Is there a GOD?

[2020hindsight]

Just some stuff to set the mood
You may not believe this, but I'm told there was dust (and flies) around when Jesus was preaching

Jesus Christ Superstar (1973) Heaven On Their Minds (2)
Jesus Christ Superstar (1973) Hosanna ( 7)
Jesus Christ Superstar (1973) Gethsemane (14)
Jesus Christ Superstar (1973) The Crucifixion (21)
PS my own thoughts ....fwiw
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=187233&highlight=conjecture#post187233

 

[Woodchips]

Logic and faith are not polar opposites. Logic itself is not testable by anything external to itself. There is no way to test the veracity of logical arguments and conclusions without recourse to logic. The very act of arguing for or against a system of logic necessarily invokes logical principles. One trusts in logic in a very circular way. It is an internally consistent system. The decision to trust logic is itself an non-logical and untestable decision.

That just sounds like philosophical crap to me mate.

The decision to trust logic is based on the historical observation that without it people become susceptible to all kinds of propaganda with potentially disastrous consequences. It is a tool that teaches the individual to question and think about an argument before taking it on board thus enabling the individual to see through arguments based on emotion rather than fact. No doubt, if you try and apply the method to itself you will encounter all kinds of circular and paradoxical anomalies. But it was never intended to be used in that way. It reminds me of people who think they're being clever by applying the democratic ideal of free rights to the act of voting and concluding that under a democracy the right to vote should be optional. Same sort of thing, the idea wasn't intended to be applied to itself. So instead of losing yourself a pointless abstraction why not try to help some of the poor bastards on this forum who still believe that world was created in 7 days?

WC

 

[binginbarrel]

There are no dimensions to house 6 billion people.
Eternity has no boundaries

He is the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end: quotes himself as the "I am"

Can't have a navel because he is not flesh like we are.

If you see his face you will die, must be powerful ay?

Om canti canti om!

 

[Sean K]

Logic and faith are not polar opposites. Logic itself is not testable by anything external to itself. There is no way to test the veracity of logical arguments and conclusions without recourse to logic. The very act of arguing for or against a system of logic necessarily invokes logical principles. One trusts in logic in a very circular way. It is an internally consistent system. The decision to trust logic is itself an non-logical and untestable decision.

No they're not. Logic is about valid, testable, inferrence and demonstration using reasoning through probabilities. It absolutely can be tested externally through rhetoric which is one of the cornerstones of formal logic in the pursuit of truth. Formal logic is actually the basis for modern computer science. Faith is to believe without reason. You can't get too much polar opposite than that. Just where did you get that from Tradesim.

 

[BREND]

I agree with this.

Sometimes God speaks to me through His words in the bible, how can bible be manipulative tools?

 

[Sean K]

how can bible be manipulative tools?

Because you can take it literally, as metaphor, or twist it around to make it mean anything you like. Like that silly comment about God standing on a disc, interpreted to mean that one of the authors of the bible knew the earth was a sphere.

 

[MS+Tradesim]

No they're not. Logic is about valid, testable, inferrence and demonstration using reasoning through probabilities. It absolutely can be tested externally through rhetoric which is one of the cornerstones of formal logic in the pursuit of truth. Formal logic is actually the basis for modern computer science. Faith is to believe without reason. You can't get too much polar opposite than that. Just where did you get that from Tradesim.

0

Kennas,

"It absolutely can be tested externally through rhetoric which is one of the cornerstones of formal logic in the pursuit of truth."

Logic cannot be tested without recourse to itself. Logic 101. Try establishing a test for logic that does not appeal to any of the first principles. Defining faith as "believe without reason" is anachronistic and limiting as there are more definitions of faith that that. I have faith in logic. By that I mean I have a complete conviction that logic works as a method of discovering truth. Even this has little meaning without further qualification, for instance which version of "truth": utilitarian, correspondence or coherence. I do not believe in logic without reason. But I also acknowledge that logic is limited by itself. If you wish to tightly define faith in the way you have, then I would be forced to agree with you. However, there is no reason to accept that "faith" can only (or even should) be defined as you propose so I maintain my statement that logic and faith are not polar opposites.

Woodchips,

"But it (logic) was never intended to be used in that way."

Its limits must be acknowledged. If one does not accept the limits of logic then one is displaying blind faith by refusing to accept its actual boundaries.

"So instead of losing yourself a pointless abstraction why not try to help some of the poor bastards on this forum who still believe that world was created in 7 days?"

Because I find it amusing that non-believers (of whatever religion) can be as fundamentalist and illogical in their non-belief as many believers (of whatever religion).

 

[Sean K]

Logic cannot be tested without recourse to itself. Logic 101. Try establishing a test for logic that does not appeal to any of the first principles. Defining faith as "believe without reason" is anachronistic and limiting as there are more definitions of faith that that. I have faith in logic. By that I mean I have a complete conviction that logic works as a method of discovering truth. Even this has little meaning without further qualification, for instance which version of "truth": utilitarian, correspondence or coherence. I do not believe in logic without reason. But I also acknowledge that logic is limited by itself. If you wish to tightly define faith in the way you have, then I would be forced to agree with you. However, there is no reason to accept that "faith" can only (or even should) be defined as you propose so I maintain my statement that logic and faith are not polar opposites.

Aren't we talking about 'faith' in God. You are. This is a very narrow field and that is the topic. Not faith in logic or faith in Essendon getting into the finals, etc, etc. Also, logic is tested against other people through objective, rational analysis, where people can sometimes be persuaded to change their perspective, in any direction, and this is TOTALLY ACCEPTABLE, and part of the beauty of rhetoric. If your argument is better, it's accepted. Faith on the other hand, is absolutely dogmatic, and to have a different opinion has you burnt at the stake, amongst other interesting ways to go out, for not agreeing with the higher power.

 

[jonojpsg]

Kennas,
The Bible was written by a number of guys, some of whom were eyewitnesses to the facts, eg they were there! The first manuscripts are dated around 70AD so about 40 years or so after Jesus lived, died and rose again. That would be like say, a 70 year old writing about something that happened when they were 30 - pretty reasonable I would have thought as far as history goes. Luke was a doctor, so in my mind an emininently capable person to write a solid biographical account, which his book is.

Also, while I agree totally that Bible passages can and are taken out of context, if you look at the Bible in its entirety, which is the way it is supposed to be read, then all passages make sense and fit within the big picture.

Julia,

I would say a prayer if I were you; God listens to every prayer, not just those of "believers". He says "Ask and you will receive, Seek and you will find, Knock and the door will be opened" Matthew 7:7

Also, the universe had to be made with physical laws to govern it, how else would it hold together the way it does? I don't know whether earthquakes are a result of our sin, but I do know that paedophiles are definitely a result of sin! There is nothing in evolutionary theory that explains why we would defile our children with unspeakable acts - does it happen with any other species - I don't think so! The fact that God is omnipotent and omnipresent and omniscient just means that he knows what's going on, can and does hold the universe together with his power, and is able to be beside every person caring about them and waiting for them to turn to him. He isn't going to step in and stop every accident or tragedy because what would be the point in creating us with free will, or in his image? If he intervened every step of the way, he may as well not have created in the first place.

Sin is our choice - we can turn from it with Gods help. Tragedy is our opportunity to show that we can be like the people that God wants us to be, compassionate, caring, generous, etc.

 

[MS+Tradesim]

Kennas,

To play the devil's advocate, why must "faith in God" (however God is defined) be a case of "believe without reason"? What is the imperative linking these two? A person can have reason to believe in whatever God if their experiences and rational thoughts have presented evidence to empower belief unless and until they encounter a defeator of their reason(s). Such a belief becomes irrational if and only if that person comprehends and accepts a defeator but then chooses to cling to the belief anyway. For instance, for you to have faith in God would be to "believe without reason" as it is seems apparent that you have experiences and rational thoughts empowering your belief that there is no God(s). The same is not true for everyone.

 

[Sean K]

There is nothing in evolutionary theory that explains why we would defile our children with unspeakable acts - does it happen with any other species - I don't think so!

Jono, At this stage, I wont analyse your comments any further than this, because I think this is an important issue, and a very significant one to Christain people. Ask any of the brothers, or Catholic priests, who have been outed recently across the globe for mishandling their alter boys and girls, and parishoners wives.....the list goes on...

Acts of pedophilia, or desires of it, are not 'sin', they result from our most basic human instincts. That is; to procreate, to feel powerful, and to control. I could expand on these basic disires of the human being, that are in many other animals, but I would bore the masses.

As far as other species raping younger members of their group, please watch National Geographic channel for a week or so. Or, visit a game park in Kenya.

 

[Sean K]

Kennas, To play the devil's advocate, why must "faith in God" (however God is defined) be a case of "believe without reason"?

Prove it to me.

 

[MS+Tradesim]

Kennas,

Back to front...you are the one making the claim that faith in God must be "believe without reason". I am asking you why this has to be the case.

 

[Sean K]

Kennas,

Back to front...you are the one making the claim that faith in God must be "believe without reason". I am asking you why this has to be case.

'Believe without reason' is the standard definition of 'faith'. You could probably google it, or look it up the dictionary, and it will be there. So, I am not making that claim, it's a universally accepted definition of what faith is. Have you got another I could look at?

To expand on this slightly, if I come up with a concept about the origin of the universe, do you think it would be my duty to prove it to be true, or for you to prove it not to be untrue?

 

[MS+Tradesim]

Kennas,

I'm aware of the multiple dictionary definitions of faith. I'm also aware that "Believe without reason" is one of those definitions but certainly not THE standard definition.I would like to know why you think there is a necessary link between "faith in god(s)" and "believe without reason". Surely you don't mean to imply that because you do not find reason to believe, ergo no-one can have reason to believe in whatever God they look to?

 

[Sean K]

Kennas,

I'm aware of the multiple dictionary definitions of faith. "Believe without reason" is one. I would like to know why you think there is a necessary link between "faith in god(s)" and "believe without reason". Surely you don't mean to imply that because you do not find reason to believe, ergo no-one can have reason to believe in whatever God they look to?

Prove me your God.....

If you can not, then you have faith in it, as I must.

Reason implies impirical evidence, or logically acceptable argument to the majority of those having sifficient intellect to make decisions independently.

 

[spooly74]

Also, the universe had to be made with physical laws to govern it, how else would it hold together the way it does?

The universe is not held together.
It is rapidy expanding and accelerating apart.

In May 2008, scientists will have more answers to the nature of our Universe when they recreate the BIG BANG.

 

[MS+Tradesim]

Kennas,

I'm not interested in discussing any particular concept of God. I'm simply questioning the underlying assumption that "faith in God" = "believe without reason". It seems to me that our fundamentally different approaches to epistemology will only result in ongoing disagreement on just about everything. You seem to be more of an empiricist and I'm more of a rationalist. So let's just agree that we won't agree then.

(And puh-leeaaassse don't respond with "See. You can't prove it".... because my questions have nothing to do with god(s) and everything to do with paradigmatic assumptions.)

I approach it all from a framework that says people can have warrant for beliefs and be rational in their beliefs unless a compelling defeator overturns a belief. Not everything needs to be empirical. Which is my original point that even logic is externally untestable and requires faith.

 

[Mofra]

Sometimes God speaks to me through His words in the bible, how can bible be manipulative tools?

In other words, how can the written word, edited by humans with vested interests, be a manipulative tool?

You don't think literature (even fictional proporting to be factual) can be manipulative?

 

[dhukka]

Kennas,
The Bible was written by a number of guys, some of whom were eyewitnesses to the facts, eg they were there! The first manuscripts are dated around 70AD so about 40 years or so after Jesus lived, died and rose again. That would be like say, a 70 year old writing about something that happened when they were 30 - pretty reasonable I would have thought as far as history goes. Luke was a doctor, so in my mind an emininently capable person to write a solid biographical account, which his book is.

Also, while I agree totally that Bible passages can and are taken out of context, if you look at the Bible in its entirety, which is the way it is supposed to be read, then all passages make sense and fit within the big picture.

Even the mindless rantings of revelations?