A better sapient / sentient being

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abrosz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Abrosz said:
40.png
Sarcelle:
I present to you two opposing axioms in the field of mathematics.
Click to expand...
And none of them requires “faith”.
Click to expand...
Yes it does.

It seems like you define faith too narrowly.

Faith is confidence in someone or something.
You can have faith in science, faith in others. Faith is not necessarily a theological term.

Those axioms we talk about are self-evident, worthy of belief. Worthy of faith. Nothing can be proven beyond reasonable doubt ad infinitum. You gotta start somewhere.
 
Last edited:
Abrosz said:
Actually there are three, the Euclidean, the Riemann (spherical) and the Gauss-Bolyai-Lobatchevsky (hyperbolic) geometries.
Click to expand...
Umm, spherical and hyperbolic geometries fall under the classification of Non-Euclidean geometry.
 
Sarcelle said:
It seems like you define faith too narrowly.
Click to expand...
Hebrews 11.1

"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. " In other words to believe something for which there is insufficient evidence. In deductive, axiomatic systems there are proofs. In inductive systems there is evidence. If the evidence is overwhelming, it qualifies as knowledge. If there is NO evidence we have “blind faith”. If the evidence supports the opposite, it should have an even lower adjective to describe it.
 
Abrosz said:
40.png
Sarcelle:
It seems like you define faith too narrowly.
Click to expand...
Hebrews 11.1

"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. " In other words to believe something for which there is insufficient evidence. In deductive, axiomatic systems there are proofs. In inductive systems there is evidence. If the evidence is overwhelming, it qualifies as knowledge. If there is NO evidence we have “blind faith”. If the evidence supports the opposite, it should have an even lower adjective to describe it.
Click to expand...
“Faith in what we do not see” does not describe blind faith; you’ve taken it far too literally. We rest on plenty of evidence for the things in which we place our faith. The things we do not see are things such as hope, love, courage, loyalty, pain, suffering, joy, defeat, blessings.
 
Anesti33 said:
We rest on plenty of evidence for the things in which we place our faith.
Click to expand...
Like what? Is there any physical evidence for God, or the miracles of Jesus? And that is what is the bedrock of your faith. Many believers asserted that if there would be a proof against the resurrection, they would cease to be Christians. That is “blind faith” at its best.
 
All “things made” were made in the wisdom of God; wisdom makes what she makes to effectively reach or become its Telos, its End, its Goal; wisdom does not consider intermediate states or conditions to be the goal such as a human being able to run 30 mph or having gills being suitable to say “let’s just let the world run that way with fast aquamen until who knows when.”

All is as it is so that the end will BE. It is a rough ride, but with Faith and Wisdom you can walk on water if called.
 
Isn’t that kind of a set up? Faith is the evidence for those who have not encountered Christ. For those who have, the encounter is evidence that increases faith. There is physical evidence but when physical explanations are sought without faith those explanations are sought without end and the conclusions remain the same.
 
Freddy said:
Mmm. I often think I know better than someone I don’t believe exists.
Click to expand...
🤣 LOL!

Yeah, but that’s a pretty low bar you’re setting for yourself, isn’t it? “Hey, Freddy, how smart are you?” “Well, I’m smarter than things that don’t exist!” 🤨
 
Abrosz said:
Just remember, I am looking for physical evidence, not hearsay testimonials.
Click to expand...
Again, the proper response is to challenge the presumption that only ‘physical’ demonstrations are acceptable. 🍿
 
Abrosz said:
Or putting it differently, this is the best possible world, and any hypothesized “improvement” would actually detrimental. Is that how you view the world?
Click to expand...
The best of all possible world depends entirely on the end goal and purpose of a world, so it’s entirely possible that what you imagine to be best might not be the best possible world.

If the best possible world is one where the end goal is sainthood in heaven, then what does it matter if we have physical limitations? There may be a reason that we have them. Whatever achieves the end goal is what is important. In fact our limitations could be that which makes the end goal possible, inspiring the best in us.

However improving our quality of life for a good end has it’s merits and we should seek to improve our quality of life as much as we can. Whatever helps us achieve the greatest good is a good thing.
 
Last edited:
Gorgias said:
40.png
Freddy:
Mmm. I often think I know better than someone I don’t believe exists.
Click to expand...
🤣 LOL!

Yeah, but that’s a pretty low bar you’re setting for yourself, isn’t it? “Hey, Freddy, how smart are you?” “Well, I’m smarter than things that don’t exist!”
Click to expand...
Indeed. It’s a pretty stupid thing to claim. And equally dumb to suggest of someone else.
 
Benadam said:
Faith is the evidence for those who have not encountered Christ.
Click to expand...
Read Hebrew 11.1 And your “faith” not evidence for me.
IWantGod said:
The best of all possible world depends entirely on the end goal and purpose of a world, so it’s entirely possible that what you imagine to be best might not be the best possible world.
Click to expand...
And IF I agree, then this not the best possible world. If everyone would be created directly into heaven to enjoy the beatific vision, that would be the best possible world.
IWantGod said:
If the best possible world is one where the end goal is sainthood in heaven, then what does it matter if we have physical limitations?
Click to expand...
Because the end does not justify the means… and besides, what we experience here and now - does not have the slightest impact on the “final” product. Remember: “works without faith is insufficient”.

And there is no evidence that having an imperfect world actually “helps” to get to heaven. Of course there a few apologists, who say that pain and suffering brings us closer to heaven. If it did, then we should make this life a miserable as possible.
 
Freddy said:
Indeed. It’s a pretty stupid thing to claim. And equally dumb to suggest of someone else.
Click to expand...
Just think about it. We have no direct experience concerning God. So, how smart is God? As smart as the apologists are. 😉
 
Abrosz said:
Because the end does not justify the means
Click to expand...
By what standard?

If the state of the world is what makes the end goal possible, then it’s a question of necessity, it is what is necessary to achieve an end.
 
Last edited:
Abrosz said:
And there is no evidence that having an imperfect world actually “helps” to get to heaven.
Click to expand...
Well, it’s created a lot a saints and the desire for something greater than ourselves and what we have, otherwise you would not have started this thread.
 
IWantGod said:
By what standard?
Click to expand...
By the explicit Catholic standard. 🙂
IWantGod said:
If the state of the world is what makes the end goal possible, then it’s a question of necessity, it is what is necessary to achieve an end.
Click to expand...
This is the straight utilitarian approach.
IWantGod said:
Well, it’s created a lot a saints and the desire for something greater than ourselves and what we have, otherwise you would not have started this thread.
Click to expand...
I don’t consider the saints to be a valid argument… but what the heck. And the desire for “something” is far inferior to have that “something”.

Of course none of this matters. I was looking for possible ways and means to improve on this existence. Pretty much no answer was given.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top