence - unless you care to share what you think there is?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Celpha Fiael,

What do you mean, "what?"?

What do you mean by the scripture wishes me to take it as factual?

You are reading the scriptures and viewing what they present as factual information, and then you say that you yourself the reader, justifies it.

The scriptures are presented as factual, whether we believe it is a different matter.

That is not true in the slightest, it will take much more than just your skimming of the words to justify it as truth or factual information for that matter. That is why I said what I did.

Do you contend that no facts are contained within any scripture?

I don't think you actually think that, because if you did, you would have been okay with considering that the scriptures might not be true for argumentative purposes in our debate.

What use is such a consideration?
And how can an independant enquiry be set up to decide whether God is real or not?

How can you realize it if you don't interact with it first?

We interact with gravity, whether we know it or not, do we not?
Is gravity a truth?

Quite the contrary, there is so much of the material that we do not know. This is the fuel upon which science operates; it works and feeds upon the unknown and beautifully shifts it into what we do know.

Gravity is not "unknown", its knowledge is imparted within scriptures. The point of science is to understand how it works, which is less important, near to the point of being unecessary.

If science came across something that beckoned God as a required descriptor or introduction, then the question of whether or not God exists would be over.

Its a good thing we didn't wait for science to explain gravity in order to know that if we jump off a cliff in a bid to emulate the birds, we would be in serious trouble.
God, is not in the realm of modern science, so if they beckon God or not, it does not matter, to me, or I suspect people who have faith in God.

It is not just my personal one, but one for anyone who cares about what truth is.

Caring about what truth is, is a pointless endeavour, as is caring about what gravity is. We already agree that "truth is" regardless.

You can't lazily sit back and expect to be randomly blasted with truth;

Why insert lazy?

it requires some sort of effort, observation, consideration, and an applied mind.

To understand that we cannot fly, can be done simply by experience, which doesn't necessarily have to invoke all those requirements.

There's nothing other to say about that except; intellectually lazy. If you really wanted evidence, you would read that book. You obviously don't; you're not looking for evidence, you're looking for an argument.

You've made a claim which I find quite offensive, and falls outside of the reasonable radar, unless of course you can back it up. If that book is evidence to back up your claim, then you can easily quote references. This is how debate works.

I've read the quote again and am at a loss how I've misunderstood anything. In fact, I answered it with a quote of your own, which means you had really already answered the question yourself. The question was this, "What do they [the Christian and Islamic religion] actually base on faith?" Let's see what YOU have to say about this question:

One answer: scripture's truthfulness.

No. You develop faith, and surrender, because the nature of that truth is beyond the ordinary sensual perception. Through faith you are inclined to act according to instuction rather than your whims, through action your sesnses become controlled, through control of senses you become humble. This is the very start of understanding.

Originally Posted by Jan Ardena
Faith is the only thing that can allows belief in God, as their is no universal evidence which says God is real,outside of interpretation, to make us know for sure that God is real.

Another answer: God's existence.

???

Jan, this is the second time I've given you these, your very own words, as answers to your question. You've given yourself answers already. These are things that require faith, even according to you. Are you wanting to recant these quotes? It's almost as if you are being willfully ignorant of your own words.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Those are quite some strong claims Jan, I hope you intend to back them up. (How is faith a natural human phenomenon? How do Dawkins, Dennet, everyone, me use faith?)

How is faith not a human phenomenon?
Even by your own standards, observance, effort, etc, this can be understood.
What is it if not a human phenomenon?
We all use faith in the same way, but not necessarily for the same reasons.

You're making wide leaps in connecting my points here, I never said that believing in God therefore makes you a potential murder.

They are not wide leaps, you have implied it,. here look;

"My next argument would be that many problems are encouraged severely by religion itself, namely the idea of faith. Yes I can point one out for you: 9/11."

"But the fact that these people believed so fervently and were so sure that if they flew high-jacked planes into the twin towers that they would go to heaven and receive virgins as a reward could only be achieved through faith."

"For example, many sects of Islam view martyrdom as a glorious thing, and are promised great rewards in the next life for choosing this path. This is what drove the otherwise intelligent and sane attackers on 9/11."

All I'm interested in is how you know that faith in God was the reason behind this atrocity. Otherwise it is just a wild accusation, based prejudice. The ball is in your court.

I said the idea of faith (which is necessary for belief in God) easily justifies acts of violence and further promotes this unhealthy and pejorative way of thinking.

If someone is this way inclined, anything can be justification, or justifaction is not even necessary, I would have thought. Do you agree?

Oh? How do you know that is truth?
Are you saying that something has to resonate with our intuition and experience in order for it to be true? Furthermore, of what good is truth if we don't try to understand it?

The essence of that thing must be relative in some way.
The point of understanding is come to the platform of truth, do you agree.

They [scriptures] may impart instruction on those things, but is it good instruction? Is it truth?

This is the reason why we develop our faith, because the nature of the object of scriptures is beyond our level of direct perception. It seems you want to know whether it is true before conforming, this is self defeating, because you already understand that "the truth is". You cannot be separate from the truth, only not in alignment with it.

You haven't given answers for why we should consider them truth at all as of yet.

Why not consider them truth, it creates a clearer understanding.
When watching a film, reading a book, etc.. It is better to believe what you are observing, no matter how far fetched, because it creates a better understanding. But is doesn't mean you have to carry on believing it.

Another note; realization is not an adequate way of finding the truth. I could suddenly realize that everything you say is incorrect.

And how would that resonate with your whole being?

It is probable yes. More probable? No.

Why?

I'm glad you've finally offered an alternative possibility, which leaves the 9/11 example's possibilities up for whichever you prefer.

So the reason for your accusation is because you choose it?
Don't you have anything a little more substantial?

But there are other examples, like the article I gave you as a source, that show other attacks of this nature are clearly not in speculation.

That article explains nothing, it is more like an exert from a play or movie, than a introduction to the mind of a suicide bomber.

If a satan-worshiper brainwashed your friend into blowing up a building, would you not point to that satan-worshiper as somewhat responsible?

But it is still a human act, and the fact that he may be a satan worshiper, does not mean that satan worship is the cause for his actions.

Or would you, like you are doing now, throw your hands up and shrug, attributing it and blaming it all on just the human activity of your friend?

Do you think satan-worshiping is the cause, or the person?
If you think yes to the former, would it be fair to assume that all satan-worshipers will act in this way?

I understand that is your opinion, which means by definition that it is not necessarily true, but I would like you to explain why you think it stems from a lack of intellect.

You lack understanding of religion, choosing instead to jump on a popular bandwagon and spout nonsense, purley because you can.

I'm sorry? Would you disagree that religion offers comfort, security and community?

Lots of things offer comfort, security, and community.
Religion is a way of realising the absolute truth, by regulation of the senses. It is, in its pure form, the primary route to self-realisation.

You are not in a position to tell others what they should and should not do, just deal with yourself.

Haha the cry of defeat.

Why is that?

Also, upon rereading our conversation, there are several questions of mine that you did not answer. I will list them below so you can find these and their contexts easier and come up with a response:

The responses are getting too long, so some things have to go.

Jan.