to the atheists on the board

[ARogueTrader]

Why would I accept faith as a tool by which to come to know God.

Because it works for me, and has worked for the the majority of those who use that tool to come to know God.

Do the faithful claim to know God in the same way they know color via eye sight, or the same way they come to know music via hearing?

No, as they have the concept of God as being beyond physical senses.

How does someone come to know if another person will pay back some money if they loan it to them?

They don't, they only find out if the person is trustworthy by trusting them.

How do you know if someone will keep a secret if you tell them?

You don't, you find out by telling them the secret and see if they keep it.

Much of what we come to know comes through the process of trust and faith.

That more people have self reported success with God through the practice of faith than people have self reported failure with God through faith is a fact.

If the majority of people who go to a restaurant and then report the food good, is the food good?

If the majority of people go to a movie and say it was good, is it a good movie?

If the majority of people laugh at a comedian, is the comedian funny?

If beauty exists, is it in the eye of the beholder?

If God exists and is beyond the physical senses and relativistic logic, how would you come to know him?

Faith.

Those who are putting up criteria for the existence of God that God must conform to their concept of what God should be, must be understood by their puny little intellects and physical limitations, are free to do so, who is stopping them?

What is the proof that they are correct in their criteria when it comes to God?

Why should one measuring tool be used for all things including God?

People have to ask themselves what they trust in their own lives, what they would stake their own life on, what they would bet their life on.

If I told you I know faith is a path to God because of intuition, could you know I was wrong?

I bet even some atheists have intuitions which they trust as a means of knowing.....at least I would bet that female atheists would.

Quote from Cutten:

Again I will repeat my question - why do you accept faith as the tool by which you will come to know God? Why rely on faith when it has such a poor record in discovering truth? And why should faith apply to belief in God, but not belief in anything else?

If someone said they "accept that faith is the tool by which I will come to know Santa Claus", would you view them as a rational or irrational person? If the latter, how is that any different to your position?

 

[gms]

"Faith is not a claim of certainty. That is why they call it faith in God. Where certainty exists, there is no need for faith."

You are defining "incredulity".

The apostle Paul defines what faith is based on, in his letter to the Hebrew congregations, and uses words meaning "reality" and "evidence", if you look up the meanings of the Greek words used in a concordance. Consider that Paul's faith was based on his personal encounter on the road to Damascus, not on something uncertain, and that the other apostles went through trials and tribulations but stood strong in their faith because of the things they had seen and heard. Among the first century christians, and down to this day, the apostles' testimonies as preserved in scripture serve as first person eye-witness accounts. This suggests to me that "faith", as defined by the christian bible, is indeed a claim of certainty.

 

[Cutten]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

Some have a concept of God, that HE is bound by time, space, relativistic logic, and mathematics.

That is not the definition that Theists use.

The relativistic thinkers often use the famous question to illustrate their difficulty with a Supreme Being in the logical games that they play :

"Can God create a stone so heavy that He can't lift it?"

My answer to that question is that yes, God can create at stone so heavy that He can't lift it, and at the same time He is able to lift it.

It is logically a contradiction according to the rules of logic, and is not possible from the perspective of our rules and experiential understanding of time and spacial relationships.

If we use only the faculty of eye sight only from earth without anything else we clearly see the sun moving around the earth. By going to a deeper level, we begin to see that our sight and conclusions are relative to spatial relationships, and from a vantage point of a further distance whereby we can see both the sun and the moon at the same time, we can easily see a deeper reality and come to a different conclusion.

If we force definitions of God to conform to relativistic logic, to the rules that our limited intellect can come up with, then we are creating a definition of God on that basis. "God must conform to our rules" is the motto of the intellect based skeptic.

I would ask why we should we accept that limited definition of God, that God is bound by our human logic, any more than a definition of God as not bound by the rules of our logic?

Logically, in this world of time and space, it is not possible for it to be both raining and not raining at the same time. That is the reality of this world.

However, how do we know that our reality is the only true and correct reality?

The reason God is "forced to conform" is because linguistic terms are invented by us for our use, and we have defined the rules for using those linguistic terms. Those rules of usage are known as logic.

So what makes logic true in all cases, even applying to a supreme being?

Simple - semantic logic is "true" in the same way that a secret code is "true". If I say that in my code the letter "X" means a brown dog, and you then use X to refer to anything other than a brown dog, then you are wrong and I am right. Because I defined the code, I get to pick what everything means. I get to choose - absolutely and without exception - what is right and what is wrong, in terms of my code.

It is just the same with any other language, with the difference that meanings and definitions are not handed down by diktat, but rather accumulated through centuries of usage. So if English speakers use English, with its accepted definitions and rules of linguistic logic, and you break those rules, then you are wrong by definition. Thus your statement that God is capable of doing something he is incapable of doing is wrong by definition.

 

[ARogueTrader]

I am not using the Christian bible to define faith. You are free to do so.

Even if the apostles did in fact have such experiences, even if they claim certainty in their experiences, faith in them and their experiences is required to give them the authority to generate sufficient reason to think that their experiences will be valid for you, and come to you if you follow their path.

It is similar to someone who says they saw a good movie. You either trust that your experiences will be similar to theirs or not.

If you trust them, you see the movie. If you don't trust their experiences because in the past the movies they recommended you didn't like you won't see the movie.

If you have no experience with their taste in movies, then you have to make a leap of faith to see the movie, and on that basis of that faith and action you will deepen your lessen your trust in their judgment of movies according to your tastes in the future.

In the case of the certainty of the apostles, I am not questioning their certainty or their faith. I have no idea, nor does it matter to me personally.

I personally choose to believe in God and that is enough for me.

Is it enough for others? Why would I care? I speak of my own faith as it is just telling who I am, what I believe. Those who choose another path that is their free will. I cannot even say they are wrong, nor can they have knowledge that I am wrong, as they don't have knowledge of what is right for me to believe.

If they live and let live, fine by me. If they ridicule me for my beliefs, then I form an opinion of them that they are not someone I would want to associate with.

It is that simple.

Quote from gms:

"Faith is not a claim of certainty. That is why they call it faith in God. Where certainty exists, there is no need for faith."

You are defining "incredulity".

The apostle Paul defines what faith is based on, in his letter to the Hebrew congregations, and uses words meaning "reality" and "evidence", if you look up the meanings of the Greek words used in a concordance. Consider that Paul's faith was based on his personal encounter on the road to Damascus, not on something uncertain, and that the other apostles went through trials and tribulations but stood strong in their faith because of the things they had seen and heard. Among the first century christians, and down to this day, the apostles' testimonies as preserved in scripture serve as first person eye-witness accounts. This suggests to me that "faith", as defined by the christian bible, is indeed a claim of certainty.

 

[ARogueTrader]

Your argument is that God must conform to human logic.

If I say God has no opposite value, is that intelligible to you? If I say it is possible for God to both create a stone so heavy He can't lift it, and at the same time lift it, does that make sense to you?

No, because you and I are bound by space and time, and our logic is based in the limits of space and time.

Yet God is defined as Eternal, Infinite, Omniscient, Existing in all spaces at all times....something that is not our human reality at all.

So the linguists, relativistic logicians demand that God conform to what their mind can understand.

What is the proof that a Being who created the Universe, who created man, who created the human mind, that created logic itself is now bound to follow the rules of the human mind and human logic?

The value of faith is that anyone can practice it, no matter how intelligent or lacking in intelligence they are.

God provided a way to know him through the practice of faith, which allows a relationship to be formed where it is logically impossible to be formed based on our limited understanding.

You will accept that your understanding is limited, yes?

Quote from Cutten:

The reason God is "forced to conform" is because linguistic terms are invented by us for our use, and we have defined the rules for using those linguistic terms. Those rules of usage are known as logic.

So what makes logic true in all cases, even applying to a supreme being?

Simple - semantic logic is "true" in the same way that a secret code is "true". If I say that in my code the letter "X" means a brown dog, and you then use X to refer to anything other than a brown dog, then you are wrong and I am right. Because I defined the code, I get to pick what everything means. I get to choose - absolutely and without exception - what is right and what is wrong, in terms of my code.

It is just the same with any other language, with the difference that meanings and definitions are not handed down by diktat, but rather accumulated through centuries of usage. So if English speakers use English, with its accepted definitions and rules of linguistic logic, and you break those rules, then you are wrong by definition. Thus your statement that God is capable of doing something he is incapable of doing is wrong by definition.

 

[Cutten]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

Why would I accept faith as a tool by which to come to know God.

Because it works for me, and has worked for the the majority of those who use that tool to come to know God.

Do the faithful claim to know God in the same way they know color via eye sight, or the same way they come to know music via hearing?

No, as they have the concept of God as being beyond physical senses.

How does someone come to know if another person will pay back some money if they loan it to them?

They don't, they only find out if the person is trustworthy by trusting them.

How do you know if someone will keep a secret if you tell them?

You don't, you find out by telling them the secret and see if they keep it.

Much of what we come to know comes through the process of trust and faith.

That more people have self reported success with God through the practice of faith than people have self reported failure with God through faith is a fact.

If the majority of people who go to a restaurant and then report the food good, is the food good?

If the majority of people go to a movie and say it was good, is it a good movie?

If the majority of people laugh at a comedian, is the comedian funny?

If beauty exists, is it in the eye of the beholder?

If God exists and is beyond the physical senses and relativistic logic, how would you come to know him?

Faith.

But we must distinguish between rational faith and irrational faith. Rational faith is based on concrete and convincing evidence, observations of reality, inference from known truths, and so on. It is adjusted in the light of experience - one's faith is always held somewhat tentatively and open to change.

Irrational faith is based on pure hope or emotion, or nothing at all.

Is your religious faith the result of convincing evidence that you have seen that makes you think God exists? Or is it based on hope, or feelings, without being backed up by convincing evidence? Is it rational or irrational?

I keep expecting you to say that God has spoke to your personally, or you feel his presence in your spirit, or you saw undeniable evidence of his work, some kind of evidence from which your faith rationally arises. Yet so far you have simply stated that faith *alone* is sufficient justification for belief.

Sorry, but faith should be *based on* something. Faith that is based on nothing but faith is completely irrational.

 

[Cutten]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

Your argument is that God must conform to human logic.

Incorrect. My argument is that the *word* "God" must conform to human logic.

Equally, the words "is able" and "can't" must also conform to human logic.

God can do what he likes.

 

[ARogueTrader]

You say faith "should" be based on something.

If 85 out of 100 people tell you that a movie was good, is that sufficient to go see the movie?

After that, you decide to see the movie or not, and then if you see the movie you make up your own mind.

It is reasonable to believe in God.

Must something be rational to be reasonable?

You are defining what "rational" faith should be, and many things in life are not rational. If you are married you would know that.

Is man a perfect and fully rational human being?

No.

Does man have other aspects to his personality beyond pure relativistic logic?

Yes.

If you look to our literature and find a man who was supposedly purely logical, i.e. Mr. Spock of the Star Trek series and emulated him, you would not fall in love, laugh, nor feel life the way we do.

That is your choice of course.


You could conclude if the majority of people stay with something it is working for them....

Or you could conclude that you were superior to them because you came to a different conclusion.

Some say that a purely rational existence is the right existence, devoid of feeling, emotion, etc.

Simply a choice.

A balanced life, in my opinion would include both heart and mind.

If people choose to reject the heart completely, why would I stop them as long as they don't ridicule them or allow me the freedom of my own belief systems?

Who is preaching here, you or me?

Who is trying to convince the other person that they are irrational and wrong, you or me?

Live and let live.

Quote from Cutten:

But we must distinguish between rational faith and irrational faith. Rational faith is based on concrete and convincing evidence, observations of reality, inference from known truths, and so on. It is adjusted in the light of experience - one's faith is always held somewhat tentatively and open to change.

Irrational faith is based on pure hope or emotion, or nothing at all.

Is your religious faith the result of convincing evidence that you have seen that makes you think God exists? Or is it based on hope, or feelings, without being backed up by convincing evidence? Is it rational or irrational?

I keep expecting you to say that God has spoke to your personally, or you feel his presence in your spirit, or you saw undeniable evidence of his work, some kind of evidence from which your faith rationally arises. Yet so far you have simply stated that faith *alone* is sufficient justification for belief.

Sorry, but faith should be *based on* something. Faith that is based on nothing but faith is completely irrational.

 

[Turok]

ART:
>many things in life are not rational. If you are married
>you would know that.

Are you pointing out the obvious irrational nature of the need to have a relationship 'sanctioned' by an external entity, or are you pointing out something more inherent to the relationship?

JB

 

[ARogueTrader]

I am pointing what is a fact for many married men.

Quote from Turok:

ART:
>many things in life are not rational. If you are married
>you would know that.

Are you pointing out the obvious irrational nature of the need to have a relationship 'sanctioned' by an external entity, or are you pointing out something more inherent to the relationship?

JB