Jump to content

What is faith?


Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

I am yet to see any meaningful response to my post.....

If you ever posted anything meaningful you might get a meaningful response ...

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

26 minutes ago, Strange said:

If you ever posted anything meaningful you might get a meaningful response ...

Or nobody has any counter arguments to my post....

It seems that I am right, unless anyone actually tries to respond to any of my points effectively.

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

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 interact with reality. 

Yet I still perceive the mind-body in the same way I experience my senses. 

This does not make me the mind-body, I am still an observer that experiences the mind-body in the present moment in the same way that I perceive the external reality.

The question still remains about this "I", the observer. It remains elusive to any scientific explanation that attempts to describe it's existence.

 

I don't "want" doubts to arise, I have doubts based on questions that arise. They appear when there are serious questions that aren't being answered, and instead are being thrown aside like they don't mean anything by the scientific community.

The problem of consciousness is not being treated as the major problem with the current scientific and materialistic paradigm that it is. There are serious problems and doubts that need to be addressed as fundamental problems with the current model of reality.

If the present scientific world view cannot explain the very core of my existence, then it is not a complete model of reality no matter how well it models the reality around me.

I am not finding answers that I am looking for in the scientific construct of reality.

Unlike a search for 'garden gnomes', I am searching for answers of the very core of my existence. 

Ah, the notion of the separate observer, often depicted as a little man in our head. Pop culture obviously keeps this image alive with a multitude of hilarious cartoons and sketches.

Alas, there is no indication that such a separate observer exists. I agree that raises a whole bunch of questions, but the reason for that is simply that it actually makes very little sense. Have you considered the much, much simpler explanation that this "observer" is simply another program running on your hardware instead of some separate unexplainable entity?

Science does not deal with this issue, because scientifically, there is no issue; there isn't even the smallest hint of an issue.

The reason you don't find your answers in science is not that they aren't there, but that you don't like them.

So yes, I still think you want to have these doubts, because even acknowledging that they might be superfluous could shatter your world view, for which you decided their must be something special about your consciousness even before you start looking for evidence or "reasoning" towards it. That's begging the question. 

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

Or nobody has any counter arguments to my post....

They have. But you have just ignored them Or are incapable of understanding them. Blinded by your faith (or arrogance), perhaps.

Quote

It seems that I am right, unless anyone actually tries to respond to any of my points effectively.

Ignoring everyone who points out your errors doesn't magically make you right.

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

If the present scientific world view cannot explain the very core of my existence, then it is not a complete model of reality no matter how well it models the reality around me.

No one ever claimed that any scientific theory is a "complete model of realty". So this is yet another fallacious argument ("straw man" if you want to look it up).

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

Ah, the notion of the separate observer, often depicted as a little man in our head. Pop culture obviously keeps this image alive with a multitude of hilarious cartoons and sketches.

Alas, there is no indication that such a separate observer exists. I agree that raises a whole bunch of questions, but the reason for that is simply that it actually makes very little sense. Have you considered the much, much simpler explanation that this "observer" is simply another program running on your hardware instead of some separate unexplainable entity?

Science does not deal with this issue, because scientifically, there is no issue; there isn't even the smallest hint of an issue.

The reason you don't find your answers in science is not that they aren't there, but that you don't like them.

So yes, I still think you want to have these doubts, because even acknowledging that they might be superfluous could shatter your world view, for which you decided their must be something special about your consciousness even before you start looking for evidence or "reasoning" towards it. That's begging the question. 

To say that such an observer does not exist is essential making the claim that "I" do not exist. Meaning, I would not be experiencing something because "I do not exist.

I am clearly experiencing something, and so are you. I can't possibly not exist...

There has to be some sort of conscious entity that is observing.

 

Although, "I" is only a label for what "I" think that I am. It's not exactly well defined concept. However, we should be able to agree that the idea of a separate observer is supposed to be an attempt to represent something experiencing reality.

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

No one ever claimed that any scientific theory is a "complete model of realty". So this is yet another fallacious argument ("straw man" if you want to look it up).

I was making a point, not intending to claim that it was anyone's claim. 

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

They have. But you have just ignored them (Or are incapable of understanding them. Blinded by your faith, perhaps.)

Or they are simply not very good arguments...

8 minutes ago, YaDinghus said:

Backatcha

I actually tried to respond, I wasn't the one to start being nonsensical.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Endercreeper01 said:

To say that such an observer does not exist is essential making the claim that "I" do not exist. Meaning, I would not be experiencing something because "I do not exist.

I am clearly experiencing something, and so are you. I can't possibly not exist...

There has to be some sort of conscious entity that is observing.

 

Although, "I" is only a label for what "I" think that I am. It's not exactly well defined concept. However, we should be able to agree that the idea of a separate observer is supposed to be an attempt to represent something experiencing reality.

I was making a point, not intending to claim that it was anyone's claim. 

Or they are simply not very good arguments...

I actually tried to respond, I wasn't the one to start being nonsensical.

Now you're trying to make me laugh...

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, nevim said:

And here lies the problem:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism

 

And my argument still stands unchallenged....

5 minutes ago, YaDinghus said:

Now you're trying to make me laugh...

It's a little early for you to run out of things to say...

I suppose my argument remains...

Edited by Endercreeper01
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Endercreeper01 said:

And my argument still stands unchallenged....

Challenge would require admission. As you've so aptly pointed out before, we've dismissed you on several occasions

4 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

It's a little early for you to run out of things to say.

I got plenty left to say. I am however freshly out of f**ks to give

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

Challenge would require admission. As you've so aptly pointed out before, we've dismissed you on several occasions

You've only dismissed me without any reasonable basis.

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

Forgive me - what was the argument again?

You should know, you quoted it yourself.

34 minutes ago, nevim said:
3 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

If the present scientific world view cannot explain the very core of my existence, then it is not a complete model of reality no matter how well it models the reality around me.

And here lies the problem:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism

 

Edited by Endercreeper01
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Yet another hand-waving dismissal without explanation...

I have wasted many hours and hundreds of words trying to explain why your repeated statements of what you believe do not constitute a rational argument; ie. there is no "reasoning" involved. Similarly, what you claim as "evidence" are simply things that you believe to be true. The whole point about evidence (whether in science or a court of law) is that it must be persuasive to others. Simply stating things you believe is not evidence and not persuasive to others.

You refuse to understand and/or acknowledge these explanations (your only responses is to to simply re-itereate what you believe with no justification) and so I gave up. You are clearly too arrogant to consider any other points of view but your own. This, no doubt, also explains the offensive bigotry you have displayed in other threads - which doesn't make you a re great example of "people of faith".

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

I have wasted many hours and hundreds of words trying to explain why your repeated statements of what you believe do not constitute a rational argument; ie. there is no "reasoning" involved. Similarly, what you claim as "evidence" are simply things that you believe to be true. The whole point about evidence (whether in science or a court of law) is that it must be persuasive to others. Simply stating things you believe is not evidence and not persuasive to others.

You refuse to understand and/or acknowledge these explanations (your only responses is to to simply re-itereate what you believe with no justification) and so I gave up. You are clearly too arrogant to consider any other points of view but your own. This, no doubt, also explains the offensive bigotry you have displayed in other threads - which doesn't make you a re great example of "people of faith".

Second that...

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

You should know, you quoted it yourself.

 

Right. Yes. Actually I thought it was quite a good counter argument/explanation or else I wouldn’t have posted it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, nevim said:

Right. Yes. Actually I thought it was quite a good counter argument/explanation or else I wouldn’t have posted it.

It would make more sense if you would elaborate on your explanation.

13 minutes ago, Strange said:

I have wasted many hours and hundreds of words trying to explain why your repeated statements of what you believe do not constitute a rational argument; ie. there is no "reasoning" involved. Similarly, what you claim as "evidence" are simply things that you believe to be true. The whole point about evidence (whether in science or a court of law) is that it must be persuasive to others. Simply stating things you believe is not evidence and not persuasive to others.

You refuse to understand and/or acknowledge these explanations (your only responses is to to simply re-itereate what you believe with no justification) and so I gave up. You are clearly too arrogant to consider any other points of view but your own. This, no doubt, also explains the offensive bigotry you have displayed in other threads - which doesn't make you a re great example of "people of faith".

What about my most recent arguments?
No one on this thread has had any real response to my recent post. I don't expect you to be any different, though I would like to see you try.

Edited by Endercreeper01
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Endercreeper01 said:

It would make more sense if you would elaborate on your explanation.

 

Just now, Endercreeper01 said:

It would make more sense if you would elaborate on your explanation.

Ok. Well, you seem to be very hung up on ‘your existence’ as opposed to just ‘existence ‘. You seem to be quite upset by the fact that there is no scientific evidence to show you were created for a reason. To the extent that you have to imagine one.

All in all, your responses in general seem to indicate you are a person with narcissistic tendencies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, nevim said:

 

Ok. Well, you seem to be very hung up on ‘your existence’ as opposed to just ‘existence ‘. You seem to be quite upset by the fact that there is no scientific evidence to show you were created for a reason. To the extent that you have to imagine one.

All in all, your responses in general seem to indicate you are a person with narcissistic tendencies.

I'm only trying to find explanations for existence through reason and philosophical thinking.

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

What about my most recent arguments?

I can only assume that you have serious brain damage and are not able to comprehend what you read, or forget it a few seconds later. Or both. 

You have had at least two good responses. One explaining that you are employing a straw man fallacy and the other pointing out that it is not all about you.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Or nobody has any counter arguments to my post....

It seems that I am right, unless anyone actually tries to respond to any of my points effectively.

LMAO, literally everyone has countered/destroyed your arguments, it's only the faith in your superiority, that blinds you to the truth...  

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

I can only assume that you have serious brain damage and are not able to comprehend what you read, or forget it a few seconds later. Or both. 

You have had at least two good responses. One explaining that you are employing a straw man fallacy and the other pointing out that it is not all about you.

 

I'm only trying to use philosophical thinking in my arguments, though my reasoning is not always understood by others.

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

LMAO, literally everyone has countered/destroyed your arguments, it's only the faith in your superiority, that blinds you to the truth...  

Not my most recent arguments... I'm still waiting for a proper response on an earlier post in this thread.

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.