 |
| |
|
|
Soul Survivor
|
|
UChicago
May 2003
time: 05:28
|
|
You can say faith is illogical or impossible or just a way from people to live in ignorance, but faith in religion is no different than faith in anything else.
Take someone from 2000 years ago and try explaining to them our entire existence is derived from millions of units of repeating molecules which are reproduced billions of times to make a human body, they will claim you are crazy and your arguement is illogical and impossible. If you really think about it, this explanation is just as absurd as any other. Perhaps in another 2000 years they will look back on us and laugh - how could they have possibly believed that?
Faith is an essential part of life, we simply draw lines between what kind of faith is acceptable and what kind of faith is not acceptable. We believe in atoms and galaxies millions of light years away, even though none of us have seen them - only because we have faith in science. To take it even further, we have faith in our own existence - but it is very possible that all this is all just a figment of my imagination, or that I am simply a figment of your imagination. But this is not a "practical" way to think because it accomplishes nothing - just like believing in god/religion entirely and abandoning science accomplishes nothing.
Nevertheless, throwing religion out the window, on the grounds it is "illogical", is being hypocritical. You have faith that time passes by, you have faith that the universe exists, you have faith that what you see with your eyes is really there, you have faith that your thoughts are your own, you have faith that you have free will. Religion is not a very big step from there, renouncing one kind of faith while embracing another is absurd. And in response to the invisible rhinoceros in Nukapai's post, there is a slight difference between a rhino and an omnipotent being.
Now the question remains, is it even possible for god to prove his own existence to us?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Soul Survivor
Now the question remains, is it even possible for god to prove his own existence to us? |
No. Or at least probably not. (Of course, god could fundamentally change the logic of the universe, so that it could be proveable...)
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lorizael
|
 |
The Cult Wins
Sep 2001
time: 00:28
|
|
The problem with the "faith in science" thing is that we constantly change our ideas about science. We look for new data, test old theories, change things when it looks like they're different.
Science has faith in only those things that have been tested over and over again. And "seeing" something means nothing. There are methods of observation other than sight.
Yes, us regular people have faith that the scientists aren't all lying to us, but if we truly wanted to, we could go to university, learn what they have learned, and repeat the process for ourselves, thereby getting rid of the requirement for faith. With religion, even if you're a priest, you still gotta have faith.
God being omnipotent, he should be able to prove his existence.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
quote:
God being omnipotent, he should be able to prove his existence. |
Hmm? How could God prove his existence? What would satisfy you? Flashy Lights? A loud booming voice? Seeing a miracle? Cause all those aren't proof of God's existence.
Last edited by Edan on 23-05-2003 at 10:31
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
sure
he can prove his existence
but why would he want to?
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ranskaldan
|
 |
Beijing ~ Singapore ~ Toronto ~ All hail to the new Rome
Sep 2001
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Soul Survivor
You can say faith is illogical or impossible or just a way from people to live in ignorance, but faith in religion is no different than faith in anything else.
Take someone from 2000 years ago and try explaining to them our entire existence is derived from millions of units of repeating molecules which are reproduced billions of times to make a human body, they will claim you are crazy and your arguement is illogical and impossible. If you really think about it, this explanation is just as absurd as any other. Perhaps in another 2000 years they will look back on us and laugh - how could they have possibly believed that?...
|
Once again - let me re-emphasize the point of the "best guess". Science is based on the best guess based on what we can see and perceive. Of course these may all be false. But the very point of science is to try to narrow it down, to get theories as close to the truth as possible. Perhaps our eyes are lying to us. Illusions exist. Science tries, at the same time, to tear through as many of these illusions as possible. We try with the best possible capability that humanity can muster to tear through illusions and false theories. I do not have "absolute faith" in science, but I do believe that it is the best bet we have in finding out about the world.
"Faith", on the other hand, has none of that. Faith is pointing randomly at theories, and with no basis at all, declaring "belief". That is utterly ridiculous and is an insult to human civilization.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Giant_Squid
|
 |
Fun Guy from Yuggoth
Jan 1970
time: 00:28
|
|
Science isn't about faith. The scientists know that it's true (or at least suspect that it's true) because they've done the experiments. The rest of us believe the scientists not because we take them on faith but for very logical reasons - the fact that scientists are generally smart people, scientists who lied would be out of a job, and, most importantly, the fact that every so often science leads to something like a car or a nuclear bomb so that we know they're doing *something* right over there.
What a Christian friend tells me about faith in religion is that it is not intended as a substitute for logic but rather as a sort of complement. Once you have developed belief in the existence of God logically, either through something like Biblical scholarship, scientific means, or personal experience, then you entrust yourself to Him rather than constantly being wishy-washy about it. An analogy is how a soldier is supposed to trust that his commander knows what he's doing rather than second-guessing every order and causing general chaos.
Which brings me to how I just intentionally killed eight battalions of Knights against a massively fortified enemy city in my last game of Civ3 because they were obsolete and it was too expensive to do something else with them and, on a related note, why I am not a theist 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lorizael
Your thinking is too mundane. Omnipotent is all powerful. He can do anything he wants. Therefore, if he wants to prove his existence, he can. It doesn't matter how he does it, he just does, because there is nothing that he cannot do. |
Well, he could make me believe in him (or think he's true) but then free will goes out the door. OTOH, if I keep free will, I'm free to think thatr anything he uses to prove himself is an illusion or a problem with my eyes or whatever. Unless, as I said ealier, he changes the very nature of logic.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lorizael
Why wouldn't God prove his existence, if he wants people to worship and pray to him? |
Cause he wants people to have free will? If people know that there is a god, there's a lot less free will in the world.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Soul Survivor
|
|
UChicago
May 2003
time: 05:28
|
|
About god proving his own existence;
Its a nasty little paradox, like can god create a stone he could not lift. Because no matter what he says or does (whether it defies logic, physics anything), there is no way we could say with 100% certainty that it is not some evil genie trying to trick. But being omnipotent, he must be able to do anything, including prove his existence.
Giant Squid;
I'm not saying there is no difference between faith in science and faith in religion. Yes science uses expirements and empirical evidence to try to describe the universe around us - but it is far from absolute and even science concedes that there are certain things that it cannot hope to describe, ie what happens at less than 10^-35 cm or before 10^-43 seconds after the big bang. But in the end belief in one is just as absurd as belief in another, albiet belief in science is far more practical for human civilization.
About repitition and causality;
I like your arguement and have my own version of it. The fact that I exist right now and have existed before proves I will exist forever. Unfortunately attempting to prove causality empirically has been, problematic at best.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Soul Survivor
About god proving his own existence;
Its a nasty little paradox, like can god create a stone he could not lift. Because no matter what he says or does (whether it defies logic, physics anything), there is no way we could say with 100% certainty that it is not some evil genie trying to trick. But being omnipotent, he must be able to do anything, including prove his existence.
|
Well, I can think of several possibilities:
1. He needent be all-powerful, merely all-knowing and very very powerful.
2. He could force us to believe in him, but that would take the fun out of it. 
3. And, of course, he could change the very nature of logic in the universe, so e's proveable.
Personally, I see know problem with God being "omnipotent" and not being able to do contradictory things (like make a rock to heavy to life) but maybe thats just me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:28
|
|
Sure wish I could have replied to this sooner...
As is, I'll give it a shot.
quote:
Its a nasty little paradox, like can god create a stone he could not lift.
|
Soul Survivor:
Actually, your example makes no sense in this context. Making sense of God's omnipotence has nothing to do with whether God can or cannot prove that he exists.
The stone lifting problem is a seperate issue.
quote:
there is no way we could say with 100% certainty that it is not some evil genie trying to trick.
|
True. This is a problem for believers as well because we are told that false prophets will come and work miracles, in order to decieve. Believers are instructed to gauge the fruits produced by the person before deciding whether they are from God.
It's not a matter so much of whether God has made his existence known, throughout the Bible there are examples of some of the ways in which he tries to convince people of his existence.
quote:
But in the end belief in one is just as absurd as belief in another, albiet belief in science is far more practical for human civilization.
|
Now my question here is why. If both systems are absurd, why would science be more practical than faith? For a believer there is nothing more essential than one's relationship with God, and we see evidence when we start to stray, and cut ourselves off from his blessings.
Edan:
quote:
Cause he wants people to have free will? If people know that there is a god, there's a lot less free will in the world.
|
The quote you are looking for is the one that Jesus uses, do not put your Lord God to the test. The reasoning behind the commandment is that God makes his presence abundently known, and to ask again for God to appear on your terms is the height of unbelief. Look at the Israelites who had very good evidence for God, yet rejected him because Jesus did not fit their expected Messiah. How can you be sure that when God makes His presence known, that He will do so in the way you expect?
Giant Squid:
quote:
then you entrust yourself to Him rather than constantly being wishy-washy about it.
|
Greater understanding takes time. In my own example, my profession of faith was to ask God for help, that I could no longer do things on my own. I believed God could help, even if I did not understand everything about him.
Your friend is right, you don't need to know everything to believe in God.
quote:
trust that his commander knows what he's doing rather than second-guessing every order and causing general chaos.
|
So you don't trust God, because you don't see the motives behind the commander. Fair enough. For you, where does God fall short?
ranskaldan:
quote:
Faith is pointing randomly at theories, and with no basis at all, declaring "belief". That is utterly ridiculous and is an insult to human civilization.
|
Try reading some theologians, and you will see how our ideas about God, within Christianity have changed over time. Therefore, your accusation has no basis, Christianity still seeks to improve its own understanding of God.
As for the basis of faith, it is not that religion does not say the basis, but merely that you reject their theory. In the Christian example, why don't you believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lorizael
|
|
The Cult Wins
Sep 2001
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Edan
I don't even know that there was an Adam or Eve or Satan (indeed, I don't believe in Satan). So that means nothing to me.  |
This is a theological debate, so whether or not the bible is true is unimportant. We must assume, for the sake of argument, that it is true. After all, I do not think that there are any gods above us, yet I want to discuss this. If I were to argue with my thoughts, no progress at all would be made.
What is important is that Adam and Eve were faced with an omnipotent god yet still had free will.
The assumptions of science, Soul Survivor, are not absurd because they have been thoroughly tested for many hundreds of years. The assumptions of religion cannot be tested, because they are based on supernatural forces, which cannot fit into a natural system of logic and reason.
While I may have faith that gravity will bring me back down every time I jump, this faith can be tested very easily, by jumping.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lorizael
What is important is that Adam and Eve were faced with an omnipotent god yet still had free will.
|
Only if you believe that real people will act the same way when they know there's a god and that they'll go to everlasting damnation if they don't follow him.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-05-2003 06:47
|