Jump to content

What is faith?


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Faith tries to answer questions in a certain way.

Arbitrary?

Unsupported?

Unfounded?

Uninformed?

Unworthy?

Willy nilly?

Misguided?

Did I say arbitrary?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 881
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Do you understand that scientists also observe nature and explain it without invoking a God. And do you also understand that nature is entirely  consistent with there being no God? And do yo

My identity and ego forms around the "I" that identifies itself with the mind-body that "I" experience reality through. "I" am identifying with the mind-body that allows me to perceive and intera

! Moderator Note It's quite clear from the OP that the faith discussed in this thread is from believers in religion.   ! Moderator Note

35 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Yet another belief about faith.

Faith and hope are not exclusive of one another, and neither should it be considered such.

That is basically what I said. Faith, specifically among the religious faithful, is centered around hope. Faith in science isn't centered around hope. In science people trust but verify to the absolute best of their ability over and over and over. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

 

Faith and science can certainly work together.

 

No they can’t. They can co-exist as separate entities in ones mind but they cannot work together hand in hand unless you want to promote bad science.

30 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Faith tries to answer questions in a certain way.

It does not need to answer the same types of questions as science in the same way.

Faith itself is not exclusively a delusion, neither does it have to be.

Reasoning is not exclusive to any particular metholodgy, whether scientific thinking or otherwise.

There is no reasoning in religious faith. Faith and logical evidence based reasoning are contradictions. 

16 hours ago, naitche said:

Thats its purpose. If  it can achieve it or not depends on the values brought to it.

I think this thread supports it. That physics supports it. The value of a space can't be measured by conditions beyond it.

It can't be measured by its  position in opposition  to what is beyond it, without with out limiting the possibilities of the space  available to it. 

Surely it must It become fixed in opposition?

Yes it matters if you are to decide if that faith is baseless or not.

It matters if you are going to respond to to faith in an effective way.

It matters if you hope to open that space up to science because your response must effective. Its unlikely to be effective if you are opposed  to its existence.

Maybe not clinical but certainly a set of incoherent delusions.

Edited by koti
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Reasoning is not exclusive to any particular metholodgy, whether scientific thinking or otherwise.

Yet you can't show reasoning for a higher power that doesn't rely on wishful thinking, or unshakeable but faith based solely on your own hopes. You have no evidence that stands up to scrutiny. You keep trying to claim attributes for faith that equate it with other forms of belief.

You don't seem to grasp that doing that makes any distinctions between forms of belief useless.You've even told us most of your ideas are based on pre-acceptance of your higher power. There is NOTHING reasoned about that.

Do you think all belief is the same, that the things you believe through your faith are just as valid as what we believe because it's been observed, tested to death, and used to predict other beliefs we have more reason to trust? Forgive me, lone human, but you're facing accumulated human knowledge with your immature and ignorant concepts. They aren't persuasive to people who've learned to sift critically through the garbage to find pearls. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

You don't seem to get any of my jokes...

Trust me, I do...

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Arbitrary?

Unsupported?

Unfounded?

Uninformed?

Unworthy?

Willy nilly?

Misguided?

Did I say arbitrary?

I'll say it in a different way:

Faith has the potential to answer questions on a personal level.

Faith works on a personal level.

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

That is basically what I said. Faith, specifically among the religious faithful, is centered around hope. Faith in science isn't centered around hope. In science people trust but verify to the absolute best of their ability over and over and over. 

Yes, faith can be seen as centered around hope.

Or it can be seen as being based on multiple qualities and not centered on them. 

However, faith does not have to be centered or based on the same attributes in every situation or person with faith, as faith is based on a personal acceptance.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Faith has the potential to answer questions on a personal level. cause someone to stop looking for actual answers and to avoid the discomfort often created by not knowing

There. FTFY

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Faith has the potential to answer questions on a personal level.

Faith works on a personal level.

Exactly. It has nothing to do with objective evidence or the outside world. It is just in your head.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Faith and science can certainly work together.

They can co-exist. I'm not sure that they can work together. One of the purposes of the scientific method is to eliminate human biases, such as faith in random beliefs (like yours), from interfering with the results.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Yet you can't show reasoning for a higher power that doesn't rely on wishful thinking, or unshakeable but faith based solely on your own hopes. You have no evidence that stands up to scrutiny. You keep trying to claim attributes for faith that equate it with other forms of belief.

You don't seem to grasp that doing that makes any distinctions between forms of belief useless.You've even told us most of your ideas are based on pre-acceptance of your higher power. There is NOTHING reasoned about that.

Do you think all belief is the same, that the things you believe through your faith are just as valid as what we believe because it's been observed, tested to death, and used to predict other beliefs we have more reason to trust? Forgive me, lone human, but you're facing accumulated human knowledge with your immature and ignorant concepts. They aren't persuasive to people who've learned to sift critically through the garbage to find pearls. 

I can't provide reasoned arguments for a higher power when I am arguing for faith in a higher power.

I did not say that my arguments were based upon acceptance of a higher power, I said they were based on a process of reasoning with a certain result.

I am making the argument for faith in a higher power instead of for reasoning in a higher power in this situation.

 

 

16 minutes ago, iNow said:

There. FTFY

Faith does not have to be motivated by the same reasons for every person with faith or for every situation involving faith.

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

Exactly. It has nothing to do with objective evidence or the outside world. It is just in your head.

It has something to do with the outside world.

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

They can co-exist. I'm not sure that they can work together. One of the purposes of the scientific method is to eliminate human biases, such as faith in random beliefs (like yours), from interfering with the results.

They can certainly work together on a personal level, in certain situations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

I am making the argument for faith in a higher power instead of for reasoning in a higher power in this situation.

Out of all the gods and higher powers ever dreamed of, none have been observable to science. There is no reasoning that can get around that.

Why do you need an argument for faith? Faith abides, it remains unshakeable in the face of evidence to the contrary, it gives emotional support where intellectual support isn't being used. Taking something as true on faith means you don't need a reason other than you want to.

What you keep trying to describe isn't faith. You repeat that it is, and we EXPLAIN why it's not. Many, many pages.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

Out of all the gods and higher powers ever dreamed of, none have been observable to science. There is no reasoning that can get around that.

Why do you need an argument for faith? Faith abides, it remains unshakeable in the face of evidence to the contrary, it gives emotional support where intellectual support isn't being used. Taking something as true on faith means you don't need a reason other than you want to.

What you keep trying to describe isn't faith. You repeat that it is, and we EXPLAIN why it's not. 

It's not about any specific god or gods, it's about a higher power.

To put it a different way, I'm really defending faith more than I am arguing for it. Defending it from certain claims made about it, such as claims of it's equivalence with delusion.

25 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I have no faith you do.

It would be acceptable if you did.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

...Defending it from certain claims made about it, such as claims of it's equivalence with delusion.

It’s ironic that with each post you write you confirm faith being delusional instead of defending against it - cliché.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, koti said:

It’s ironic that with each post you write you confirm faith being delusional instead of defending against it - cliché.

It's ironic that you have such an enthusiasm with the idea that faith is a delusion.

Especially since people with delusions tend to be very enthusiastic about their delusions.

Edited by Endercreeper01
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

It's ironic that you have such a fanatacism with the idea that fauth is a delusion.

Especially since people with delusions tend to be very enthusiastic about their delusions.

Your line of thinking is worthy of a cult leader. Good luck with that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

I'm only trying to use reason to defend an argument...

You're failing. It's like you're trying to use a compass to figure out which way happiness is when you have no idea which direction it's in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Why do you need an argument for faith? Faith abides, it remains unshakeable in the face of evidence to the contrary, it gives emotional support where intellectual support isn't being used. Taking something as true on faith means you don't need a reason other than you want to.

Exactly this. 

Faith doesn’t need to be justified, rationalised or explained, ffs. IT’S FAITH!!!

43 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

It's not about any specific god or gods, it's about a higher power.

Totally missing the point. Well done. 

1 hour ago, Endercreeper01 said:

It has something to do with the outside world.

You believe it does. But there is no evidence that it does. Guess why? Because it is faith. It doesn’t need to depend on anything external. It is, as you say, personal and internal. 

 

1 hour ago, Endercreeper01 said:

They can certainly work together on a personal level, in certain situations.

Citation needed. 

There are many religious scientists but they nearly all compartmentalise their faith. It might be part of what drives them to be curious and want to learn about the world, but they know they mustn’t let their faith influence the science. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You're failing. It's like you're trying to use a compass to figure out which way happiness is when you have no idea which direction it's in.

I'm failing at explaining how I am arguing for something?

17 minutes ago, Strange said:

Exactly this. 

Faith doesn’t need to be justified, rationalised or explained, ffs. IT’S FAITH!!!

Totally missing the point. Well done. 

You believe it does. But there is no evidence that it does. Guess why? Because it is faith. It doesn’t need to depend on anything external. It is, as you say, personal and internal. 

 

Citation needed. 

There are many religious scientists but they nearly all compartmentalise their faith. It might be part of what drives them to be curious and want to learn about the world, but they know they mustn’t let their faith influence the science. 

I'm defending faith and claims made about it.

Faith relates the ouside world as it is a belief about the outside would. 

No citation needed, as that was a claim about the ability of two different worldviews to converge on a personal level. Maybe you are looking for an example of such a situation.

I wasn't talking about it on a non personal level.

18 minutes ago, Strange said:

Totally missing the point. Well done. 

I can't justify faith in any specific god or gods, I can only attempt to defend faith for the quality that all of the god or gods share. Such would be the attribute of being a higher power.

Edited by Endercreeper01
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

I'm failing at explaining how I am arguing for something?

I'm defending faith and claims made about it.

Faith relates the ouside world as it is a belief about the outside would. 

No citation needed, as that was a claim about the ability of two different worldviews to converge on a personal level. Maybe you are looking for an example of such a situation.

I wasn't talking about it on a non personal level.

I can't justify faith in any specific god or gods, I can only attempt to defend faith for the quality that all of the god or gods share. Such would be the attribute of being a higher power.

What a wonderful display of fallacy uppon a fallacy - circular reasoning being the most aparent in your last few posts.

This is getting ridiculous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

I wasn't talking about it on a non personal level.

Do you understand why science isn't interested in subjective personal level experiences? It's mostly because without objectivity, people make up anything that sounds pleasing to them, sort of like... well, you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, koti said:

What a wonderful display of fallacy uppon a fallacy - circular reasoning being the most aparent in your last few posts.

This is getting ridiculous.

You can't just say fallacy to anything that you don't agree with, you actually have to explain yourself and why you disagree.

12 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Do you understand why science isn't interested in subjective personal level experiences? It's mostly because without objectivity, people make up anything that sounds pleasing to them, sort of like... well, you.

Yes, I acknowledge that.

Although it should be worth mentioning that faith in a higher power should not be considered true or false to science. 

Science should be indifferent to beliefs that it cannot prove or disprove.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Yes, although both attempt to answer different types of questions in different ways, they can both be integrated into a worldview.

Not really...Both actually see that the predominance of evidence supports the BB and an expanding universe, [which funnily enough then invalidates their bible/koran] but obviously then revert again to myth/delusions/faith where science as yet remains ignorant of the answer......Or the usual fall back, "god of the gaps/higher power" mentality which in their minds gives them that warm inner glow and hopeful scenario.

15 pages so far and as yet you have not offered anything that support your trust in faith.

6 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Although it should be worth mentioning that faith in a higher power should not be considered true or false to science. 

Santa Claus? Fairies at the bottom of the garden? :P

Quote

Science should be indifferent to beliefs that it cannot prove or disprove.

It's unscientific and as likley as fairies at the bottom of your garden. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, beecee said:

Not really...Both actually see that the predominance of evidence supports the BB and an expanding universe, [which funnily enough then invalidates their bible/koran] but obviously then revert again to myth/delusions/faith where science as yet remains ignorant of the answer......Or the usual fall back, "god of the gaps/higher power" mentality which in their minds gives them that warm inner glow and hopeful scenario.

15 pages so far and as yet you have not offered anything that support your trust in faith.

Santa Claus? Fairies at the bottom of the garden? :P

It's unscientific and as likley as fairies at the bottom of your garden. 

Not necessarily...

Science and faith can still be reconciled in a way.

Edited by Endercreeper01
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.