I still cannot understand you!

[Spock]

Suppose I am a person with a severe peanut allergy and I would like to eat a chocolate bar. I look in the chocolate bar aisle in the store for one that has the “peanut free logo on it”. Now I do not know for sure that, just because there is a “peanut free” logo on it that there will be no peanuts. However with my reason I come to hold the notion that the people that it is not in the companies best interest to kill customers, and there are most likely safety regulations in place.

So therefore I hold the notion that there are no peanuts in the chocolate bar on faith. Think about it now Spock, my life is depending on the fact that there are no peanuts in this chocolate bar. What happens if this chocolate bar was accidently made in the same machine that makes the Oh Henry bars. The answer is "surely they would have regulations to prevent that, especially if they were going to present it as “peanut free”, but these are the words of the faithful man.

This is not blind faith, because I use reason to decide whether such a notion is worthy of belief. Thus I trust my life to this notion through fides et ratio – faith and reason.

Sure. No problem at all. You correctly said that this is not “blind” faith, there is a good reason to believe it.

Thus we take the same approach to belief in God, yet there is a difference because we are supplemented by the divinely infused virtue of faith, and also we have the immediate experience of God that allows us to form a basic metaphysical belief.

Well, I certainly did not “experience” God, even when I was a believer. Nevertheless, the process is not the same. If you would doubt the label on the chocolate bar, you could perform some chemical analysis and find out for yourself if it contained peanut or not. The possibility of this step in missing here. There is no “final” expert, who can perform the “analysis”. It is all based on “faith”.

 

[Spock]

Sorry Spock, I apologize, my wording was off.

Ok. No harm done.

I’m not convinced, however, that a retraction is in order and at the very least I think you’re being just a tad melodramatic! Maybe part of the problem is your own insensitivity to the way you present yourself when you say stuff like “For the life of mine, I cannot understand you people!”

Why is that insensitive?

To deny that you ever even insinuate that people you disagree with are stupid is a very bold claim, one with which I, for one, disagree. Maybe you are not the properly unbiased exegete to evaluate such a claim?

The claim may be bold. All you have to do is dig out some post (made by me) where I insinuated that theists are “dumb” or “stupid”, and I will eat crow. To say that I don’t understand you does not convey any assessment about your abilities to reason. It could be understood as admitting my lack of ability to comprehend you. But you should not read too much into the title. I simply used it as an eye catcher.

 

[fhansen]

That is a circular argument. It presupposes what is portends to substantiate.

It presupposes nothing if what I described is the way people have experienced faith.

 

[Spock]

It presupposes nothing if what I described is the way people have experienced faith.

This is what you wrote:

fhansen:

The only reason this can be rational is if faith itself is not man-made. IOW faith would have to be a supernatural ability, enabling someone to know something that cannot be proven, given by a God who would have to happen to exist.

in response to this:

Spock:

I use the word faith in the way as expressed in Hebrews 11:1 - “Now faith is being **sure **of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” How is that being rational?

In this case the foundation of the faith is “hope for something” and/or based on something that is “unknown - what we do not see”. It can be anything, it can be the hope that you will win the lottery, it can be a hope that someone’s incurable disease will just evaporate. On what grounds should one suppose that the “hope” comes from God - and not just wishful thinking? And how do you “experience” faith?

 

[James_S_Saint]

In this case the foundation of the faith is “hope for something” and/or based on something that is “unknown - what we do not see”. It can be anything, it can be the hope that you will win the lottery, it can be a hope that someone’s incurable disease will just evaporate. On what grounds should one suppose that the “hope” comes from God - and not just wishful thinking? And how do you “experience” faith?

The faith in the lottery comes from Man as he presents the illusion of hope.

But from where did the faith in God really come?

Your speculation is merely that it too merely came from Man’s trickery. I know that it didn’t.

 

[liquidpele]

The faith in the lottery comes from Man as he presents the illusion of hope.

But from where did the faith in God really come?

Your speculation is merely that it too merely came from Man’s trickery. I know that it didn’t.

But is heaven not just like winning the lottery? I mean, you play the religion-lottery, you believe what will get you into heaven and buy your ticket with time and money… it’s actually a pretty good analogy I think.

 

[Spock]

But is heaven not just like winning the lottery? I mean, you play the religion-lottery, you believe what will get you into heaven and buy your ticket with time and money… it’s actually a pretty good analogy I think.

Exactly. But the picture is even darker than that. On one hand it offers the “carrot” (behave and you will be rewarded in heaven), and on the other hand it threatens with the “stick” (otherwise you will go to hell). Who uses the same method of persuation? Hint: it starts with an “m” and ends with “afia”…

 

[James_S_Saint]

But is heaven not just like winning the lottery? I mean, you play the religion-lottery, you believe what will get you into heaven and buy your ticket with time and money… it’s actually a pretty good analogy I think.

Is having your own car just like winning the lottery?

You faithfully follow a schema then one day, you find that you have enough money to purchase your own car. You didn’t know for sure that you would be able to save that much and not spend it. It was a risk. But the speculation was that IF you could faithfully follow, THEN you would get the goal.

There is a difference between a real schema that actually works with definite results and a schema that proposes a reward but has nothing with which to ensure that you actually get the reward even if you absolutely follow the scheme.

Jesus proposed a schema. He said IF you will follow these rules THEN you will get the reward of Heaven.

In none of the cases do you know that any of the schemes are actually going to work and thus they ALL require faith (except for the very few who truly understand the schema).

The big difference that the atheist focuses on is that he cannot prove the reward.

In a lottery, you can prove the reward exists, but the evidence is that the schema doesn’t work more often than it does (else they wouldn’t have the reward to give).

So, no, it is not actually a good analogy. The promise of Heaven is not merely a gambling game where the odds are against you (not if you play by Jesus’ rules anyway).

 

[James_S_Saint]

Exactly. But the picture is even darker than that. On one hand it offers the “carrot” (behave and you will be rewarded in heaven), and on the other hand it threatens with the “stick” (otherwise you will go to hell). Who uses the same method of persuation? Hint: it starts with an “m” and ends with “afia”…

Are you saying that the mafia is smart enough to use reality as a model and thus do what works?

Or is it that if someone advises you to come in out of the rain or else you will get wet, are they just using a mafia scheme to get you to obey them?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Come on Atheists. You can do better than this. :yukonjoe::slapfight::crutches:

 

[fhansen]

Exactly. But the picture is even darker than that. On one hand it offers the “carrot” (behave and you will be rewarded in heaven), and on the other hand it threatens with the “stick” (otherwise you will go to hell). Who uses the same method of persuation? Hint: it starts with an “m” and ends with “afia”…

But a carrot and stick are inevitable aspects of obedience or subjugation-the only alternative being mans’ other choice-total freedom from moral accountability. This is the message in the story of the fall- this was Adam & Eves’ choice and the choice for a Christian now-whether or not subjugation to love-placing love on a higher level than all else and so making it the fulfillment of any and all commandments that might be applicable to man if morality means anything at all-isn’t where true freedom is found. A carrot and a stick merely implies that we’re not the boss-that there are consequences to our actions and that coming to know and embrace love is the only way man can achieve a happiness worth living eternally for. The alternative-the stick-is in not achieving –not choosing-this happiness worth living eternally for.

True faith exists when we’ve come to agreement about truths proposed.

If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, . . . we resemble mercenaries. Finally if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands . . . we are in the position of children.107 St Basil

 

[Matthias123]

Well, the problem at hand is not that complex - very much **unlike **the differential equations you refer to. What you say here is that sometimes one must rely on expert opinion, at least since we lack the time (or knowledge) to do the research ourselves. Yes, you are right. It is expedient to save time and accept the testimonials of those who put the time and effort in it, whose ideas have been publicized, have been criticized and could hold up against a barrage of criticism. Yes, this is the scientific method, tested and tried.

However, the final link in the chain - the “expert” does not have the option to resort to this method. He must show the proof, and if he can do it, he will justly be called the expert. If he cannot, he is not reliable, and his testimony is rejected as irrelevant. This final step is which is missing from the problem at hand. There is no one (not the Pope, not the Magistratium) who can provide the proof, when asked. They also point to some other testimonials (usually to someone who is already dead, and therefore it cannot be questioned). And as such their testimonial is irrelevant.

They also point to some other testimonials (usually to someone who is already dead, and therefore it cannot be questioned). And as such their testimonial is irrelevant.

Homer’s testimony of Troy is from a person who is long dead. Was his testimony irrelevant, considering we did find Troy? The Jewish historian Josephus is long dead, is his testimony irrelevant, considering we cannot prove that the events he recorded happened? What about any other ancient historian? What about any document for that matter that records a specific event? I reject your epistemological theory.

Ugh… that is surely above reason, since it is just a nice little logical contradiction, to be discarded as meaningless. And no matter what it is called (mystery?) it will remain a contradiction. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

What are you talking about? Plays devils advocate for a second and assume God does exist – do you think you would be able to fully comprehend him? Things like the Blessed Trinity that cannot be fully comprehended by human reason are held on faith.

There is no one (not the Pope, not the Magistratium) who can provide the proof, when asked.

I disagree:

1. Being exists

1. What does not have being does not exist.

1. Potentially is a deficiency of what actually is. If being contained potentiality it would have the potential to be a deficiency of Being. Being per se cannot have this potential; therefore being per se is pure actually.

1. Being has to be one, since distinctions would contradict pure actually.

1. Being also needs to be immutable because changes would also contradict pure actually.

1. Now space allows the changing of something here to something over there. So anything that is actually here and potentially there is not a pure actually. Therefore being exists outside of space making it omnipresent.

1. Now we know that we have the capacity to know; being who is the pure actually will be able to know all that is known by the potentially actually. Therefore being is omniscient.

1. Being potentially actually we are able to do some things logically possible, but being is a pure actually therefore he is able to do everything that is logically possible thus making it omnipotent.

1. We know that since being is being as therefore must have always existed otherwise nothing would exist. We know that you exist (via cargito ergo sum) and being exists therefore being is also Eternal.

1. Being exists as a single immutable omnipresent omniscient omnipotent eternal entity. Being is what men call God.

 

[James_S_Saint]

1. Being exists

1. What does not have being does not exist.

1. Potentially is a deficiency of what actually is. If being contained potentiality it would have the potential to be a deficiency of Being. Being per se cannot have this potential; therefore being per se is pure actually.

1. Being has to be one, since distinctions would contradict pure actually.

1. Being also needs to be immutable because changes would also contradict pure actually.

1. Now space allows the changing of something here to something over there. So anything that is actually here and potentially there is not a pure actually. Therefore being exists outside of space making it omnipresent.

1. Now we know that we have the capacity to know; being who is the pure actually will be able to know all that is known by the potentially actually. Therefore being is omniscient.

1. Being potentially actually we are able to do some things logically possible, but being is a pure actually therefore he is able to do everything that is logically possible thus making it omnipotent.

1. We know that since being is being as therefore must have always existed otherwise nothing would exist. We know that you exist (via cargito ergo sum) and being exists therefore being is also Eternal.

1. Being exists as a single immutable omnipresent omniscient omnipotent eternal entity. Being is what men call God.

Emm… is this really someone’s attempt at a proof??

I hope this isn’t what has been given stock.

 

[Matthias123]

What’s your problem with it james? It is a metaphysical argument – therefore it is going to seem a little vauge.

 

[Matthias123]

I first start with Cogito ergo sum – “I think therefore I am”. It is impossible to deny one’s existence logically. I understand there are those who choose to believe they in fact don’t exist but I assert that this notion is absurd. As even the doubting of ones existence is an act of one that exists is, thus proving existence. It is possible to be deceived by perception but no matter what this deception is the fact remains that you exists. Now there must be an “act of being” that all beings participate. Without the act of existence nothing would exist and it as been already demonstrated that at least one entity exists (Yourself). Therefore the act of existence exists and must be an entity, this entity is called Esse.

Now potentially is a deficiency of a pure actually. The act of existence must be a pure actually otherwise the act of existence would be a deficiency of a pure actually thus still resulting in the existence of a outside greater pure actually. In order to exist there must be an act of existence, thus it would be impossible for an outside greater pure actually to exist because this pure actually would be outside the bounds of the act of existence. Thus the act of existence is a pure actually and must exist.

Esse has to be one, since distinctions would contradict pure actually. Esse also needs to be immutable because changes would also contradict pure actually. Now space is the changing of something here to something over there. So anything that is actually here and potentially there is not a pure actually. Therefore esse exists outside of space making him omnipresent. Now we know that we have the capacity to know; esse being the pure actually will be able to know all that is known by the potentially actually. Therefore esse is omniscient. Being potentially actually we are able to do some things logically possible, but esse is a pure actually therefore he is able to do everything that is logically possible thus making him omnipotent. We know that since esse is the act of existence it must have always existed otherwise nothing would exist. We know that you exist and esse exists therefore esse is also Eternal.

I have now demonstrated that for certain you exist and that esse exists as a single immutable omnipresent omniscient omnipotent eternal entity. Esse is what men call God.

Here is another version of it.

 

[Matthias123]

You would like this arguemt James. It is from Aristotelian philosopher Mortimer J. Adler.

1. The existence of an effect requiring the concurrent existence and action of an efficient cause implies the existence and action of that cause.

1. The Cosmos as a whole exists.

1. The existence of the Cosmos as a whole is radically contingent (meaning that it needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence to preserve it in being, and prevent it from being annihilated, or reduced to nothing).

1. If the Cosmos needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence, then that cause must be a supernatural being, supernatural in its action, and one the existence of which is uncaused, in other words, the Supreme Being, or God.

The Universe as we know it today is not the only Universe that can ever exist in time. We can infer it from the fact that the arrangement and disarray, the order and disorder, of the present Cosmos might have been otherwise. That it might have been different from what it is. That which cannot be otherwise also cannot not exist; and conversely, what necessarily exists can not be otherwise than it is. Therefore, a Cosmos which can be otherwise is one that also cannot be; and conversely, a Cosmos that is capable of not existing at all is one that can be otherwise than it now is. Applying this insight to the fact that the existing Cosmos is merely one of a plurality of possible universes, we come to the conclusion that the Cosmos, radically contingent in existence, would not exist at all were its existence not caused. A merely possible Cosmos cannot be an uncaused Cosmos. A Cosmos that is radically contingent in existence, and needs a cause of that existence, needs a supernatural cause, one that exists and acts to exnihilate this merely possible Cosmos, thus preventing the realization of what is always possible for merely a possible Cosmos, namely, its absolute non-existence or reduction to nothingness.

“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).” – Dr. Alexander Vilenkin

 

[TEPO]

At least many of you. Those, who say that God’s existence is forever a matter of faith - those I can understand. Faith is considered to be of a higher value than reason, evidence and proof. “Happy are those the have not seen, yet believe” - says the Bible (approximately).

Now, those who assert that God’s existence can be rationally demonstrated - usually by some appeal to logic - those I cannot understand. If God’s existence could be rationally demonstrated - there would be no reason for faith. Therefore all the purported “proofs” are insufficient - and necessarily so.

So, kindly abandon that kind of “argument”. Stick to your faith, and don’t try to bring reason into the conversation. It does not work.

Now this is something I can agree with! Its music to my ears… :harp:
Why would we need to prove anything anyways. The truth is given to those that ask for it. Those who dont want to believe dont have to.

 

[Matthias123]

I should also state how I am defining being.

Being per se is the fusion of the “act of existing” and “essence” – being is synonymous with “metaphysical good”. Contingent beings consist of a composite of the “act of existing” and “essence".

 

[punkforchrist]

Spock:

It depends on situation. If the man catches his wife in bed with someone else, it would not be reasonable to continue to have faith in her love.

Indeed.

But we are not dealing here with such elusive things, we are dealing with the most fundamental questions of all: “existence”. One needs absolutely no faith whether his wife exists or not.

That’s actually what I was saying when I mentioned that we can know that God exists apart from faith. We use reason to conclude that human persons exist, and we use reason to conclude that God exists.

Of course such declarations carry no weight whatsoever. It is extremely vague, to begin with. And offers no reason why should one accept it.

Two points. It’s not at all vague to say that one can know that God exists by human reason. If this is a debate about whether reason can, by definition, be used to know that God exists without conflicting with our concept of faith, then the Church has been explicit about that.

Secondly, its the prerogative of the proponent of a given argument to define his/her terms. The Church has defined faith in such a way that it is consistent with reason. Any critique that doesn’t take this into account is a straw man.

Ah, so you wish to interpret it literally? On what grounds? How about “hearing”? How about “touching”? How about “tasting”?

No, I interpret it as including all of the physical senses.

The definition “knowledge is true belief” or its variant: “knowledge is justified true belief” originated with Plato. Admittedly he was a pretty smart fellow, but in the last few thousand years we made some progress. Plato certainly could not have known modern information theory. The correct definition of knowledge is “to have adequate, correct information about something”. And that does not imply anything about “beliefs”. Furthermore simple belief and faith are not synonymous.

I don’t see how information theory has any relevance to the “correct” definition of knowledge. Plantinga (another smart fellow) agrees with my definition. Nevertheless, it seems we are at an impasse, since I don’t accept your definition, and you don’t accept mine.

No, I do not assume that. Mathematical proofs need no empirical verification. . . .

For assertions that pertain to reality, an empirical verification would be nice. But I am not stubborn. I would be satisfied with an “existential” proof - which would be convincing. However, such existential proof would also render “faith” in God’s existence unnecessary

Fair enough. But, many of us are saying that God’s existence can be known through reason. I’ll start a thread on an argument I find convincing.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I should also state how I am defining being.

Being per se is the fusion of the “act of existing” and “essence” – being is synonymous with “metaphysical good”. Contingent beings consist of a composite of the “act of existing” and “essence".

If I could offer something…

Existence is contingent upon and defined by the property of affect. This is to say that something exists if it has the ability to affect and does not exist if it does not have the ability to affect (producing effect).

Being == existing (as per many dictionaries). Thus to be means to have potential to affect (the potential to cause effect).

**Affect **== cause of change in state.

I’m not sure where you were heading, but if you start with these, you are likely to get there easier.