My thoughts on the concept of faith (1 Viewer)

[George_Washington]

I've heard people, mostly atheists, claim that faith is irrational.

However, I detest that belief because of it's, irrationality, ha-ha. I don't think that faith is irrational.

Faith has been the root of all great achievements and discoveries since the beginning of time.

Jesus once said that if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you can move mountains. I cannot think of a single Bible quote, both Old Testament and New, that is so moving and meaningful. Faith is essential to survival.

I believe that faith is what has led to every great achievement of mankind since the dawn of time.

Faith can help in so many different areas of life. One must have faith to conquer one's fears and to take risks.

I don't believe that one can really take fantastic risks without faith. Faith is about believing in yourself and what you can accomplish in life.

I believe if someone doesn't have faith in a higher being and an after life, that person will be doomed to never achieve his or her full potential. I think the true meaning of life is to always believe in yourself, have passion for what you do and for all aspects of life, and to be a good person. And I think that if you have faith in yourself, it's much easier to like yourself, and therefore, to like others. I believe that with a belief in God, one's own self, and faith in what the future holds, one will naturally be good to himself and to others. I think in a lot of ways, modern science proves my belief in the concept of faith to be accurate. Most psychologists would agree that in order to spread love and kindess to others, you must first love yourself. Those who hate themselves generally dislike others as well.

So in conclusion, having faith can lead to so many great things in a person's life.

 

[mixedmedia]

I've heard people, mostly atheists, claim that faith is irrational.

However, I detest that belief because of it's, irrationality, ha-ha. I don't think that faith is irrational.

Faith has been the root of all great achievements and discoveries since the beginning of time.

Jesus once said that if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you can move mountains. I cannot think of a single Bible quote, both Old Testament and New, that is so moving and meaningful. Faith is essential to survival.

I believe that faith is what has led to every great achievement of mankind since the dawn of time.

Faith can help in so many different areas of life. One must have faith to conquer one's fears and to take risks.

I don't believe that one can really take fantastic risks without faith. Faith is about believing in yourself and what you can accomplish in life.

I believe if someone doesn't have faith in a higher being and an after life, that person will be doomed to never achieve his or her full potential. I think the true meaning of life is to always believe in yourself, have passion for what you do and for all aspects of life, and to be a good person. And I think that if you have faith in yourself, it's much easier to like yourself, and therefore, to like others. I believe that with a belief in God, one's own self, and faith in what the future holds, one will naturally be good to himself and to others. I think in a lot of ways, modern science proves my belief in the concept of faith to be accurate. Most psychologists would agree that in order to spread love and kindess to others, you must first love yourself. Those who hate themselves generally dislike others as well.

So in conclusion, having faith can lead to so many great things in a person's life.

And all of these things can be achieved with no faith - or rather, those who do not put their faith in a higher being. And very often they are not achieved by those with faith.

What about non-deistic religions? Do they count?

 

[George_Washington]

And all of these things can be achieved with no faith - or rather, those who do not put their faith in a higher being. And very often they are not achieved by those with faith.

What about non-deistic religions? Do they count?

Well, I would say they would also be a part of faith.

I just think it's easier to be successful in life if you have faith of some sort. It might be possible to be successful otherwise but I think it's easier.

 

[Engimo]

I've heard people, mostly atheists, claim that faith is irrational.

However, I detest that belief because of it's, irrationality, ha-ha. I don't think that faith is irrational.

Faith has been the root of all great achievements and discoveries since the beginning of time.

Jesus once said that if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you can move mountains. I cannot think of a single Bible quote, both Old Testament and New, that is so moving and meaningful. Faith is essential to survival.

I believe that faith is what has led to every great achievement of mankind since the dawn of time.

Faith can help in so many different areas of life. One must have faith to conquer one's fears and to take risks.

I don't believe that one can really take fantastic risks without faith. Faith is about believing in yourself and what you can accomplish in life.

I believe if someone doesn't have faith in a higher being and an after life, that person will be doomed to never achieve his or her full potential. I think the true meaning of life is to always believe in yourself, have passion for what you do and for all aspects of life, and to be a good person. And I think that if you have faith in yourself, it's much easier to like yourself, and therefore, to like others. I believe that with a belief in God, one's own self, and faith in what the future holds, one will naturally be good to himself and to others. I think in a lot of ways, modern science proves my belief in the concept of faith to be accurate. Most psychologists would agree that in order to spread love and kindess to others, you must first love yourself. Those who hate themselves generally dislike others as well.

So in conclusion, having faith can lead to so many great things in a person's life.

I don't think that anyone is going to deny that faith has led to some positive things in peoples' lives - but that is irrelevant to the question of its validity. If I went through my life believing that I was going to be given a billion dollars when I turned 50, it might make me a lot more secure and far less nervous about the future (undoubtedly good things), but does that mean that I am justified in believing this without evidence?

The idea that the good results of faith are a testament to its validity is an appeal to the consequences of a belief. If having faith makes you a better person, great, but don't try to pass that goodness off as evidence for your faith's correctness.

 

[George_Washington]

I don't think that anyone is going to deny that faith has led to some positive things in peoples' lives - but that is irrelevant to the question of its validity. If I went through my life believing that I was going to be given a billion dollars when I turned 50, it might make me a lot more secure and far less nervous about the future (undoubtedly good things), but does that mean that I am justified in believing this without evidence?

The idea that the good results of faith are a testament to its validity is an appeal to the consequences of a belief. If having faith makes you a better person, great, but don't try to pass that goodness off as evidence for your faith's correctness.

Well, my point wasn't that having faith in religion makes it true. My point was that having faith can have hugely positive affects on your life. I mean, within reason. If I had faith that I was going to suddenly find 9999999999 billion dollars in my backyard, that would be kind of dumb. But if I had faith that I would be able to make a decent living and perhaps do something that would life the human spirit, that would be much more of a realistic goal.

 

[Engimo]

Well, my point wasn't that having faith in religion makes it true. My point was that having faith can have hugely positive affects on your life. I mean, within reason. If I had faith that I was going to suddenly find 9999999999 billion dollars in my backyard, that would be kind of dumb.

In the same way that most atheists think that having faith that you're going to die and find eternal happiness is kind of dumb.

But if I had faith that I would be able to make a decent living and perhaps do something that would life the human spirit, that would be much more of a realistic goal.

Indeed, but the faith in your ability to make a decent living is grounded in at least the fact that you are a living, breathing, person - something that has merit. It's good to have hope for the future, but equivocating this "faith" with religious faith is a dangerous, illogical path.

I don't think there are any atheists that object to faith in humanity or faith in your family or whatever, it's unfounded religious faith that we object to. They're not the same.

 

[George_Washington]

In the same way that most atheists think that having faith that you're going to die and find eternal happiness is kind of dumb.

Why? For the life of me, I don't see how those two things are comparable.

Indeed, but the faith in your ability to make a decent living is grounded in at least the fact that you are a living, breathing, person - something that has merit. It's good to have hope for the future, but equivocating this "faith" with religious faith is a dangerous, illogical path.

I don't think there are any atheists that object to faith in humanity or faith in your family or whatever, it's unfounded religious faith that we object to. They're not the same.

Why is it a, "dangerous, illogical path" ?

I thoroughly object to the notion that religious faith is illogical. I don't see one thing illogical about it, at least not as far as Christianity goes.

 

[Engimo]

Why? For the life of me, I don't see how those two things are comparable.

One unfounded, unsubstantiated belief compared with another.

Why is it a, "dangerous, illogical path" ?

I thoroughly object to the notion that religious faith is illogical. I don't see one thing illogical about it, at least not as far as Christianity goes.

Logic dictates that you must have proof for assertions (doubly so for "extraordinary" ones). There is no proof of the existence of the Christian (or any) God outside of the Bible or through anecdotal personal experience. Therefore, believing in God without proof is illogical.

 

[George_Washington]

One unfounded, unsubstantiated belief compared with another.

But the belief in God is not as unfounded and unsubstantiated as the former example. One could argue that there is so much beauty in the world that a God must have surely created it.

Logic dictates that you must have proof for assertions (doubly so for "extraordinary" ones). There is no proof of the existence of the Christian (or any) God outside of the Bible or through anecdotal personal experience. Therefore, believing in God without proof is illogical.

Well, in thise case asserting that there isn't a God just because science hasn't revealed one yet would also be illogical because we don't know everything there is to know about science yet. You're probably going to retort with something like, "I could just as easily say the Easter Bunny exists!" But the truth is, the concept of a God us much more rational and realistic than a belief in an Easter Bunny. Because the idea of God is also the idea of a creator who created or at least put in motion the essence of the Universe. The Easter Bunny has nothing to do with this. See the difference?

 

[Engimo]

But the belief in God is not as unfounded and unsubstantiated as the former example. One could argue that there is so much beauty in the world that a God must have surely created it.

Which is a tremendously poor argument. Is it really possible to get any more subjective than this? Not only that, beautiful things arise from randomness all the time, have you ever seen a snowflake? This is also rather selective - what of all the ugliness, asymmetry, and inefficiency in the universe?

Well, in thise case asserting that there isn't a God just because science hasn't revealed one yet would also be illogical because we don't know everything there is to know about science yet. You're probably going to retort with something like, "I could just as easily say the Easter Bunny exists!" But the truth is, the concept of a God us much more rational and realistic than a belief in an Easter Bunny.

For what reason?

Because the idea of God is also the idea of a creator who created or at least put in motion the essence of the Universe. The Easter Bunny has nothing to do with this. See the difference?

Occam's Razor, heard of it? There is no need or logical reason to introduce an inherently unprovable, supernatural God when naturalistic explanations work.

 

[George_Washington]

Which is a tremendously poor argument. Is it really possible to get any more subjective than this? Not only that, beautiful things arise from randomness all the time, have you ever seen a snowflake? This is also rather selective - what of all the ugliness, asymmetry, and inefficiency in the universe?

I'm not saying that I personally am arguing from that viewpoint but is it really so poor as you claim it is? I am not sure it is, at least not to the extent that you claim it is. The concept that beauty arises from, "randomness" might also be just as poor an argument, considering our current knowledge of physics isn't complete.

For what reason?

Mostly for the reason that we are born and that we just simply die and are consciousless forever seems kind of unlikely to me.

Occam's Razor, heard of it? There is no need or logical reason to introduce an inherently unprovable, supernatural God when naturalistic explanations work.

Well, that's just it. Define, "naturalistic" explanations. How can you even define such a thing when we are so far away from fully understanding our Universe?

 

[Engimo]

I'm not saying that I personally am arguing from that viewpoint but is it really so poor as you claim it is? I am not sure it is, at least not to the extent that you claim it is. The concept that beauty arises from, "randomness" might also be just as poor an argument, considering our current knowledge of physics isn't complete.

Yes, it is a poor argument. Beauty is subjective and has no place in logic. What, like I asked before, of all the ugliness and inefficiency of our universe? What about the fact that we would not even have a universe as we know it if not for asymmetries in the cosmic background microwave radiation?

Mostly for the reason that we are born and that we just simply die and are consciousless forever seems kind of unlikely to me.

Why? What probabilities have you ran to compute this unlikliness?

Well, that's just it. Define, "naturalistic" explanations. How can you even define such a thing when we are so far away from fully understanding our Universe?

This "God of the gaps" is entirely unfounded in logic. The fact that we have an incomplete understanding of the universe does not mean that you can go and fill in that incompleteness with an inherently unprovable God. All it means is that we don't understand something, which is not license to start giving supernatural entities existence.

 

[George_Washington]

Yes, it is a poor argument. Beauty is subjective and has no place in logic. What, like I asked before, of all the ugliness and inefficiency of our universe? What about the fact that we would not even have a universe as we know it if not for asymmetries in the cosmic background microwave radiation?

No, the concept of beauty is something outside of the realm of math and science, true. The Universe is subjective in it's attractiveness or ugliness, you're right.

Why? What probabilities have you ran to compute this unlikliness?

If you mean have I studied physics extensively and have come to this conclusion, the answer would be no. I just don't think it sounds very probable. If everything occurs really as randomly and chaotically as you say it is, then why have we been given consciousness in the first place? If everything does, actually, happen so randomly, who's to say we won't have consciousness at some later point in the future? I also wonder, what would being dead be like? Surely it must be different than just being put under anesthesia. I realize there is no evidence of brain activity past death but still, what would our state be like? It may sound crazy but I think it's a valid question. Even if you think we'll go into a state of, "nothingness," well, I don't believe nothingness actually exists in our Universe. I believe everything must be made of something in order to exist.

This "God of the gaps" is entirely unfounded in logic. The fact that we have an incomplete understanding of the universe does not mean that you can go and fill in that incompleteness with an inherently unprovable God. All it means is that we don't understand something, which is not license to start giving supernatural entities existence.

When you use the term, "logic," in this discussion, I inherently have a problem with that. How can you truly apply strict logic in the sense you're thinking of to our Universe? I would think that physics might prove that our Universe acts in a manner contrary to what may seem to be, "logical."

 

[Engimo]

If you mean have I studied physics extensively and have come to this conclusion, the answer would be no. I just don't think it sounds very probable. If everything occurs really as randomly and chaotically as you say it is, then why have we been given consciousness in the first place?

Because, through the processes of Evolution, we have been born with brains that give us consciousness.

If everything does, actually, happen so randomly, who's to say we won't have consciousness at some later point in the future? I also wonder, what would being dead be like? Surely it must be different than just being put under anesthesia. I realize there is no evidence of brain activity past death but still, what would our state be like? It may sound crazy but I think it's a valid question.

That's not particularly relevant to the conversation - and randomness has nothing to do with consciousness.

Even if you think we'll go into a state of, "nothingness," well, I don't believe nothingness actually exists in our Universe. I believe everything must be made of something in order to exist.

And this belief is unfounded. Can you present evidence that supports your claim that consciousness does not end?

When you use the term, "logic," in this discussion, I inherently have a problem with that. How can you truly apply strict logic in the sense you're thinking of to our Universe? I would think that physics might prove that our Universe acts in a manner contrary to what may seem to be, "logical."

What? That is not possible. You seem to misunderstand what I am saying, yes. Believing something without evidence is illogical. If we have evidence that the laws of physics act in a certain way, they cannot be illogical. They could be confusing or counterintuitive (as Quantum Mechanics definitely is), but not illogical.

 

[George_Washington]

Because, through the processes of Evolution, we have been born with brains that give us consciousness.

Right but do you know exactly what lead to these processes of evolution that you speak of?

That's not particularly relevant to the conversation - and randomness has nothing to do with consciousness.

It's actually not irrelevant because we're talking about the possiblity of a state of consciousness after we die and I'm saying that if everything happens randomly, how did we get consciousness in the first place, meaning did it happen purely of coincidence? If so, that very concept itself is so hard to define. You said it was because of evolution. But what about the processes that put evolution into motion in the first place? What caused the big bang theory? What was the space surrounding the big bang theory made out of? Surely for all of the matter in our Universe to be clumped together so tightly, their had to have been something supporting it.

You see what I'm trying to imply-your definition of randomness in the Universe is very hard to define.

And this belief is unfounded. Can you present evidence that supports your claim that consciousness does not end?

I cannot present scientific evidence, no, but that doesn't mean I don't have faith that it does.

What? That is not possible. You seem to misunderstand what I am saying, yes. Believing something without evidence is illogical. If we have evidence that the laws of physics act in a certain way, they cannot be illogical. They could be confusing or counterintuitive (as Quantum Mechanics definitely is), but not illogical.

Right but how do you know that a life past this one couldn't also be a natural occurence of how the Universe works?

 

[Engimo]

Right but do you know exactly what lead to these processes of evolution that you speak of?

Er... the physical laws of the universe?

It's actually not irrelevant because we're talking about the possiblity of a state of consciousness after we die and I'm saying that if everything happens randomly, how did we get consciousness in the first place, meaning did it happen purely of coincidence? If so, that very concept itself is so hard to define. You said it was because of evolution. But what about the processes that put evolution into motion in the first place? What caused the big bang theory? What was the space surrounding the big bang theory made out of? Surely for all of the matter in our Universe to be clumped together so tightly, their had to have been something supporting it.

Irrelevant. These are questions that we don't know the answer to - and that's it. The fact that we don't know the answers to these questions doesn't mean that you can logically go in and say "Well, something like God must have done it!".

I cannot present scientific evidence, no, but that doesn't mean I don't have faith that it does.

Which is, again, based on nothing and is illogical.

Right but how do you know that a life past this one couldn't also be a natural occurence of how the Universe works?

We don't. In the same way we don't know that we weren't all bunnies in past lives that floated around Uranus. Sure, it's a possibility, but until we have evidence to support the possibility, it remains conjecture.

 

[George_Washington]

Er... the physical laws of the universe?

What physical laws? To the best of my knowledge many things still wait to be unknown. We know the laws of physics as to how Isaac Newton defined them but they are only valid for things on our scale, meaning that on the Quantum Level things function differently.

Irrelevant. These are questions that we don't know the answer to - and that's it. The fact that we don't know the answers to these questions doesn't mean that you can logically go in and say "Well, something like God must have done it!".

that's not what I'm trying to imply, actually. I'm trying to imply that having faith in God isn't illogical. I also have an open mind to new advances in science.

Which is, again, based on nothing and is illogical.

It is not illogical. Do you even know what the term, "logical" means? I do not think it means what you think it means (Pun on, "The Princess Bride." I just love saying that line. :mrgreen

We don't. In the same way we don't know that we weren't all bunnies in past lives that floated around Uranus. Sure, it's a possibility, but until we have evidence to support the possibility, it remains conjecture.

Yes, it is conjecture but having faith in a God isn't illogical, nonetheless. Logic is defined as a science that deals with sound reasoning and proof by reasoning. Logic is not physics itself. Logic is a seperate area of study. Anyway, the concept of sound reasoning in physics is constantly changing. We used to think that for something to exist, it must have mass, but now that might not be true. Thus, this leaves the door open to many new possibilites in the definition of, "logic." So having faith in a God is not illogical because...this is logical. See what I'm implying?

 

[Engimo]

What physical laws? To the best of my knowledge many things still wait to be unknown. We know the laws of physics as to how Isaac Newton defined them but they are only valid for things on our scale, meaning that on the Quantum Level things function differently.

It doesn't matter. Some physical law determines the way that the universe works.

that's not what I'm trying to imply, actually. I'm trying to imply that having faith in God isn't illogical. I also have an open mind to new advances in science.

But it is. Any faith without evidence is illogical.

It is not illogical. Do you even know what the term, "logical" means? I do not think it means what you think it means (Pun on, "The Princess Bride." I just love saying that line. :mrgreen

Yes, it is. Believing in something without proof defies the principles of logic - making it illogical.

Yes, it is conjecture but having faith in a God isn't illogical, nonetheless. Logic is defined as a science that deals with sound reasoning and proof by reasoning. Logic is not physics itself. Logic is a seperate area of study. Anyway, the concept of sound reasoning in physics is constantly changing. We used to think that for something to exist, it must have mass, but now that might not be true. Thus, this leaves the door open to many new possibilites in the definition of, "logic." So having faith in a God is not illogical because...this is logical. See what I'm implying?

No. Logic is logic, bottom line. What you're talking about in physics is not "logic", it's "accepted theory". Yes, what we think is true in physics changes as the result of new experiments and developments in the field, but all conclusions are based on evidence and are therefore logical. The rules of logic do not change, the evidence that we have for certain theories changes.

 

[George_Washington]

But it is. Any faith without evidence is illogical.

Why?

No. Logic is logic, bottom line. What you're talking about in physics is not "logic", it's "accepted theory". Yes, what we think is true in physics changes as the result of new experiments and developments in the field, but all conclusions are based on evidence and are therefore logical. The rules of logic do not change, the evidence that we have for certain theories changes.

I think you're confusing logic with the scientific method. The scientific method doesn't change. But the rules of logic outside of its strict academic confinements vary.

 

[@_girL........]

I've heard people, mostly atheists, claim that faith is irrational.

However, I detest that belief because of it's, irrationality, ha-ha. I don't think that faith is irrational.

Faith has been the root of all great achievements and discoveries since the beginning of time.

Jesus once said that if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you can move mountains. I cannot think of a single Bible quote, both Old Testament and New, that is so moving and meaningful. Faith is essential to survival.

I believe that faith is what has led to every great achievement of mankind since the dawn of time.

Faith can help in so many different areas of life. One must have faith to conquer one's fears and to take risks.

I don't believe that one can really take fantastic risks without faith. Faith is about believing in yourself and what you can accomplish in life.

I believe if someone doesn't have faith in a higher being and an after life, that person will be doomed to never achieve his or her full potential. I think the true meaning of life is to always believe in yourself, have passion for what you do and for all aspects of life, and to be a good person. And I think that if you have faith in yourself, it's much easier to like yourself, and therefore, to like others. I believe that with a belief in God, one's own self, and faith in what the future holds, one will naturally be good to himself and to others. I think in a lot of ways, modern science proves my belief in the concept of faith to be accurate. Most psychologists would agree that in order to spread love and kindess to others, you must first love yourself. Those who hate themselves generally dislike others as well.

So in conclusion, having faith can lead to so many great things in a person's life.

OMG, I love you!!! You have just simply stated what I truely believe about people and faith. I don't even know what to say!!!

 

[kal-el]

Why?

Well, wouldn't you say it is illogical, not to mention vacuous, if there were monuments built to adulate the easter bunny? Of course. Practically the same can be said about your sky brownie. Let's imagine you were walking in sand, and came accross some footprints, you would logically conclude that someone had been walking there. On your idea of faith, the same thing happens, but you decided that the person who walked was 6 feet tall, 200 lbs, had a beard, and blonde hair. No evidence needed.