Nature of God

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname My position on reason is backed up, as I have already pointed out, by the fact that reason is known to produce useful knowledge by means of a known epistemology. You have provided no similar defense of faith. The fact that you believe something can be true for you and not for me gives you absolutely no ground on which to argue with me. I can be right and you can be right, so why aren't you saying that I can be right?

I don't see any reason for you to say that I can't grasp the fact that science can't answer questions about how the universe got here. I have never indicated that I believed science can answer everything. In fact, I have several times mentioned questions that science cannot answer, and I even used exactly that example.

Faith is not reason, therefore it is not epistomology. It can only provide knowledge, spiritual knowledge for my own experiences which I attribute to God, certain spiritual experiences, which reason cannot answer. Therefore, the way you are seeking faith as some knowledge on par with reason, is silly, for like I said, you just cannot grasp that the two are different things.

I'm only arguing because you cannot see the distinction between faith and reason and you are holding them on the same measuring stick, asking evidence of faith, on an equivalent ground with reason, whereas faith is far beyond reason. That is what your mistaking, and I can show that even in our everyday knowledge we hold , there is a grain of faith.

[loseyourname]

Again, if you use faith as a basis for knowledge, you are leaving the door open for any possible faith to be invoked as justification for any behavior, including destructive and unethical behavior. That is morally reprehensible. Why is your faith any better than Osama Bin Laden's faith? You have no more basis for your beliefs than he has for his.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname What the hell are you talking about? Science can explain perfectly fine how these sensations are caused. It has nothing to say about what they are exactly, but I don't see any answers coming from faith, either. All I see is you telling me they are manifestations of a soul without giving any reason whatsoever that that should be believed. I can say that they are planted there by an evil demon using exactly the same reasoning. Why is your explanation to be preferred?

So you concede that science doesn't explain what they exactly are, and you want answers from faith.

Here you are fain to admit that human intelligence is finite, and reason at some point cannot answer certain things. Faith begins where reason ends.

You cannot have an answer in the material sense for humans are limited, thus we have faith, we believe in certain things that cannot be answered. We cannot possibly know everything, and reason presupposes this.

There is also faith in your everything examples of knowledge. For example we don't know China exists if you haven't been to China, but we have evidence from peoples' testimony, and pictures, and we have faith that these are true. In other words, it would be unreasonable, one can argue, to hold this as absolute knowledge without first experiencing it through one of our five senses, thus we place faith in that persons testimony and those pictures that China exists, of course few of the rational creatures will admit this.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Yes, I believe it exists, and what I believe must be true for me. Whether it is reasonable for you is of no relevance, for I have already explained that reason and faith are two different things, and reason cannot deal with what is faith, just like faith cannot deal with what reason is. Apparently you are having trouble grasping this, thus making your position from reason, totally pointless in understanding the position of faith. Faith doesn't deal with reasoning, faith is precisely faith, for faith is the absence of reason, it is belief, otherwise it would not be faith.

You accuse me of believing in something then it must be true, yet your position on reason is the same thing, for you believe that all things can be answered by reason and science, which is an arrogant assumption, and an incorrect one. I have said a thousand times, you can marvel at the extensions of the ear, to the eye, and all the nervous system, yet what science and philosophy teach are nothing but words and more words, not what lies behind the substances themselves nor its origin. Science immediately falls when man begins to ask, how did we get here? And from then, faith replaces science. You cannot grasp this nor understand this, and for you to concede this would mean letting go of your ego since youre a biology student and believe that biological sciences hold the answers to everything, much like your mistaken assumption of going into biological sciences to study human consciousness.

My position on reason is backed up, as I have already pointed out, by the fact that reason is known to produce useful knowledge by means of a known epistemology. You have provided no similar defense of faith. The fact that you believe something can be true for you and not for me gives you absolutely no ground on which to argue with me. I can be right and you can be right, so why aren't you saying that I can be right?

I don't see any reason for you to say that I can't grasp the fact that science can't answer questions about how the universe got here. I have never indicated that I believed science can answer everything. In fact, I have several times mentioned questions that science cannot answer, and I even used exactly that example.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse As far as the ear, natural law, is but a product of God. Who has yet made it obvious for us how from the contact with a foreign body, the image in the eye, the wave of air impringing on the ear, particular particles entering the nostriles and coming in contact with the palate, come sensations in the nerves and from that perception in the mind of the man or animal. Science cannot answer these. It can only give names to the externalities but the thing itself, the origin of it, it will never know. That is what I marvel at, that no matter how well we use our finite minds and intelligence, at a certain point it ceases and science becomes hopeless.

What the hell are you talking about? Science can explain perfectly fine how these sensations are caused. It has nothing to say about what they are exactly, but I don't see any answers coming from faith, either. All I see is you telling me they are manifestations of a soul without giving any reason whatsoever that that should be believed. I can say that they are planted there by an evil demon using exactly the same reasoning. Why is your explanation to be preferred?

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname You have not given any reason to believe that there exists anything ethereal or infinite. Your argument is tantamount to this:

A. I Believe it exists.
B. What I believe must be true.
C. Therefore, it exists.

That is not sound reasoning, my friend. You're making a fool of yourself.

Yes, I believe it exists, and what I believe must be true for me. Whether it is reasonable for you is of no relevance, for I have already explained that reason and faith are two different things, and reason cannot deal with what is faith, just like faith cannot deal with what reason is. Apparently you are having trouble grasping this, thus making your position from reason, totally pointless in understanding the position of faith. Faith doesn't deal with reasoning, faith is precisely faith, for faith is the absence of reason, it is belief, otherwise it would not be faith.

Originally posted by loseyourname I don't know what books you've been reading, pal, but science and philosophy teach us plenty about these things.

You accuse me of believing in something then it must be true, yet your position on reason is the same thing, for you believe that all things can be answered by reason and science, which is an arrogant assumption, and an incorrect one. I have said a thousand times, you can marvel at the extensions of the ear, to the eye, and all the nervous system, yet what science and philosophy teach are nothing but words and more words, not what lies behind the substances themselves nor its origin. Science immediately falls when man begins to ask, how did we get here? And from then, faith replaces science. You cannot grasp this nor understand this, and for you to concede this would mean letting go of your ego since youre a biology student and believe that biological sciences hold the answers to everything, much like your mistaken assumption of going into biological sciences to study human consciousness.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by felizitation I do not consider this as an argument. This is very extrem manifestations of the "faith", used as a tool. But it is merely ignorance, directed in the conditionning of ppl.
And if you ask someone who is ready to kill himself for "faith", I'm sure it's an ignorant person, who neither don't understand the religion he adheres to, nor is able to give consistence into the God he believes in. Mindless people, without opinions or critical sense.

They are most likely mentally ill, but that is beside the point. The point is that they are willing to do it precisely because they are uncritical. They continue to believe that what they are doing is right in spite of all evidence to the contrary. You and the Mouse both continue to believe in God, without any evidential basis, and despite all of the evidence to the contrary. My qualm is not so much with you, as you say you take no worldview from it and it does not effect your daily life. But Mousy at least claims to be a Christian, and that certainly entails a certain structure to his beliefs and his life that requires a better justification than faith alone. As I said, faith can be used to justify anything. If you find that an acceptable epistemology, then you have no grounds for opposing what was done by suicide bombers who invoke exactly the same argument that you do.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Nope.

It doesn't seem to occur to people that if they have been indoctrinated with something since their youth, their mind will be conditioned to feel certain things and accept certain things uncritically. I was never indoctrinated, and so I have never felt anything like that. I look at the complexity of the human ear, and I'm not moved to a religious response. I just marvel at the capabilities of natural law.

Furthermore, I have never felt any need to invoke supernatural help when I have a problem. I've solved them perfectly well on my own. If God couldn't create beings that were capable of coping without him, he isn't much of a God.

Only arrogance would assume that you yourself are free of indoctrination. Being indoctrinated with reason and that reason is the only answer is another form of indoctrination. Man is nothing but an agent to be indoctrinated with, what else will the mind be filled with? We are all indoctrinated with something, otherwise we will not argue or defend our convictions the way we do.

As far as the ear, natural law, is but a product of God. Who has yet made it obvious for us how from the contact with a foreign body, the image in the eye, the wave of air impringing on the ear, particular particles entering the nostriles and coming in contact with the palate, come sensations in the nerves and from that perception in the mind of the man or animal. Science cannot answer these. It can only give names to the externalities but the thing itself, the origin of it, it will never know. That is what I marvel at, that no matter how well we use our finite minds and intelligence, at a certain point it ceases and science becomes hopeless.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Again, you don't get it. Reason and the material knowledge cannot deal with the ethereal, that is what we call faith. You keep jammering about this yet you cannot grasp it. You cannot grasp that human intelligence is finite, therefore cannot conceive of the infinite, and reason simply cannot admit to the spiritual and faith. Faith and reason are as far from each other, as earth is from pluto. That is the problem in philosophy, the most difficult problem that it cannot overcome, faith and reason. The encroachments of reason on faith and faith on reason is like the eclipses of the sun or moon, and when they happen, the source of light and its reflection become useless.

You have not given any reason to believe that there exists anything ethereal or infinite. Your argument is tantamount to this:

A. I Believe it exists.
B. What I believe must be true.
C. Therefore, it exists.

That is not sound reasoning, my friend. You're making a fool of yourself.

Originally posted by Anonymouse "Morally reprehensible" is not how I'd put it, for science perishes by systems that are nothing but beliefs and mans own mind. Thus when all is said and done, you are either an atheist or a believer. Philosophy and reason have taught us nothing about the nature of our sensations, our perceptions, our cognizances, the origina of our thoughts and ideas, but words, or even our souls.

I don't know what books you've been reading, pal, but science and philosophy teach us plenty about these things.

[felizitation]

Originally posted by loseyourname
Reason has no trouble admitting that which is reasonable. Faith that goes against reason is a dangerous tool that can be used to justify anything from suicide bombing to the rape of virgins and the sacrifice of innocent human beings. It is morally reprehensible to hold a belief based on faith alone with no other justification.

I do not consider this as an argument. This is very extrem manifestations of the "faith", used as a tool. But it is merely ignorance, directed in the conditionning of ppl.
And if you ask someone who is ready to kill himself for "faith", I'm sure it's an ignorant person, who neither don't understand the religion he adheres to, nor is able to give consistence into the God he believes in. Mindless people, without opinions or critical sense.