Why Require Faith? [Archive]

blueback

07-07-2008, 12:13 PM

Why would a god hide and require faith?

Well, whaen do you think people are easier to control; when they think for themselves or when they follow blindly?

Religions require faith because religions are based on ideas that cannot be proven. Then they rationalize faith by claiming that it is better than knowing. Why is it better than knowing? Well, because they have faith that it is. Religions have faith that faith is inherently good.

It's bullshit of course. Every single good thing in the world has been produced by proven action, not by faith, but that doesn't mean that faith isn't useful.

You see, most people in the world don't want to take responsibility for their own lives. That means that they don't want to think. Since there will always be far more people who don't want to think than the few people who do want to think, it makes sense for the thinkers to think for the non-thinkers.

Lets say a thinker figures out that the people in the village get sick far less often when they wash their hands regularly. Now, he could try to explain to everyone that if they wash their hands they will get sick less often, but most of them won't listen. If they listened to him, and didn't wash their hands, it would then be their fault when they got sick. Instead of sickness being something they couldn't possibly control, and therefore aren't responsible for, it would be their own fault. However, the thinker really needs them to all be healthy, so he has to come up with some way to get them to wash their hands. Basically, he is going to have to trick them into it. Our thinker has many options, but the most common one is to come up with some reason why they HAVE TO wash their hands. For example, he could tell them that God doesn't like it when they pray with dirty hands, and they have to pray to God, so they have to wash their hands regularly. Or he could make it part of a frequent ritual like a weekly village dance, whatever.

Do you see how faith is useful? Once the thinker convinces the non-thinkers that they HAVE TO do whatever he says he can get them to do things far more easily than if he tried to explain it to them. Not only would many of them be too stupid to understand the explanation most of them would simply reject it because to understand it would mean their fate was in their control.

Thus, the religious emphasis on faith. Have you ever noticed that few religions don't say anything about how a person is supposed to live day-to-day? Christianity doesn't just talk about heaven, it also talks about not working on sunday and respecting your parents. Additionally, and more importantly, things like prohibiting killing, adultery, and stealing (etc) are all good rules that carry more weight if they are God's rules than if they are simply practical ways to get along with other people.

Bobleplask

07-07-2008, 02:46 PM

If you knew one thing to be true then you could be called a God yourself.

All we have in life are belifs in thing. We beleive we exist and we believe there has been two world wars and we believe that when you throw a rock in the aird the same rock will fall to the ground. That last part we use some set of rules to proove to each other is most likely correct.

But imagine that you somehow found something that were true and there were no way to doubt that this was true. Everyone you showed it to could not find thoughts like "It might just be an illusion" and there were no way to dispute that this was somehow not true.

With this knowledge you could you would have a reference point.

In science we use SI standards to calculate and figure things out. We say they are true and use them as reference points. There is nothing but our flawed senses that say they are true however.

So all we have is faith.

Regarding God and faith? I believe that if you found truth then you would probably be God. And a God can't have a God. So if God exists then maybe he did it like that. Or if God does not exist then we're all bacteria and it's not important. Without God truth has no meaning.

blueback

07-07-2008, 08:50 PM

manger

07-08-2008, 01:00 AM

Because he's an insecure and needy brat? And we all know that isn't fitting of an all knowing perfect being, so this isn't going to work out, is it?

manger added to this post, 5 minutes and 49 seconds later...

Or a loser with no friends so he has to make his own. And he purposely makes them inferior so that he is always the coolest kid.

Seppuku Savant

07-08-2008, 01:54 AM

Faith is strange. Anything I've ever believed in, outside of hard facts, has let me down. That's real people and institutions that I've interacted with. I have no idea how people are able to believe in a God that shows themself even less.

blueback

07-08-2008, 07:24 AM

If you had faith in something, and then it "let you down," then you just didn't know enough about it. The safest things to have faith in are the things that can't possibly affect your life. If it's something that can affect your life then you can simply investigate it and form a conclusion based on evidence.

Jakalwarrior

07-08-2008, 08:01 AM

Would be great if the world were so simple :(
We know the teacher has a brain because we can crack human skulls open and find them in there. We could do the same with the professor but it is generally a little bit invasive. We can also assume since we know humans usually have brains in their skulls which allow them to function, talk, etc... and he has a head, is a human, and functions (although the fictional professor is a bit dim), that he probably has one too. It "can" be proven though and the reason we think there is probably one in there is because time after time we seem to find brains inside human skulls. God on the other hand though... we have no more evidence or proof of that than we do big foot. Its a leap of faith people are asked to make with no evidence, no proof, no logical argument, nothing. You are supposed to base your life around it or burn forever in hell. The only issue is there are several different religons, all with similar claims and no proof. Each says if you pick the others you burn in hell also. Why would god choose to have it that way?

muguly

07-08-2008, 08:25 AM

Faith is a form of trust. You must have faith in God to trust him to do things in life. This holds true for every relationship. Generally, you have faith in your partner to do or not to do some things. You have to trust your partner to have faith in them and vice-versa. It's the same way with religion. Atleast that's what I think.

lollardy2000

07-08-2008, 08:38 AM

I have some questions.

The initial question is: 'Why Require Faith?'
so - why all this talk about god and religion?

I have heard faith described as something like "believing in something you have no evidence for and then waiting for the evidence to change." Is this scientific or not?

I have learned that the best guarantee for something to fail or not work or lose is to not believe (or 'have faith') in it. If you believe in something, say yourself, you may or may not get what you want, but you have the drive, motivation, will, whatever. If you don't believe you can do something, you won't do it. Is this faith? Even if "every single good thing in the world has been produced by proven action," didn't the chain of events that led to the action *necessarily* start with faith that the action COULD happen?

I see the usual refrains of "god let me down" and "god created bad things" and "god is a crutch" and "I only believe in facts/logic." These things may or may not be true; let's set that aside for a moment. Isn't it possible or likely that even supposing a god (since *NOT* supposing a god automatically leads to this conclusion anyways), humans still created and create sin and failure and bad things? And isn't it possible or likely that even supposing this last statement, god allowed this to happen? And if so, for what reasons?

Jakalwarrior

07-08-2008, 08:47 AM

The initial question is: 'Why Require Faith?'
so - why all this talk about god and religion?

Because I was wondering why a god would choose to give zero evidence of his existence if his entire goal for humanity is to have them believe in him and do the right things. Even if I don't understand the motivation for wanting to create a bunch of suck ups, it still seems sorta counter productive doesn't it?

lollardy2000

07-08-2008, 08:53 AM

Because I was wondering why a god would choose to give zero evidence of his existence if his entire goal for humanity is to have them believe in him

Didn't you just answer your own question?

Even if I don't understand the motivation for wanting to create a bunch of suck ups

You atheists and INTJs and such always look at the bad side of religion - but that is a **people** problem, not a **god** problem. Extreme scenario: god did not create Inquisition, Crusades, Nazis - humans did. god did not create abortion protests that leave people dead - humans do. god often helps people stand up for themselves, take responsibility for their lives, and fight unjust laws and politics. RELIGION - like any other human institution - can either help people connect on a deeper level OR take advantage of people and keep them down.

phantasma

07-08-2008, 08:56 AM

Well, this wouldn't be the view of your typical Christian, but this is what I believe. I think we all used to live with God as spirit children before we were born. He wanted us to become like him. This would involve getting a physical body and being tested. The test is to see if we would still follow Him on Earth though we don't remember living with him. The test would be a lot easier if faith wasn't required, and we could see him anytime.

The point is that faith in Him is part of the test that will help us become like Him. (FYI, I am totally serious when I say we can become like God. Totally possible if we do what it takes)

Also, I don't think God hides as much as he is just not seen by us. If we are worthy, there is nothing holding us back from seeing Him.

That being said, I don't know if this would be much help, since it's not a conventional view. As an INTP, I have faith in him and his plan because it makes sense to me, and I've learned that not all reality is tangible in the eyes of mortals. In a nutshell.

lollardy2000

07-08-2008, 09:17 AM

Well, this wouldn't be the view of your typical Christian, but this is what I believe. I think we all used to live with God as spirit children before we were born. He wanted us to become like him. This would involve getting a physical body and being tested. The test is to see if we would still follow Him on Earth though we don't remember living with him. The test would be a lot easier if faith wasn't required, and we could see him anytime.

No kidding! These beliefs are not "Christian" at all!!! This sounds like some mix of wiccan, gnosticism, new age, and what YOU want to believe (the last is typical INT_ trait). I don't care one way or the other (and your last 3 paragraphs seem agreeable) - but let's be honest here.

Jakalwarrior

07-08-2008, 09:34 AM

Eh, when people are going on pure faith might as well just go for what you want to believe. Honestly I've never met a christian that was was totally by the book. Most ignore atleast 50% of it and believe what they want.

emanon

07-08-2008, 09:56 AM

Jakalwarrior

07-08-2008, 10:40 AM

God's angels were able to see Him without faith and look how that turned out. So with humans, those who actually accept His supremeness with faith are the ones who will get to spend eternity with Him.

So god gets to make arbitrary choices about our destiny and overall be an A hole, while we are supposed to strive for moral perfection?
Think about it, following what you have learned about how to act from religon, how would you act if put in god's position. Would you throw a bunch of people on a rock and talk to one or two of them then decide all of the others who dont believe those few you spoke with burn in hell? Wait thats not hard enough, lets leave zero proof of my existence and throw in some red herrings for fun! Oh lets grab the popcorn.
That is my point, why would any god require "faith"?

blueback

07-08-2008, 10:55 AM

The thing about spirit children getting their own bodies sounds like the Mormon church.

Look, there is a very clear distinction between belief and faith. It is the same as between a rectangle and a square.

Belief is just a conclusion that something is true. Faith is a conclusion that something is true without any evidence or logical support. You see? A conclusion can be a belief without being faith because faith has more requirements just like a square has more requirements than a rectangle.

That means that there is nothing wrong with a person of faith, only a person of faith who tries to prove their faith. If they can prove it, it's not faith. Therefore they don't understand their own philosophy, which is bad. The usual argument is that God wants us to have faith in him so he denies us proof of his existence. If he proved his own existence, beyond a doubt, then we wouldn't need faith to believe he is real. Of course, that is just the church's argument and they only use it because once you convince someone to act on faith you can get them to do all sorts of things.

That little argument between the student and the professor is kind of sad. The professor used a faith-based argument to try to disprove a faith-based argument. It's sad because he is a professor of philosophy and he hasn't managed to expose the contradictions in his own thought process. Atheism is just as much a faith as theism. His argument eats itself simply because there is no evidence one way or the other about God. No evidence means any conclusions must be faith.

Instead, he should have ask the student to reconcile the contradiction of a God that is all-knowing, soley responsible for our existence, and free will. If God is the only reason we exist, and we had no choice about it, and God knew exactly what choices we would make before he created us, then we don't have free will. . .we are just living out the script God foresaw. Therefore that structure of ideas is faith because it has no logical support.

I just don't like faith. Why would anyone ever claim a conclusion as true that they have absoultely no evidence for?

PHS Philip

07-08-2008, 11:07 AM

Didn't you just answer your own question?

You atheists and INTJs and such always look at the bad side of religion - but that is a **people** problem, not a **god** problem. Extreme scenario: god did not create Inquisition, Crusades, Nazis - humans did. god did not create abortion protests that leave people dead - humans do. god often helps people stand up for themselves, take responsibility for their lives, and fight unjust laws and politics. RELIGION - like any other human institution - can either help people connect on a deeper level OR take advantage of people and keep them down.

However, if god exists and is omnipotent and omniscient, he knew when he created mankind exactly what would happen, and exactly what would come from the interferences he made in human affairs in the Bible, and thus could have prevented such things. He didn't. The argument "god gave us free will" is just plain stupid, honestly. What was all the crap he did in the Bible if not interference?

Now, Devil's Advocate. God wished to see what would come of giving mankind free will (assuming free will means that it cannot be predicted by God). That's the best I can think of =\

blueback

07-08-2008, 11:13 AM

I think the usual reply to this is that "evil" is something that is necessary for good to exist. It's not so much a thing on its own as the absence of good. For example, darkness is the absence of light, but blue isn't the absence of red. Blue and red are distinct things which each exist on their own, but darkness can't "exist" in any sense without light. So, when God created light (let there be light) we also "created" the absense of light which was named darkness. He didn't make darkness, he simply allowed for the contrast by creating light.

PHS Philip

07-08-2008, 11:18 AM

The response is, of course, that most people don't see the greatest attrocities' true magnitude. 6,000,000 is just a number to people, and they never meaningfully understand what killing 6,000,000 people really is. Most people are, although opposed to it, generally apathetic about genocide. They don't recognize the full evil of what's happening.

Jakalwarrior

07-08-2008, 11:22 AM

Look, there is a very clear distinction between belief and faith. It is the same as between a rectangle and a square.

To believe is to think something true. Belief is just something that is believed.
Faith is something you believe (a belief), but with the added property of no evidence.

A belief can be faith, faith must be a belief.

I know they are different and if there were proof it would no longer be faith, but why faith in the first place? honestly I see no use for faith anywhere in any form.

lollardy2000

07-08-2008, 11:33 AM

Would you throw a bunch of people on a rock and talk to one or two of them then decide all of the others who don't believe those few you spoke with burn in hell?

Well now that's a caricature as well as bad theology (but not wholly undeserved, thank you Jerry Falwell & co). Just for Christianity, there is a big difference between what Jesus said (which is how we know god in the new testament) and the religion that supposedly "worships" him for the last 2000 years. I do not think that is god's purpose, supposing there is a god - based on what Jesus told us (which turns out to be similar to what Buddha and other told us) - rather I think Jesus' message is treat others how you would want to be treated, in all your relationships - friends, family, co-workers, neighbors, strangers - even yourself. Right relationships based on respect and love with god, yourself, and others. Now somehow all this has to be mediated thru Jesus/god - I haven't quite figured that out analytically yet but intuitively it is making more sense to me.

The "new atheists" (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris) have done a great disservice to their cause and spirituality in general (and science) by pimping poorly argued straw men as scientific insight. If you want to be agnostic or atheist, fine - but be thorough, relevant, and consistent!

blueback

07-08-2008, 11:36 AM

Evil is an interesting concept. "Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction"

So, in a sense, anything which causes 'suffering, injury or destruction' has at least a component of evil in it.

I couldn't find a good antonym for evil so lets just deconstruct evil itself.

Suffering is basically just pain. Injury is damage, generally that which can be repaired or doesn't end a things ability to function. Destruction is when something no longer exists.

It would seem then that the definition of evil applies more specifically to a living thing than to anything else. A living thing is capable of feeling suffering, being injured and being destroyed. A non-living thing can't really suffer, but I suppose it could be injured and destroyed, although injury is more often used to describe something living than something non-living.

The problem I have is that suffering, injury and destruction are all natural parts of being alive. I can't think of a single example of a living thing that can't suffer, be injured or be destroyed. Therefore, life itself must be a requirement for the existence of evil. That would mean that life was evil, since life allows (and indeed requires) suffering, injury and destruction.

Additionally:
I do enjoy the way faith-based philosophers disagree with each other. One guy says that God wants this thing and another says that God wants something different and neither feels the need to prove their conclusion. Many of them are simply trying to make a living, so I don't generally hold it against them. It's the ones who don't profit from their self-professed lack of a clue, but insist on spreading it anyway, that irritate me.

I mean, faith is pretty straightforward. It's a conclusion without any proof. Either accept that or admit that you aren't actually interested in faith. You won't get more faithful by finding proof for your conclusions, you will get less faithful. It's one or the other. Proof or faith. You can't have both.

lollardy2000

07-08-2008, 11:51 AM

However, if god exists and is omnipotent and omniscient, he knew when he created mankind exactly what would happen, and exactly what would come from the interferences he made in human affairs in the Bible and thus could have prevented such things. He didn't. The argument "god gave us free will" is just plain stupid, honestly. What was all the crap he did in the Bible if not interference?

It doesn't matter if it is "interference" or not, we still have free will whether or not god is messin' with us. A 1943 Jew in a Nazi concentration camp has as much free will as a 2003 Silicon Valley billionaire - their perceptions of it just differ, and one's actions are more circumscribed than the other's, and the external world is more of a wall than a fertile field for one rather than the other - but they both have free will - the freedom to make choices. Blaming god for all the crap humans do ("why did god create xyz?" whine whine) is an excuse not to try to better our lives and the lives of those we care about (do INTJs have the ability to care about other people?).

I think it is pretty obvious that if god was controlling us or using fear to influence us, the intentions and thus also the value of our good deeds would be in doubt. We have to be free to choose to do good. I do not understand why this is so hard for people to see, god or not.

lollardy2000 added to this post, 1 minutes and 20 seconds later...

but why faith in the first place? honestly I see no use for faith anywhere in any form.

I have learned that the best guarantee for something to fail or not work or lose is to not believe (or 'have faith') in it. If you believe in something, say yourself, you may or may not get what you want, but you have the drive, motivation, will, whatever. If you don't believe you can do something, you won't do it. Isn't this faith? Even if "every single good thing in the world has been produced by proven action," didn't the chain of events that led to the action *necessarily* start with faith that the action COULD happen?

lollardy2000 added to this post, 2 minutes and 31 seconds later...

Evil is an interesting concept. "Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction" So, in a sense, anything which causes 'suffering, injury or destruction' has at least a component of evil in it.

No no no no.... you INTJs have such huge blind spots sometimes.

EVIL is the INTENTION to do "suffering, injury, or destruction" to another living being - or to stand by and watch it happen and do nothing. ESPECIALLY if you are profiting somehow from this. AND even WITHOUT intention, if you see "suffering, injury, or destruction" being done to another living being by yourself or anyone else, it is your responsibility to stop it.

PHS Philip

07-08-2008, 11:52 AM

It doesn't matter if it is "interference" or not, we still have free will whether or not god is messin' with us. A 1943 Jew in a Nazi concentration camp has as much free will as a 2003 Silicon Valley billionaire - their perceptions of it just differ, and one's actions are more circumscribed than the other's, and the external world is more of a wall than a fertile field for one rather than the other - but they both have free will - the freedom to make choices. Blaming god for all the crap humans do ("why did god create xyz?" whine whine) is an excuse not to try to better our lives and the lives of those we care about (do INTJs have the ability to care about other people?).

I think it is pretty obvious that if god was controlling us or using fear to influence us, the intentions and thus also the value of our good deeds would be in doubt. We have to be free to choose to do good. I do not understand why this is so hard for people to see, god or not.

But God has, if one believes Christianity, heavily influenced the course of history. His interference is very relevant, because he could easily have interfered in a way that would have averted many of the horrible things that have happened in history. My point was that many Christians say that god allowed such things to happen because he wanted to leave our free will alone, but that God has no qualms about messing with history in the bible.

EVIL is the INTENTION to do "suffering, injury, or destruction" to another living being - or to stand by and watch it happen and do nothing.

Then I can unequivocally declare you evil. You aren't, for instance, in Darfur fighting to defend people, even though you could. That's standing by and watching it happen. According to your definition, that's evil.

lollardy2000

07-08-2008, 11:57 AM

Jakalwarrior

07-08-2008, 12:08 PM

Meanwhile logic says we wouldn't be here thinking "dern we didn't win the existence lottery" if all those circumstances hadn't fallen into place. We are a product of all those circumstances. We exist the way we do because of all the things before us.

lollardy2000

07-08-2008, 12:14 PM

But God has, if one believes Christianity, heavily influenced the course of history. His interference is very relevant, because he could easily have interfered in a way that would have averted many of the horrible things that have happened in history. My point was that many Christians say that god allowed such things to happen because he wanted to leave our free will alone, but that God has no qualms about messing with history in the bible.

I think the point is, humans have little control over their environment, good or bad. As humans, we like to attribute positive outcomes to ourselves and negative outcomes to other people or fate (besides thinking we can control the external world) - and god says, no, there's nothing you can do, I will do what you perceive as good or bad according to my own dictates, even if it makes no sense to you. It is quite possible to view life this way with or without god. How come once you suppose god (as creator, judge, cuddle buddy or whatever), once you suppose a CAUSE for the same OUTCOMES the cause is necessarily bad?

PHS Philip

07-08-2008, 12:25 PM

Look INTJs, as much as you would like to believe you are the product of your own merit and/or random evolutionary adaptations, the truth is you were not created sui generis. Your entire existence is predicated on an almost-infinitely large chain of being beginning with your parents, and the people they depend on, and the people THEY depend on... plus all the flora and fauna, rocks and minerals, atoms and stars that we ALL depend on. Tweak it a little and we're all dead - if the earth were 1 mile closer to or farther from the sun, we would die. You cannot pretend away your responsibility for other beings and the earth simply because you refuse to acknowledge their importance to you. Faith is knowing all this without needing a Jumbotron to see it.

Totally wrong. Faith has absolutely nothing to do with how you view life. Being grateful has nothing to do with having faith that an invisible intangible pink unicorn lives in my basement, or a giant invisible beard exists in the sky, or that there is a floating mountain in the sky, or that there is a tree which 9 different worlds hang from. Just because I don't believe without evidence doesn't mean I don't feel gratitude, or acknowledge others' importance to me.

lollardy2000

07-08-2008, 12:37 PM

Then I can unequivocally declare you evil. You aren't, for instance, in Darfur fighting to defend people, even though you could. That's standing by and watching it happen. According to your definition, that's evil.

This is the most elementary, asinine, specious response I could think of - I was hoping you wouldn't go there INTJ but you did. I will respond anyway since I doubt you are the only one who would respond that way.

It logically follows from my statements that one has the most responsibility to those closest to oneself and to those who support your existence to prevent and cure "suffering, injury, or destruction." Claiming that because one does not intervene against every single evil in the world makes one evil is simply ridiculous. You know if you are making the best effort you can. For example, as a U.S. citizen, even though I do not always appreciate my government's actions, I do think as a rich and powerful country we have more responsibility to help those in need - more responsibility than say Chile or Belgium or Lesotho or Australia (but I do not believe in this the way Bush does; that is another story). My primary responsibilities are to my family; then friends, neighbors, co-workers; then strangers - in most cases. Sudan is an exceptional evil; it requires bumping Sudan up the list from "strangers" to "neighbors." And I would not recommend getting in a contest with me over which one of us has spent more time, money, and effort helping others.

Instead of trying so hard to poke holes in other's arguments, maybe try to strengthen your own? You were so intent on "proving me wrong" you missed what I was saying. I did NOT say "standing by and watching it happen" is "evil." Here is what I said: "if you see suffering, injury, or destruction being done to another living being by yourself or anyone else, it is your responsibility to stop it." Not the same thing. For those of us who actually interact with other people, it is clear we do not have the time, effort, or stamina to fix every wrong we see - no one, especially not god, would propose or expect that.

ps- I would recommend dropping your implicit vulgar Aristotelian logic that there is A and not-A, and thus A is not not-A and not-A is not A. Because it is not true.

lollardy2000 added to this post, 6 minutes and 30 seconds later...

Totally wrong. Faith has absolutely nothing to do with how you view life. Being grateful has nothing to do with having faith that an invisible intangible pink unicorn lives in my basement, or a giant invisible beard exists in the sky, or that there is a floating mountain in the sky, or that there is a tree which 9 different worlds hang from. Just because I don't believe without evidence doesn't mean I don't feel gratitude, or acknowledge others' importance to me.

Really, how old are you - 9? Who is talking about unicorns or beards? We are talking about tangible things. There are other threads for mental disorders and psychedelic drugs.

No one said believing without evidence precludes feeling gratitude.

But faith has EVERYTHING to do with how you view life. Faith has a lot to do with evidence. This very discussion is evidence of these two facts.

And I don't think it matters how much you "feel" gratitude or others' importance to you - you are supposed to put it in practice.

lollardy2000 added to this post, 1 minutes and 55 seconds later...

Meanwhile logic says we wouldn't be here thinking "dern we didn't win the existence lottery" if all those circumstances hadn't fallen into place. We are a product of all those circumstances. We exist the way we do because of all the things before us.

Glad we agree. Now, my question is - what does this matter? What is the importance or significance or meaning or implication or relevance of this? Because what I see a lot of on this forum is logic divorced from any sense of importance or significance or meaning or implication or relevance.

PHS Philip

07-08-2008, 12:46 PM

It logically follows from my statements that one has the most responsibility to those closest to oneself and to those who support your existence to prevent and cure "suffering, injury, or destruction." Claiming that because one does not intervene against every single evil in the world makes one evil is simply ridiculous.

So where do you draw the line? Is it evil to stand by while someone gets mugged? Is it evil not to run to help if you hear gunshots a block over? How about two? What if you hear about someone who needs help from a friend? What about if you hear about it on the radio?

And why exactly does it "logically follow" that you have more responsibility to those close to you? And have you devoted your entire life to that? Not just invested lots of time, but actually spent your life doing it? According to your definition, you're evil if you haven't.

You know if you are making the best effort you can. For example, as a U.S. citizen, even though I do not always appreciate my government's actions, I do think as a rich and powerful country we have more responsibility to help those in need - more responsibility than say Chile or Belgium or Lesotho or Australia (but I do not believe in this the way Bush does; that is another story). My primary responsibilities are to my family; then friends, neighbors, co-workers; then strangers - in most cases. Sudan is an exceptional evil; it requires bumping Sudan up the list from "strangers" to "neighbors." And I would not recommend getting in a contest with me over which one of us has spent more time, money, and effort helping others.

By your definition of evil, any leisure time at all is evil while there is any suffering you know of and could help alleviate.

I did NOT say "standing by and watching it happen" is "evil." Here is what I said: "if you see suffering, injury, or destruction being done to another living being by yourself or anyone else, it is your responsibility to stop it." Not the same thing. For those of us who actually interact with other people, it is clear we do not have the time, effort, or stamina to fix every wrong we see - no one, esp. not god, would propose that.

Actally, no, you did. Very clearly. I'll quote it again.

or to stand by and watch it happen and do nothing.

And in fact, the two mean the same thing anyway. Both say that, if you know of suffering and don't do your utmost to alleviate it, you are evil.

You're just throwing insults around in your posts, like "For those of us who actually interact with other people" and "This is the most elementary, asinine, specious response I could think of."

If you don't mean absolutes, then don't use them when you don't have to.

PHSphilip added to this post, 5 minutes and 15 seconds later...

Really, how old are you - 9? Who is talking about unicorns or beards? We are talking about tangible things. There are other threads for mental disorders and psychedelic drugs.

No one said believing without evidence precludes feeling gratitude.

But faith has EVERYTHING to do with how you view life. Faith has a lot to do with evidence. This very discussion is evidence of these two facts.

And I don't think it matters how much you "feel" gratitude or others' importance to you - you are supposed to put it in practice.

Oh, so you're making up definitions now, eh? And really, insulting me doesn't make your case any stronger.

faith –noun: belief that is not based on proof; belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion

I don't believe in any religion, and I don't believe things without proof. Therefore, I don't have faith. But you said,

You cannot pretend away your responsibility for other beings and the earth simply because you refuse to acknowledge their importance to you. Faith is knowing all this without needing a Jumbotron to see it.

I'd say that that quite firmly proclaims that gratitude and caring about others is only through faith.

lollardy2000

07-08-2008, 12:51 PM

So where do you draw the line?

I never said failing makes one evil. Humans are weak; they don't always do what they should. That does not make them evil. I think the "line" moves somewhat in different situations - when there is urgency, like Darfur. And you cannot always define, for every conceivable situation, where the line is or should be. But humans have been around long enough, as have our systems of law, religion, philosophy, and medicine that we have generally worked through enough evil situations either to know the answer, or to know how to look to find the answer. And of course we are always inventing new evils. Like I first said, a lot of it comes down to intentions - but you cannot ignore results. Both are necessary.

And I refuse to respond to this statement:
By your definition of evil, any leisure time at all is evil while there is any suffering you know of and could help alleviate.
It may seem logical to you, but just because you can think of something in your head doesn't mean it has anything to do with reality - like pink unicorns.

PHS Philip

07-08-2008, 01:02 PM

I never said failing makes one evil.

If you'll read what I wrote, you'll find that I didn't say that you said that.

Humans are weak; they don't always do what they should. That does not make them evil

EVIL is the INTENTION to do "suffering, injury, or destruction" to another living being - or to stand by and watch it happen and do nothing.

Do I really need to keep doing this?

But humans have been around long enough, as have our systems of law, religion, philosophy, and medicine that we have generally worked through enough evil situations either to know the answer, or to know how to look to find the answer. And of course we are always inventing new evils. Like I first said, a lot of it comes down to intentions - but you cannot ignore results. Both are necessary.

How is that relevant? We're not talking about the process of determining whether it is evil. We're talking specifically about your definition of evil, and the fact that you include in it failure to act (before you try to misinterpret that, failure to act does not mean acting and failing. It means not acting). You're diverting the argument away from the point. But if you want, I'll respond anyway.

We often don't successfully determine what evil is. We still, for instance, don't think that tricking people into ending their treatments for life threatening illnesses is evil, and most people don't even doubt that it's fine. I'm referring, of course, to things like homeopathy and naturopathy. These things are evil because they can cause immense amounts of harm, but where is the outcry? No one really cares about it, or most other terrible things people do.

It may seem logical to you, but just because you can think of something in your head doesn't mean it has anything to do with reality - like pink unicorns.

I agree. The only problem with your point here is that what we are talking about is your idea. I pointed out your idea's logical conclusion, but it was your idea.

lollardy2000

07-08-2008, 01:11 PM

How is that relevant? We're not talking about the process of determining whether it is evil. We're talking specifically about your definition of evil, and the fact that you include in it failure to act (before you try to misinterpret that, failure to act does not mean acting and failing. It means not acting). You're diverting the argument away from the point. But if you want, I'll respond anyway.

We often don't successfully determine what evil is. We still, for instance, don't think that tricking people into ending their treatments for life threatening illnesses is evil, and most people don't even doubt that it's fine. I'm referring, of course, to things like homeopathy and naturopathy. These things are evil because they can cause immense amounts of harm, but where is the outcry? No one really cares about it, or most other terrible things people do.

How can you say "We're not talking about the process of determining whether it is evil" and then "We often don't successfully determine what evil is"? Contradictory if unintentional, disingenuous if intentional.

I agree that "failure to act does not mean acting and failing. It means not acting." It's a general not absolute rule, since we cannot respond to all the world's evils. Unless we accept we are all a little bit evil; which is also fine with me.

And not knowing what evil is all the time is part of this general-not-absolute-rule - we should not respond unless we know what we are dealing with. So we will understate some evils and overstate other evils and miss some entirely - does that make us evil? - no.

So what is YOUR definition of evil? Is it blueback's that "Evil is an interesting concept. 'Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction' So, in a sense, anything which causes 'suffering, injury or destruction' has at least a component of evil in it"? Is intentionality irrelevant?

Bobleplask

07-08-2008, 01:17 PM

I'm getting tired of explaining this idea over and over again.

Words have specific definitions. For example:
Belief: Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something
Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence
Evidence: Something indicative; an outward sign
Logical: based on known statements or events or conditions

So, as you can see from the above definitions, there is a difference between faith and what you are calling faith. It is fine to say that you BELIEVE a rock will fall when you throw it, but not to say that you have FAITH the rock will fall when you throw it. To have faith that the rock will fall you have to have no "logical proof or material evidence" to base your conclusion on. If you have evidence, like the simple fact that no one has ever thrown a rock and not had it fall down, then your conclusion is based on evidence and it is not faith.

Faith is a real part of many people's lives, but it is unnecessary. It is entirely possible to go through an entire life only forming conclusions based on evidence. The conclusion that there is an afterlife requires faith, but isn't necessary. The conclusion that rocks fall when you throw them has so much evidence backing it up that it can't possibly be faith but is none-the-less very useful in daily life.

From what you are writing Blueback I read that it's a given that logic is failproof, but from what I stated earlier - nothing really is.

If no one has ever thrown a rock that does not fall down does not make that something true. It makes it most likely true. True enough so that you can live your day to day life by those rules, but in the concept of God and some of these bigger issues then if something can be doubted it is flawed and not good enough to be called evidence.

Logic can be doubted. So can material evidence.

So where does that leave Faith?

Or Belief for that matter, as I guess what you believe in is the things that logic and material evidence backs up convinces you.

---

Someone stated later the concept of A and not-A.
It could be possible for A to be not-A.
How? I do not know. It's beyond my flawed brain to understand the concept, but that does not mean that it is not so.

---

And regarding the concept of Evil. The way I see it: If God exists, then evil exists. If God does not exist then neither good or evil exist, only neutral. Or selfishness one could say.

Evil, in a world where God exists would be where someone did something bad towards someone else just for doing something bad to someone else. If they gain anything at all on it, then it is not evil - just selfishness.

PHS Philip

07-08-2008, 01:20 PM

How can you say "We're not talking about the process of determining whether it is evil" and then "We often don't successfully determine what evil is"? Contradictory if unintentional, disingenuous if intentional.

I agree that "failure to act does not mean acting and failing. It means not acting." It's a general not absolute rule, since we cannot respond to all the world's evils. Unless we accept we are all a little bit evil; which is also fine with me.

And not knowing what evil is all the time is part of this general-not-absolute-rule - we should not respond unless we know what we are dealing with. So we will understate some evils and overstate other evils and miss some entirely - does that make us evil? - no.

So what is YOUR definition of evil? Is it blueback's that "Evil is an interesting concept. 'Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction' So, in a sense, anything which causes 'suffering, injury or destruction' has at least a component of evil in it"? Is intentionality irrelevant?

I'm not going to bother. I could keep quoting your previous posts, and the parts of mine you ignore, but you seem to just ignore that anyway.

phantasma

07-08-2008, 04:35 PM

No kidding! These beliefs are not "Christian" at all!!! This sounds like some mix of wiccan, gnosticism, new age, and what YOU want to believe (the last is typical INT_ trait). I don't care one way or the other (and your last 3 paragraphs seem agreeable) - but let's be honest here.

Actually, in all honesty, it's Christian. It's totally in line with the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Saint

07-08-2008, 05:30 PM

Ignoring ALL other things about a potential god. Why would a god hide and require faith?

Plausible Deniability.

*Atheists I know what you want to say :devilish: but play devils advocate here (and don't mockingly half arse it!)

Oops.

TheLastMohican

07-08-2008, 05:35 PM

Actually, in all honesty, it's Christian. It's totally in line with the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

It is not mainstream Christian. You should not call it "Christian" without qualifying your statement.

PHS Philip

07-08-2008, 05:46 PM

It is not mainstream Christian. You should not call it "Christian" without qualifying your statement.

He did qualify it, at least sort of. "Well, this wouldn't be the view of your typical Christian"

TheLastMohican

07-08-2008, 06:18 PM

He did qualify it, at least sort of. "Well, this wouldn't be the view of your typical Christian"

Sort of. Not everyone agrees that LDS is Christian.

Actually, in all honesty, it's Christian. It's totally in line with the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

blueback

07-08-2008, 08:49 PM

From what you are writing Blueback I read that it's a given that logic is failproof, but from what I stated earlier - nothing really is.

Really? You decided to go with that argument?

I never claimed anything was "failproof" which, BTW, is a weird term to use in this context. Dictionary.com didn't even have a listing for "failproof" so apparently it's not commonly accepted as a real word. Since you are making up words, and not defining them, your sentence could mean anything.

Beyond that, apparently you decided to interpret what I actually wrote as if I had written something different which you already knew you could shoot down. . .that's called a "strawman" argument.

Okay, I'll now respond to your sentence based on the portions of your point I think have managed to make it through the filter of your poor communication skills: Sure, whatever. Is it even necessary to point out that people can make mistakes? That is what I think you are saying, that we can screw up when we try to use logic. If you're saying that logic itself is somehow inherently falwed then we are working with fundamentally different presuppositions.

If no one has ever thrown a rock that does not fall down does not make that something true. It makes it most likely true. True enough so that you can live your day to day life by those rules, but in the concept of God and some of these bigger issues then if something can be doubted it is flawed and not good enough to be called evidence.

You know, your choice of arguments aren't providing me with a challenge.

"if something can be doubted is is flawed". . . .really? So, according to you, an argument is flawed simply because it is doubted. Not doubted because it is flawed, but the flaw is produced by the doubt.

You are wrong. Our mental model has no effect on reality. Things are what they are no matter what we think they are. If we get it right, good for us, if we get it wrong, the universe just keeps chugging away like it always did. Reality is perfect; our conception of it can be flawed. Therefore, since evidence is something "indicative," evidence is what we use to correct our mental model of reality. "Indicative" is a low threshold.

In the example, if no one has ever not seen a rock drop after it was thrown that "indicates" that no rock ever has or ever will. That is evidence. It is not proof. What you are doing is trying to pretend that evidence is the same as proof. The reason there are different words is that they cover different concepts. Evidence is an easy standard to qualify for, proof is a difficult one. Stop misuing the language. The better your understanding of the words you are using the clearer your thinking will be.

Logic can be doubted. So can material evidence.
So where does that leave Faith?
Or Belief for that matter, as I guess what you believe in is the things that logic and material evidence backs up convinces you.

I'm not quite sure if there is a point there, but I'll just respond with the first thought that pops into my head.

It is impossible to maintain life without using evidence to form useful conclusions. The reason babies are so helpless is that they have no evidence to base conclusions on yet. They don't even know how to use their limbs, let alone form coherent thoughts. As a baby experiments with control of their body the accumulate evidence about how best to get it to do things. After they have enough evidence they gain control. This isn't a difficult concept to understand unless you are so blindly attached to the idea of faith that you have to pretend faith is all that exists.

Someone stated later the concept of A and not-A.
It could be possible for A to be not-A.
How? I do not know. It's beyond my flawed brain to understand the concept, but that does not mean that it is not so.

Right. Have fun trying to think when your brain is full of contradictions.

Without the assumption that things are what they are; that A is A and ~A is ~A. . .well you can't think about anything. Everything becomes logically impossible. You see, you have to define things as they are first or you can't even have logic.

If you define A = X, A can equal anything, then your "logic" eats itself. If A can be anything, including the exact opposite of A, then your statement that A = X can be anything else. (A=X) = X.

If your first conclusion is that no conclusion is valid then you can't even have that first conclusion. For any philosophy your first conclusion MUST be that something is what it is, that A=A, or you can't move forward.

You think you covered that with your "I do not know" line, but you didn't. All you did was abuse the structure of the english language and then claim that just because it was possible to say that it must be real.

Bobleplask

07-09-2008, 09:20 AM

Really? You decided to go with that argument?

Looks like I did.

I never claimed anything was "failproof" which, BTW, is a weird term to use in this context. Dictionary.com didn't even have a listing for "failproof" so apparently it's not commonly accepted as a real word. Since you are making up words, and not defining them, your sentence could mean anything.

To clarify a few things, and to answer your somewhat personal attacks. English is not my native language. And fun fact about my native language (Norwegian) the word for evidence and proof is one and the same. So this might have shaded my view on the matter, but fear not! I do understand the difference. At this point I am tempted to counter your claim that I am making up words, my poor communication skills and the "You are wrong." with claiming you lack the concept of understanding others. But this is not a level I would fall to, so I won't.

Beyond that, apparently you decided to interpret what I actually wrote as if I had written something different which you already knew you could shoot down. . .that's called a "strawman" argument.

Sure, whatever.

Okay, I'll now respond to your sentence based on the portions of your point I think have managed to make it through the filter of your poor communication skills: Sure, whatever. Is it even necessary to point out that people can make mistakes? That is what I think you are saying, that we can screw up when we try to use logic. If you're saying that logic itself is somehow inherently falwed then we are working with fundamentally different presuppositions.

Flawed actually. I think that's just what I am saying. I could be wrong, so let's go back and look:

[...]but in the concept of God and some of these bigger issues then if something can be doubted it is flawed and not good enough to be called evidence.

Logic can be doubted.

Yup.

After this there might not be any point to answer the rest of your post since your arguments might have been based on me and you looking at logic with the same eyes.

But.. Where is the fun in that?

You know, your choice of arguments aren't providing me with a challenge.

Okay. I guess we're even then. Or we just might agree on some levels.

"if something can be doubted is is flawed". . . .really? So, according to you, an argument is flawed simply because it is doubted. Not doubted because it is flawed, but the flaw is produced by the doubt.

Short answer: Yes.

Longer: I do not know of anything that cannot be doubted. I do believe that if something like a God one day showed up and said "HAI GAIZ!" it would be in a way that was impossible to doubt. This has never happened to me though. I can doubt everything else however.

You are wrong. Our mental model has no effect on reality. Things are what they are no matter what we think they are. If we get it right, good for us, if we get it wrong, the universe just keeps chugging away like it always did. Reality is perfect; our conception of it can be flawed. Therefore, since evidence is something "indicative," evidence is what we use to correct our mental model of reality. "Indicative" is a low threshold.

How do you know reality is perfect?

I think it is. I have faith in it actually. But do I know this?
No.
Are there certain things, so called evidence that could lead me to the conclusion that it is perfect?
Yes.

But all that is happening is me claiming it is. Me and my mind. Other than that - the perfect or imperfect universe still continues whatever it is probably doing.

In the example, if no one has ever not seen a rock drop after it was thrown that "indicates" that no rock ever has or ever will. That is evidence. It is not proof. What you are doing is trying to pretend that evidence is the same as proof. The reason there are different words is that they cover different concepts. Evidence is an easy standard to qualify for, proof is a difficult one. Stop misuing the language. The better your understanding of the words you are using the clearer your thinking will be.

So to clarify a little more.

By proof you are saying something is absolutely true?
And with evidence you are saying that it is something that points in the direction that something is true. Enough evidence will eventually mean they have become proof?

This is the part where I say that I have never seen or heard of proof by these standards. But that is how I see proof and evidence.

I'm not quite sure if there is a point there, but I'll just respond with the first thought that pops into my head.

It is impossible to maintain life without using evidence to form useful conclusions. The reason babies are so helpless is that they have no evidence to base conclusions on yet. They don't even know how to use their limbs, let alone form coherent thoughts. As a baby experiments with control of their body the accumulate evidence about how best to get it to do things. After they have enough evidence they gain control. This isn't a difficult concept to understand unless you are so blindly attached to the idea of faith that you have to pretend faith is all that exists.

By maintaining life, do you meant "to continue breathing"? Can you actually give me proof of this? Like I said earlier, for me, logic can be doubted and it is not valid as evidence for absolute truth. It can be used to make something plausible though. And it is plausible that it is impossible to continue breathing/maintain life without forming useful conclusions.

It's a brave thing to claim something is impossible. Is it impossible to wrap your head around the thought that logic is not a valid tool to find absolute truth? I don't think so, but you might..?

Right. Have fun trying to think when your brain is full of contradictions.

Sure, whatever. (It's a nice sentence, is it not?)

Without the assumption that things are what they are; that A is A and ~A is ~A. . .well you can't think about anything. Everything becomes logically impossible. You see, you have to define things as they are first or you can't even have logic.

I agree. And I discarded logic when it comes to the question of God.

I still use it when doing mathematics or other everyday tasks however. It makes thing easier. “logically impossible” is not the same as impossible.

If you define A = X, A can equal anything, then your "logic" eats itself. If A can be anything, including the exact opposite of A, then your statement that A = X can be anything else. (A=X) = X.

If your first conclusion is that no conclusion is valid then you can't even have that first conclusion. For any philosophy your first conclusion MUST be that something is what it is, that A=A, or you can't move forward.

Yes, you are quite observant!

I can't move forward. The conclusion I am left with here in the middle of anything is "Maybe, but I do not know".

You think you covered that with your "I do not know" line, but you didn't.

Oops, I did it again!?

All you did was abuse the structure of the english language and then claim that just because it was possible to say that it must be real.

Sure. Whatever.
I would like to add something regarding logic. A few years ago, 600 of them or so.. People used the bible or interpretations of it to prove things. They said without the bible we could not maintain a life. And if you tried to use pure logic to prove anything that might go against what the bible said – they killed you. Or at least made you shut up. But after a while things quiet down and we found out that even though the book was old and might have been put together by a gang of crazy people, but who were bright for their time, it did not necessarily have all the answers we were seeking. So we started using our logic and experiments. This made us discover a whole lot of new things. And we saw that it was probably useful.

My point is that we used faith and it got us only so long down the road. We started using logic and we came further. And from my point of view the two are not really that far away from each other. I do not think you will ever agree with me on this, and that is not really important. For nothing is really important when we can never really find out what is true and what is not. So even if we did use faith in the bible and our logic of the mind we did not necessarily get further down any road.
You are welcome to go looking for truth, but I think it is a quest you’ll never complete. You might even think you have found it at some point, but my question will always be: Can it be doubted?
And I think it always will.

lollardy2000

07-09-2008, 12:35 PM

Can we get back on topic here? It was going good at first. "WHY require faith" seems to me to mean "what good is it for?" not "how many ways can we explain away the meaning of the word?"

Bobleplask

07-09-2008, 12:49 PM

So read it again.

muguly

07-09-2008, 12:59 PM

It's like this: faith is required because it is a great motivator. Example: people listen to trainers and diet experts with faith their advice will help the reach their weight loss goals. Example: you go to work everyday and have faith that at the end of the pay period you will have been compensated for you time.

Faith is the glue that holds promises together. You gotta believe it( by it I mean anything) is going to happen or you wouldn't waste your time.

Beery Swine

07-09-2008, 03:17 PM

I have heard faith described as something like "believing in something you have no evidence for and then waiting for the evidence to change." Is this scientific or not?

It is neither scientific nor non-scientific. It's simply one commonly accepted definition of faith.

I have learned that the best guarantee for something to fail or not work or lose is to not believe (or 'have faith') in it. If you believe in something, say yourself, you may or may not get what you want, but you have the drive, motivation, will, whatever. If you don't believe you can do something, you won't do it. Is this faith? Even if "every single good thing in the world has been produced by proven action," didn't the chain of events that led to the action *necessarily* start with faith that the action COULD happen?

That's funny, because I expected Elijah Wood to competely suck balls with his portrayal of Frodo in Fellowship of the Ring, yet despite my lack of faith, he did what I would call a more than adequate job. Seems like things turned out the way they were gonna turn out regardless of what I thought at the time, or regardless of my "lack of faith" in Elijah. There were also plenty of times I believed/thought/had "faith" that I could do something, like throw a sticky on some random character in Halo, only to find out that I couldn't, or at least not that time. I guess the AI of virtual character had more faith in himself than I did in myself.

I see the usual refrains of "god let me down" and "god created bad things" and "god is a crutch" and "I only believe in facts/logic." These things may or may not be true; let's set that aside for a moment. Isn't it possible or likely that even supposing a god (since *NOT* supposing a god automatically leads to this conclusion anyways), humans still created and create sin and failure and bad things? And isn't it possible or likely that even supposing this last statement, god allowed this to happen? And if so, for what reasons?

An omniscient and omnipotent God (nevermind the paradoxes) created humans knowing they would "create" "sin" leads to the logical conclusion that God created "sin." If God created humans in a slightly different way with slightly different urges yet kept their so called "free will" intact (and being that this God is all-powerful necessitates that this God could very well have chosen to do just that) there may have been no sin. An omnipotent and omniscient God that created everything the exact way it wanted to create everything (and if the creations didn't come out exactly as it wanted them to, who or what could have caused this to befall an omni___ God?) would therefore, logically, have wanted to "create" what you call "sin." An all-powerful and all-knowing God's existence would mean that anything and everything that happens does so according to it's exact will.

Beery Swine added to this post, 10 minutes and 56 seconds later...

Sort of. Not everyone agrees that LDS is Christian.

Whoa, whoa, this sounds like the Scotsman fallacy. I could be wrong.

LDS: take entirety of Christian Bible and add some other superfluous and slightly more nonsensical stuff to it. <-- Seems Christian to me.

On the other hand, I could see someone (myself) making the argument that with that logic all Christians must also be Jews. That case would be a little tougher to go against while still supporting the Mormon=Christian stance, plus I'd have to actually do some research on the traditions and customs and ceremonies of LDS and that is just too much like work, so I'll just say I think the differences are significant enough between Jews and Christians to qualify as different while Mormons and Christians are similar enough to bear the same over-arching label.

blueback

07-09-2008, 06:35 PM

You are welcome to go looking for truth, but I think it is a quest you’ll never complete. You might even think you have found it at some point, but my question will always be: Can it be doubted?
And I think it always will.

I think I can safely ignore the rest of your response and focus on this.

You say that if someone doubts an argument that the argument is THEREFORE flawed. I would like to focus on that because it seems to me that you are reversing the linear nature of cause and effect.

A flawed argument (cause) can cause doubt in someone's mind (effect). However, a doubt in someone's mind (cause) cannot cause a flaw in an argument (effect). The flaw either exists or it doesn't. The flaw's existence doesn't depend on whether or not someone doubts the argument.

By your preceding "logic" the fact that I doubt your argument means that it is flawed. Therefore, your argument is flawed. Fix it. Oh, wait! You can't fix it unless you come up with an argument that I can't possibly doubt. But. . .wait. Just because I can't possibly doubt your argument doesn't mean it doesn't still have a flaw.

To expand on this idea, by your "logic" your own conclusion that you can't be sure is flawed. This is a strange place to find oneself because how can a conclusion that you can't reach a conclusion be flawed? That would have to mean that you actually could reach a conclusion, so the "I don't know" conclusion is wrong.

Of course, I've been analyzing your position with logic, but you abandoned logic in your position. To actually analyze your position according to your own standards I guess I would have to abandon logic too. Can you explain your position without logic? If you can't explain your position does that mean that you don't have one or does it mean that I have to learn how to think without logic?

blueback added to this post, 4 minutes and 27 seconds later...

LDS: take entirety of Christian Bible and add some other superfluous and slightly more nonsensical stuff to it. <-- Seems Christian to me.

On the other hand, I could see someone (myself) making the argument that with that logic all Christians must also be Jews.

Yeah. If I understand LDS correctly the stuff they "add" to the Bible was from Christ when he appeared in the Americas after his resurrection. So, in the same sense that some Jews became Christians when they accepted Jesus as the Christ, but some didn't so they didn't, some Christians become LDS when they accepted Jesus kept preaching in America, but some didn't so they didn't.

Jew + some stuff = Christian
Christian + some stuff = LDS

Bobleplask

07-10-2008, 07:56 AM

You say that if someone doubts an argument that the argument is THEREFORE flawed. I would like to focus on that because it seems to me that you are reversing the linear nature of cause and effect.

Not really what I am saying. I am saying that if it can be doubted. Not if someone doubts it. If it we would have to wait for that, then every argument that none have managed to think of would be flawless.

A flawed argument (cause) can cause doubt in someone's mind (effect). However, a doubt in someone's mind (cause) cannot cause a flaw in an argument (effect). The flaw either exists or it doesn't. The flaw's existence doesn't depend on whether or not someone doubts the argument.

The flaw does not come into existence whether or not someone doubts the argument, this is correct. The flaw might be present even if humans did not exist.

By your preceding "logic" the fact that I doubt your argument means that it is flawed. Therefore, your argument is flawed. Fix it. Oh, wait! You can't fix it unless you come up with an argument that I can't possibly doubt. But. . .wait. Just because I can't possibly doubt your argument doesn't mean it doesn't still have a flaw.

Fixing it would mean I would most likely be God. I would present you with absolute truth. I do not think I have that ability.

To expand on this idea, by your "logic" your own conclusion that you can't be sure is flawed. This is a strange place to find oneself because how can a conclusion that you can't reach a conclusion be flawed? That would have to mean that you actually could reach a conclusion, so the "I don't know" conclusion is wrong.

Strange is just your opinion.

The conclusion that I can't reach a conclusion can be flawed. Because I might be wrong. I am not saying I am right. I am saying you might be wrong. Not that you are not right. Your opinion on anything at all might be 100% correct. But the chances that anyone is not wrong about something are quite slim. And the way I see it, you cling to your tools you use for finding the truth like they were perfect. But I see them as potentially flawed.

Of course, I've been analyzing your position with logic, but you abandoned logic in your position. To actually analyze your position according to your own standards I guess I would have to abandon logic too. Can you explain your position without logic? If you can't explain your position does that mean that you don't have one or does it mean that I have to learn how to think without logic?

I'll try. With use of the A's.

I am not saying A = ~A.
I am saying A = X

And with logic that can not be done. A will always be A. A thing will be what it is no matter what it is behind all the illusions. Abandon logic and a thing might not be what it is behind all the illusions.

blueback

07-10-2008, 08:36 AM

So your position is that it's impossible to have a position. Don't you see how inherently flawed that is?

You keep saying that nothing can be certain, but that means you can't be certain that nothing can be certain.

You CANNOT start from the assumption that you can't be right. If you start from that assumption then the assumption itself is flawed and you can't build anything off of it.

Your founing assumption must always be that SOMETHING CAN BE RIGHT so that your founding assumption can be right.

If you cling to the claim that nothing can be certain than you are also saying that you might be wrong and maybe things can be certain, which would mean that you are really saying IT IS POSSIBLE THAT NOTHING CAN BE CERTAIN. However, there is no difference between that and saying IT IS POSSIBLE THAT EVERYTHING CAN BE CERTAIN. To choose one over the other you have to make a judgment call about probability and then you are claiming that your estimation of probability is certain. Besides, just to use the words you have to be certain of their meaning, otherwise no communication could ever happen.

Therefore A = A

lollardy2000

07-10-2008, 09:29 AM

That's funny, because I expected Elijah Wood to competely suck balls with his portrayal of Frodo in Fellowship of the Ring, yet despite my lack of faith, he did what I would call a more than adequate job. Seems like things turned out the way they were gonna turn out regardless of what I thought at the time, or regardless of my "lack of faith" in Elijah. There were also plenty of times I believed/thought/had "faith" that I could do something, like throw a sticky on some random character in Halo, only to find out that I couldn't, or at least not that time. I guess the AI of virtual character had more faith in himself than I did in myself.

Because YOUR faith or actions or whatever had no bearing on those of Elijah Wood. In this case, your mind was producing an "expectation" as you say, which is different than "faith." Also, if you expected him to suck BUT hoped he would not, Christians might consider this "praying" (well, if it REALLY mattered and you genuinely cared about it for some reason).

An omniscient and omnipotent God (nevermind the paradoxes) created humans knowing they would "create" "sin" leads to the logical conclusion that God created "sin."

Just because you can *logically* abbreviate "god created humans who created sin" to "god created sin" does not make them the same statement with same implications, especially as people work out these implications in their daily lives. Also, as I have said before, lazy thinkers of various [non-]religious persuasions can use this type of thinking to absolve themselves of the responsibility for right action. I think "god created humans who created sin" and "god created sin" are both valid or true statements, but with different meanings and different implications. Remember, logic is the internal consistency of any given system, though different systems may share the same type of logic - "logic" itself is not a universal language, it is a type of system-correcting machine, though people will (wrongly) use it as a stand-alone language. I would venture to say the same thing about "faith" in a way - "faith" itself is not a universal language, it is a type of system-correcting machine (for different types of systems than logic is used for), though people will (wrongly) use it as a stand-alone language.

If God created humans in a slightly different way with slightly different urges yet kept their so called "free will" intact (and being that this God is all-powerful necessitates that this God could very well have chosen to do just that) there may have been no sin. An omnipotent and omniscient God that created everything the exact way it wanted to create everything (and if the creations didn't come out exactly as it wanted them to, who or what could have caused this to befall an omni___ God?) would therefore, logically, have wanted to "create" what you call "sin."

I disagree, though I used to agree. Maybe it's my age (30) - but I fail to see humans as anything but irrevocably frail, weak, broken, vain, greedy, lustful, etc - not all the time, but at some times, always with the potential to fall down, and there are few who can transcend this - jesus and buddha could be examples, but there is debate about even *their* failures and weaknesses as mortal entities. Also, the faults of our greatest moral leaders are well known (gandhi, MLK). god could have chosen to make us without sin - and in fact according to the bible he did - but we (adam and eve) chose sin, although clearly without thinking about the implications, it seems to me. But... god knew this would happen, as you say. Now, from a non-religious standpoint, what would we have to work for, achieve, or redeem if we were not by nature sinful? A flippant person would interpret me as saying sin is the spice of life - that is not true. Sin gives us the potential to be great. That, according to christians, is the gift god gave us when he gave us sin.

Brutananadilewski

07-10-2008, 09:38 AM

So your position is that it's impossible to have a objective position. Don't you see how inherently flawed that is?

(I added the bold part)

His position isn't inherently flawed, it's inherently devoid of practical utility. It's not invalid, it's just useless on a daily basis for the purposes of achievement and survival.

If we limit ourselves to pondering only that which is practically useful, we close our minds and imaginations off to endless exploratory possibilities and understandings about the universe.

blueback

07-10-2008, 09:59 AM

Stop apologizing for him. You had to add "objective" because I didn't include it in the sentence. But I didn't include it in the sentence because it wasn't appropriate.

Bobleplask

07-10-2008, 10:51 AM

So your position is that it's impossible to have a position. Don't you see how inherently flawed that is?
It is impossible unless we have some stable ground. I do not have that ground. and from what I know, no one does.

You keep saying that nothing can be certain, but that means you can't be certain that nothing can be certain.

Correct.

You CANNOT start from the assumption that you can't be right. If you start from that assumption then the assumption itself is flawed and you can't build anything off of it.

What makes it so that I cannot start from the assumption that I can't be right? Something like that seems like a very stable ground indeed, and might be worth building something on. Sadly, I cannot start from that assumption and the ground falls to pieces.

Your founing assumption must always be that SOMETHING CAN BE RIGHT so that your founding assumption can be right.

You are back at logic again, but if something is right (one of the possibilities that exists outside logic is that nothing is right) then yes, it would be best to start with the assumption that something can be right. But if there exists things that we "MUST" or "CANNOT", then we would have somethign to work with. Does such a thing exist?

If you cling to the claim that nothing can be certain than you are also saying that you might be wrong and maybe things can be certain, which would mean that you are really saying IT IS POSSIBLE THAT NOTHING CAN BE CERTAIN. However, there is no difference between that and saying IT IS POSSIBLE THAT EVERYTHING CAN BE CERTAIN. To choose one over the other you have to make a judgment call about probability and then you are claiming that your estimation of probability is certain. Besides, just to use the words you have to be certain of their meaning, otherwise no communication could ever happen.

You are quite right.

I am not saying everything IS not true.

It is a possibility that everything cannot not true.
It is also possible that everything can be true

How do you suggest we choose which of the two options we should go with?

Therefore A = A

A = X

It might be A, and it might be something else.

(I added the bold part)

His position isn't inherently flawed, it's inherently devoid of practical utility. It's not invalid, it's just useless on a daily basis for the purposes of achievement and survival.

If we limit ourselves to pondering only that which is practically useful, we close our minds and imaginations off to endless exploratory possibilities and understandings about the universe.

Thank you. And yes. In everyday life it would be difficult to survive thinking like this. I use logic to alot of things and it is absolutly very useful to me and many others. But when trying to defines if God exist and if he exists, why he would require faith of us, then I tend to discard everything that I have the ability to doubt. This includes logic.

blueback

07-10-2008, 12:32 PM

Are you saying that in our reality A = A but an A in our reality might equal an X outside our reality?

Saint

07-10-2008, 03:13 PM

blueback, I hope you don't mind the interjection.

Bobleplask, I am amazed you are for real. I don't know how to say this nicely. Starting with the assumption that you cannot possibly be right? No wonder you haven't learned anything.

Bobleplask, your first two statements amount to saying that nobody has the grounds to ever make a position on anything. I imagine the textbooks in Bobleplaskistan are very short.

How exactly do you think that, over the discourse of thousands of years, we have sailed ships, sent men into space and created artificial hearts? Clearly they were right about some things. Clearly they had made postulations that they thought may work.

What's worse, it's obvious you don't believe your own position, since you've been arguing against it by the very act of making any argument at all.

Bobleplask

07-10-2008, 04:41 PM

Are you saying that in our reality A = A but an A in our reality might equal an X outside our reality?

No.

Among other things, I am saying there might not be a reality.

I do not know how you do in math, but you have mentioned electrical engineering so I assume it is not a foreign subject to you.

What do you do when you get an equation like: 2x = x

Can you find x then? Not really. So what do we do? We say "This can't be solved" and go to the next puzzle. Does this mean that the x in the equation has no value? No, it means we do not have the tools (knowledge, in this case) to find it.

Apply to life and you get what I am trying to say. Hopefully.

blueback, I hope you don't mind the interjection.

You are friends and all. He does not mind I think.

Bobleplask, I am amazed you are for real. I don't know how to say this nicely. Starting with the assumption that you cannot possibly be right? No wonder you haven't learned anything.

Amazed? Well.. what I am trying to say is that I might not be real.

I have not learned anything?

What is it that I have not learned that you or anyone else has learned?

Bobleplask, your first two statements amount to saying that nobody has the grounds to ever make a position on anything. I imagine the textbooks in Bobleplaskistan are very short.

No, they are extremly long. I seems some do not want to understand and ask for more text.

And yes, that is more or less what I am saying.

How exactly do you think that, over the discourse of thousands of years, we have sailed ships, sent men into space and created artificial hearts? Clearly they were right about some things. Clearly they had made postulations that they thought may work.

What if what you just said has never happend. Can you imagine that? I know your imagination (regarding last quote) might be some what small, but just try.

If it actually happened and it is not something we just imagine, then sure - they did something right. If not, then they did not really do any of those things and it will be hard for me to say that they did anything right if they did not really do it in the first place. Am I saying they did one or the other here? No. I am saying both things are possible.

What's worse, it's obvious you don't believe your own position, since you've been arguing against it by the very act of making any argument at all.

Okay.

This is said nicely back to you. You do not seem to be able to grasp what I am trying to explain. Your interjection might be some sort of friendly gesture towards Blueback, or you may have other reasons. If you really would like to try and see if anything I have said could actually be worth more than crocodile tears then go read a little about either Rene Descartes or philosophical skepticism.

ag·nos·tic Audio Help /ægˈnɒstɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ag-nos-tik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
–adjective
3. of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.
4. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.

I am tired now. I look forward to your replies.

And Blueback. Please answer the question in my last post please. It's not a trick. I am interested in your view on the matter.

Saint

07-10-2008, 06:50 PM

Bobleplask,
I friended blueback yesterday. I felt it rude to interject so far down the road of this argument regardless.

Well.. what I am trying to say is that I might not be real.

That's a problem. Earlier you even said "there might not be a reality."

There is one, by definition. There necessarily must be reality, because reality is a "state." Why you're quantifying it with "a" I'm not so sure.

Now, it can be said that "The reality we perceive is not correct/real/etc." Is this what you mean to say?

What is it that I have not learned that you or anyone else has learned?

Semantics.

What if what you just said [cited events in human history] has never happend. Can you imagine that?

If it actually happened ... If not ... Am I saying they did one or the other here? No. I am saying both things are possible.

It is possible that various things never happened and we're all magical poofs with implanted perceptions.

It's a grand thought if you're into mental masturbation. However, Functionally, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if we're magical poofs and nothing is real.

If you really would like to try and see if anything I have said could actually be worth more than crocodile tears then go read a little about either Rene Descartes or philosophical skepticism.

One of my degrees is in Philosophy. I've read enough of Descartes. Descartes never, ever did or said anything like starting from the assumption that one cannot be right. That is not how how philosophical skepticism was gone about in his discourse, or in the works of any other philosopher I know.

TheLastMohican

07-10-2008, 07:54 PM

Whoa, whoa, this sounds like the Scotsman fallacy. I could be wrong.

LDS: take entirety of Christian Bible and add some other superfluous and slightly more nonsensical stuff to it. <-- Seems Christian to me.

On the other hand, I could see someone (myself) making the argument that with that logic all Christians must also be Jews. That case would be a little tougher to go against while still supporting the Mormon=Christian stance, plus I'd have to actually do some research on the traditions and customs and ceremonies of LDS and that is just too much like work, so I'll just say I think the differences are significant enough between Jews and Christians to qualify as different while Mormons and Christians are similar enough to bear the same over-arching label.

Yeah. If I understand LDS correctly the stuff they "add" to the Bible was from Christ when he appeared in the Americas after his resurrection. So, in the same sense that some Jews became Christians when they accepted Jesus as the Christ, but some didn't so they didn't, some Christians become LDS when they accepted Jesus kept preaching in America, but some didn't so they didn't.

Jew + some stuff = Christian
Christian + some stuff = LDS

Point taken. There is plenty of ambiguous terminology to throw around, so I won't try to define "Christian" as any single set of doctrines. For clarification, I wasn't saying that I think LDS is not Christian, but pointing out that phantasma should not be too quick to call it "Christian," because LDS beliefs are by no means commonly accepted among Christians. I think the doctrines that vary from denomination to denomination should be labeled according to the denomination, not just as "Christian."

blueback

07-10-2008, 08:44 PM

Among other things, I am saying there might not be a reality.

The only two things I can think of are:
1) we exist in reality
2) we are a figment of an imagination and therefore do not exist in the way we think we do

I've been talking about 1) this whole time.

If it's 2) then I can think of three possibilities
2a) I am a figment of your imagination
2b) You are a figment of my imagination
2c) We are both figments of Saint's imagination (on insert whoever)

Thoughts?

I do not know how you do in math, but you have mentioned electrical engineering so I assume it is not a foreign subject to you.

What do you do when you get an equation like: 2x = x

An 'F'

But seriously, if you get that you made a mistake. I already addressed that with the 2 + 2 = 5 idea. If you get anything besides 2 + 2 = 4 then you made a mistake. The most common way of making mistakes of that sort is dividing by zero accidentally. Sometimes the equations can get so convoluted that you don't realize your denominator equals zero. You can never divide by zero. That doesn't mean that you can't set up an equation with zero in the denominator and work with it, it just means that, if you do, everything afterwards will be wrong.

Can you find x then? Not really. So what do we do? We say "This can't be solved" and go to the next puzzle. Does this mean that the x in the equation has no value? No, it means we do not have the tools (knowledge, in this case) to find it.

It's simpler than that. It means you made a mistake. That's what the equals sign is for, to figure out whether or not you got everything correct. If your result is that a thing is equal to itself modified then you made a mistake because those two values are obviously not equal. The equals sign, and the rules for applying it, are all the tools you need.

Apply to life and you get what I am trying to say. Hopefully.

I get that you think you are onto something, but I respectfully disagree.

I think you are getting sidetracked by a simple mistake. You see, our imagination grants us the capability to imagine things that we have not experienced yet. The simplest way to imagine something we have never experienced is to imagine the absense or presence of something. I can look at a tree and imagine it not being there. I can look at a field and imagine a tree in it.

Now, just because I can imagine the opposite of what actually exists doesn't mean the opposite actually exists. If you take the tree example and scale it up to all of reality you run into a problem. It is possible to imagine the opposite of everything existing, which would be nothing existing, but that doesn't mean it's real.

If it actually happened...

I am I correct in assuming that this case you are referring to is reality?

That would make the other case you referred to the one in which nothing really exists. That would be, perhaps, "areality." Can you hypothesize a way to tell the difference between reality and areality? Can you come up with a situation in which it would matter which one is real?

Bobleplask

07-11-2008, 06:42 AM

That's a problem. Earlier you even said "there might not be a reality."

There is one, by definition. There necessarily must be reality, because reality is a "state." Why you're quantifying it with "a" I'm not so sure.

Now, it can be said that "The reality we perceive is not correct/real/etc." Is this what you mean to say?

Why must there be a "state" at all?

And no, I meant to say that there is no guarantee that anything at all exists.

Now, you might ask, what is actually happening here then - with me and you and him have this discussion? It would be quite impossible for this to happen if nothing actually exists. Because this looks like something. And this is quite right - logically said. Take away logic, then how could this not be possible?

Semantics.

Okay. Sorry about that.

It is possible that various things never happened and we're all magical poofs with implanted perceptions.

It's a grand thought if you're into mental masturbation. However, Functionally, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if we're magical poofs and nothing is real.

Thinking if God exists or why the maybe-existing God requires faith of us? Well, I do see that as mental masturbation. Why do you not?

And yes, that is the choice I went with also. If we can not find the answer, then why bother looking for it? I am still probably here and things do seem to happen in my everyday life. So if something like truth exists or not, is not important in that part of life. I do not think I ever said such a thing either. If I did, or give you the impression of such, then I am sorry. It was not my intention to do so.

One of my degrees is in Philosophy. I've read enough of Descartes. Descartes never, ever did or said anything like starting from the assumption that one cannot be right. That is not how how philosophical skepticism was gone about in his discourse, or in the works of any other philosopher I know.

Maybe not, but he started with the assumption that he should remove anything that could be doubted. So if you did not have a degree or two, then it would be a good place to start. Descartes, as I am sure you know ended up with saying his ability to think could not be taken away from him and could not be doubted and with that proved his existence. I however, am able to imagine it could be taken away from him\me and therefor doubted.

Do you think logic is perfect? Why is logic not able to have errors? I do not mean humans using it wrong. I mean logic itself. Can it have a flaw? I think it can. I am not saying it does. I am saying it has the that option available to it. Why? Because I do not see anything that would make it perfect. And for logic to exist, it must have been made at some point? At least if we stay within the confines of logic.

The only two things I can think of are:
1) we exist in reality
2) we are a figment of an imagination and therefore do not exist in the way we think we do

I've been talking about 1) this whole time.

If it's 2) then I can think of three possibilities
2a) I am a figment of your imagination
2b) You are a figment of my imagination
2c) We are both figments of Saint's imagination (on insert whoever)

Thoughts?

Yes, I agree on 1 and 2.

But there is also this:

3) We do not exist and there is no figments.

All in all, when I say A = X, then it's saying it can be everything we can think of and everything we even can't think of. Unlimited choices.

An 'F'

But seriously, if you get that you made a mistake. I already addressed that with the 2 + 2 = 5 idea. If you get anything besides 2 + 2 = 4 then you made a mistake. The most common way of making mistakes of that sort is dividing by zero accidentally. Sometimes the equations can get so convoluted that you don't realize your denominator equals zero. You can never divide by zero. That doesn't mean that you can't set up an equation with zero in the denominator and work with it, it just means that, if you do, everything afterwards will be wrong.

It's simpler than that. It means you made a mistake. That's what the equals sign is for, to figure out whether or not you got everything correct. If your result is that a thing is equal to itself modified then you made a mistake because those two values are obviously not equal. The equals sign, and the rules for applying it, are all the tools you need.

Well.. I was thinking that the equation was presented to us, like a test of our knowledge about how equations work. Not that we endud up there ourselves.

And regarding zero and dividing. Math is man-made, so it is our rules that apply to that and not nature. But given enough time and resources, do you think we could find a way to divide by zero? Is it so that this does not work within the confines of the rules of math. An error in the system of some sort. Or do we just not have the tools needed yet?

I get that you think you are onto something, but I respectfully disagree.

I think you are getting sidetracked by a simple mistake. You see, our imagination grants us the capability to imagine things that we have not experienced yet. The simplest way to imagine something we have never experienced is to imagine the absense or presence of something. I can look at a tree and imagine it not being there. I can look at a field and imagine a tree in it.

Now, just because I can imagine the opposite of what actually exists doesn't mean the opposite actually exists. If you take the tree example and scale it up to all of reality you run into a problem. It is possible to imagine the opposite of everything existing, which would be nothing existing, but that doesn't mean it's real.

But how do decide that the tree is there or that the tree is not actually there? What tool is used to make the decision valid? And after that, what tool is used to decide if the tool we used regarding the tree is valid? And so it goes on.

I am I correct in assuming that this case you are referring to is reality?

That would make the other case you referred to the one in which nothing really exists. That would be, perhaps, "areality." Can you hypothesize a way to tell the difference between reality and areality? Can you come up with a situation in which it would matter which one is real?

I don't think I can to be honest. I am not saying we are in another reality than what we think. I am saying the possibility is there. It is also possible that there is no reality. The possibilities are endless. They are X. They can have any value.

I can try to give you what made me come to my conclusion.

Imagine that if you see something from several sides. What you see would be different. A dice for instance. Even if you see it in a (x,y) or (y,z), two dimensions somehow, then the dots would tell you it was something different about it.

I think it is safe to say that everything we have seen has this attribute. It looks different from different viewpoints. You could also say everything is relative. This opens up the option that what you see might be wrong, because you do not see all of it.

So where can you find something that has the quality opposite of everything?

Nothing presents itself. And I mean nothing. Like zero. Nothingness.

It can not be viewed from several viewpoints. If a viewpoint and a viewer exists to view nothing, then nothing would not exist. For nothing to exist, there can be nothing else. But it has the attribute of being static. It could be seen as something stable. It could be seen as true. And it could, because of this attribute might be used as a reference point to finding other true things.

Have you heard this question before? "Can God make a stone so heavy that not even God can lift it?"

Yes, if a\the God exists he is not bound by logic and can bypass that. It just means we do not understand how God did lift the stone he could not lift. It contradicts itself, but is still valid outside logic.

The observation of nothingness is based on logic, but logics take on nothingness does not allow such a thing as I presented. So I could try without logic from there. And with that thought I saw that if logic is discarded then everything is possible.

blueback

07-11-2008, 07:23 AM

I can try to give you what made me come to my conclusion.

Imagine that if you see something from several sides. What you see would be different. A dice for instance. Even if you see it in a (x,y) or (y,z), two dimensions somehow, then the dots would tell you it was something different about it.

I think it is safe to say that everything we have seen has this attribute. It looks different from different viewpoints. You could also say everything is relative. This opens up the option that what you see might be wrong, because you do not see all of it.

So where can you find something that has the quality opposite of everything?

Nothing presents itself. And I mean nothing. Like zero. Nothingness.

It can not be viewed from several viewpoints. If a viewpoint and a viewer exists to view nothing, then nothing would not exist. For nothing to exist, there can be nothing else. But it has the attribute of being static. It could be seen as something stable. It could be seen as true. And it could, because of this attribute might be used as a reference point to finding other true things.

Have you heard this question before? "Can God make a stone so heavy that not even God can lift it?"

Yes, if a\the God exists he is not bound by logic and can bypass that. It just means we do not understand how God did lift the stone he could not lift. It contradicts itself, but is still valid outside logic.

The observation of nothingness is based on logic, but logics take on nothingness does not allow such a thing as I presented. So I could try without logic from there. And with that thought I saw that if logic is discarded then everything is possible.

Oh look. As soon as you try to argue a point you have to make all sorts of assertions. Your argument is practically overflowing with things I could doubt, which means, according to your own philosophy, you have to abandon them.

Why do you insist on discarding logic every time it gets in the way of saying "anything could be or not be?" You used logic to try to prove that logic can be discarded! How about this. How about you stop trying to justify your faith and start reasoning only from evidence and logic. If you can find evidence or logical support for the idea that non-logic exists then maybe it does. All you've done for the past 24 hours is blindly assert that "nothing is possible" without out a shred of support.

I, personally, can't think of any evidence or logical support for the idea that it is possible nothing exists. At a minimum, I must exist or I wouldn't be able to contemplate my non-existence.

Bobleplask

07-11-2008, 10:48 AM

Oh look. As soon as you try to argue a point you have to make all sorts of assertions. Your argument is practically overflowing with things I could doubt, which means, according to your own philosophy, you have to abandon them.

You are quite right. The argument was how I reached the conclusion, hence acordning to my own philosophy i had to abandon them. And so I did. The thought about nothingness was not something I thought of today - it was when I reached the conclusion. Long before we started this conversation.

Am I really this bad at communicating? Or do you purposly try not to understand. Or is it so that you do not have the ability? I have said "you are quite right" in many of these posts - so you seem to be able to read what I am writing and make conclusion based on them - but you also seem to try and use them against me as some sort of "haha - look what you said!".

Why do you insist on discarding logic every time it gets in the way of saying "anything could be or not be?"

I discard logic because I do not see what makes it valid. Can you show or tell me what makes it valid?

You used logic to try to prove that logic can be discarded!

I discard logic because I do not see what makes it valid. Can you show or tell me what makes it valid?

How about this. How about you stop trying to justify your faith and start reasoning only from evidence and logic. If you can find evidence or logical support for the idea that non-logic exists then maybe it does.

I discard logic because I do not see what makes it valid. Can you show or tell me what makes it valid?

All you've done for the past 24 hours is blindly assert that "nothing is possible" without out a shred of support.

I discard logic because I do not see what makes it valid. Can you show or tell me what makes it valid?

Do you not see that the point is exactly that because you, me or anyone else do not have any shred of valid support, what I am saying is possibly correct? And due to the same argument what you are saying could also be correct? And due to that very situation - where none of us has any valid proof, we're stuck? Becaus each possible argument has the same amount of odds of being right?

I, personally, can't think of any evidence or logical support for the idea that it is possible nothing exists. At a minimum, I must exist or I wouldn't be able to contemplate my non-existence.

Me neither - but can you think of any evidence at all why logic is right?

blueback

07-11-2008, 12:31 PM

Okay, I'll explain logic.

First, the definition of logic is: The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events

I think the simplest way to think about logic is to imagine it as the latitude and longitude of a map. You can lay out the grid for a map before you have filled the map in. All you have to do is compose a relationship between measurements in the world and measurements on paper. Then, as you measure things in the world, say the border of a country, you can translate them onto the map. Once you've measured the entire border of the country, and the two ends have joined up correctly, you know how big the country is. Now you can make a prediction about how far it will be from one end of the country to another (straight across) and then measure it for real to see whethr or not your map is accurate. If your prediction is accurate then you have confirmed that your map is an accurate representation of reality and you can use it to make accurate predictions about things you have not measured yet.

Logic is how things relate to other things. The rules of logic are relatively easy to learn through something like drawing a map but they are applied exactly the same way to more abstract concepts. For example, the division of powers in the US government isn't something you can draw a picture of. It is an abstract division of ideas, so anything you try to explain about it has to use metaphors. In the same way we understand the logic of how balance is acheived on a see-saw we can understand the logic of how balance is acheived between any set of opposing forces.

You wouldn't be able to get out of bed if you didn't use logic. Back when you were a baby you saw everyone else walking around on legs and, because you also had legs, you logically deduced that you should be able to walk. In the same way, you can't think about abstract concepts if you don't use logic. It's relatively straight forward to figure out how to draw a map because we can always test it. It is not straight forward to figure out how a political system works because it's really hard to test. When you are comparing one abstract idea against another there is not objective feedback, so you have to logically deduce what the feedback WOULD be. That is why I emphasize consistency. Gravity is consistent; if we set up the same experiment it will always turn out the same way. So abstract ideas should be consistent.

I mean, come on. You keep using logic to try and defeat logic. You asked, several times, for me to explain why logic is valid. . .which means you are logically deducing that if it is not valid you don't have to listen to me. The simple fact that you are still talking about this means that you logically deduced that I must have some good reason for why I think I can explain this that you haven't grasped yet. You can't escape logic so the idea that you would reject it is absurd.

Bobleplask

07-12-2008, 06:55 AM

I do not really have too much more to say without repeating myself.

You have no shred of evidence for logic being valid.

I have no shred of evidence for logic being invalid.

My stand is that since we do not have any evidence, it is not possible to say that it is true or not. In effect, everything can be possible.

Your stand is that logic is true and everyone who says otherwise is wrong. The reason you say logic is true is because you used the attributes logic have to show logic is true. Correct?

Okay, I'll explain logic.

I know what it is, and I have also said I use it. I would not be able to write this without it's use. Is that proof that it works?

You can't escape logic so the idea that you would reject it is absurd.

I like this comment. However, it does not make logic valid.

These are two possibilities regarding escaping logic.

A) It is possible to escape logic, and I do not know how.
B) It is not possible to escape logic.

How does this make it valid?

I have taken the liberty to quote something that I have not written, to see if this makes it clearer. You could just jump over this part as it is quite long. So sorry about that, but I found it interesting and I wanted to point out that it is thoughts that have been thought of before. (Saint, I'm looking at you).

A number of philosophers have made major criticisms of logic in general, but most especially, perhaps, of formal logic: Nietzsche: "Logic, too, also rests on assumptions that do not correspond to anything in the real world"

Tarski's undefinability theorem, stated and proved by Alfred Tarski in 1936, is an important limitative result in mathematical logic, the foundations of mathematics, and in formal semantics. Informally, the theorem states that arithmetical truth cannot be defined in arithmetic. The theorem applies more generally to any sufficiently strong formal system, showing that truth in the standard model of the system cannot be defined within the system.

Philosophical skepticism is both a philosophical school of thought and a method that crosses disciplines and cultures. A skeptic critically examines the meaning systems of his/her time, and this examination usually results in a position of ambiguity or doubt. This skepticism can range from disbelief in contemporary philosophical solutions, to agnosticism, to rejecting the reality of the external world. Scientific skepticism refers to the critical analysis of claims lacking empirical evidence.
[...]
History of skepticism
Ancient Western Skepticism
The Western tradition of systematic skepticism goes back at least as far as Pyrrho of Elis. He was troubled by the disputes that could be found within all philosophical schools of his day. According to a later account of his life, he became overwhelmed by his inability to determine rationally which school was correct. Upon admitting this to himself, he finally achieved the inner peace that he had been seeking. From a Stoic point of view, Pyrrho found peace by admitting to ignorance and seeming to abandon the criterion by which knowledge is gained, logical reason.
[...]
The goal of this critique, which Pyrrho's followers realized would ultimately subvert even their own method, was to cultivate a distrust of all grand talk. They expected philosophy to collapse into itself. How far in this direction the Pyrrhonean commitment extended is a matter of debate. The Pyrrhonists confessed a belief in appearances, e.g. in hot and cold, grief and joy. It is impossible to deny, they admitted, that one seems to be in pain or seems to touch a piece of wood. Their world, thus, was completely phenomenological. An accomplished Pyrrhonist could, ideally, live as well as a dogmatist but with the added benefit of not worrying about truth and falsity, right and wrong, God's will, and so forth.
One of my degrees is in Philosophy. I've read enough of Descartes. Descartes never, ever did or said anything like starting from the assumption that one cannot be right. That is not how how philosophical skepticism was gone about in his discourse, or in the works of any other philosopher I know.
Schools of philosophical skepticism

Philosophical skepticism begins with the claim that the skeptic currently does not have knowledge. Some adherents maintain that knowledge is, in theory, possible. It could be argued that Socrates held that view. He appears to have thought that if people continue to ask questions they might eventually come to have knowledge; but that they did not have it yet. Some skeptics have gone further and claimed that true knowledge is impossible, for example the Academic school in Ancient Greece after the time of Carneades. A third skeptical approach would be neither to accept nor reject the possibility of knowledge. Skepticism can be either about everything or about particular areas. A 'global' skeptic argues that he does not absolutely know anything to be either true or false. Academic global skepticism has great difficulty in supporting this claim while maintaining philosophical rigor, since it seems to require that nothing can be known — except for the knowledge that nothing can be known.

Some global skeptics avoid this problem by maintaining that they merely are 'reasonably certain' (or 'believe') that skepticism is true, while never asserting that skepticism itself is 'known' to be true with absolute certainty. For such skeptics, while an argument may be advanced in support of skepticism, the argument does not conclude or imply that it (the argument itself) is indubitable. A self-referential version (holding that skepticism is subject to skepticism) is consistent with its own tenets, although it concedes that skepticism can never be 'proven'.

The principle of explosion is the law of classical logic and a few other systems (e.g., intuitionistic logic) according to which "anything follows from a contradiction" - i.e., once you have asserted a contradiction, you can infer any proposition, or its converse. In symbolic terms, the principle of explosion can be expressed in the following way: This can be read as, "If one claims something is both true and not true, one can logically derive any conclusion."

Antares

07-12-2008, 07:40 AM

Sort of. Not everyone agrees that LDS is Christian.

Well, we may also argue that anyone who doesn't follow most or every teaching of Jesus is not Christian. From what I know not even fundamentalists follow every rule. Just because most 'Jews' deviated from the Old Testament morality and adapted to the moral Zeitgeist, that doesn't mean what the great population adopts as 'Jewish' is automatically Jewish. They promptly ignore many of the Old Testament morality, but can we call liberal Jews 'not Jews'? No. But an OT abiding Jew is just as Jewish. What right does the 'mainstream' have to tell the few (be they liberal or conservative) that they are not 'Jewish' or 'Christian' anymore? Why don't we stop labeling the Mormons as unchristian just because most self-proclaimed Christians do and give them a fair shot at Christianity. Why label people that way at all?

blueback

07-12-2008, 08:44 AM

I know what it is, and I have also said I use it. I would not be able to write this without it's use. Is that proof that it works?

Yes.

Feel free to explain how you can derive doubt about logic from the certainty that logic both exists and has been used by you successuflly.

Monte314

07-12-2008, 06:22 PM

When I get an equation like 2x=x, I say x=0.

Saint

07-12-2008, 07:22 PM

When I get an equation like 2x=x, I say x=0.

<3

Bobleplask

07-12-2008, 08:46 PM

Yes.

Feel free to explain how you can derive doubt about logic from the certainty that logic both exists and has been used by you successuflly.

I use it. It does not mean it exists.

When I get an equation like 2x=x, I say x=0.

hehe, well. you got me :)

blueback

07-12-2008, 10:02 PM

I use it. It does not mean it exists.

So, just for clarity, what does "it" mean?

Bobleplask

07-13-2008, 05:05 AM

So, just for clarity, what does "it" mean?

Ah, sorry about that. It means logic.

So: I use logic. That I use logic successfully, does not mean logic exists.

blueback

07-13-2008, 07:50 AM

Would you say the same thing about your feet, or a pencil, or math?

Bobleplask

07-13-2008, 11:49 AM

yes

Monte314

07-15-2008, 05:19 PM

Ignoring ALL other things about a potential god. Why would a god hide and require faith?

Somebody's hiding, but it's not God.

But why faith?

Firstly, because nothing less would be meaningful; if, for example, my wife doesn't believe I exist, my offer of anything more is pointless to begin with.

Secondly, because it's something that anyone with a mind can give, if they will.

In other words, He couldn't possibly have asked for less... and we still think it's too much.

Jakalwarrior

07-15-2008, 05:36 PM

If your wife had never seen you, heard you, or found evidence of your existence, would you fault her for doubting your existence? I tried that method of picking women up my entire highschool career. Watching the from afar but not letting them know I exist. Needless to say... I didnt get many dates.

Monte314

07-15-2008, 06:16 PM

blueback

07-16-2008, 05:10 PM

Monte314

07-16-2008, 07:58 PM

Look, you can't have it both ways.

Either faith is good in-and-of-itself or it is not. If it is, then God can't give us evidence of his existence because he would be doing something bad by denying us faith which is good. If it isn't, then God has every reason to give us ample evidence of his existence to get the worship he desires.

It is inconsistent to say that on the one hand God is currently providing us ample evidence of his existence and to see the evidence we have to have faith in God. If we have faith, and then see God, then we don't have faith anymore. So, the only way to be consistent is to say that it is some sort of trick that God has set up. Ultimately he wants us to be free of faith, but those who START OUT free of faith are damned while those who have faith and then lose it when they see the evidence of God are saved. If you are willing to say that God is tricking us then you will be consistent.

As near as I can tell, you seem to be saying that if God reveals Himself to me in a convincing way, then my subsequent interaction with Him is no longer based upon "faith", but certain knowledge. In this way, He deprives me of my faith, which causes me loss if faith is "good".

The only way I can make sense of your argument is to conclude that you believe that "faith" must be belief which is not grounded in evidence. Once compelling evidence becomes available, continued belief is no longer "faith".

I never thought of faith in this way before... and I don't think I ever will again. This is a red herring.

Saint

07-16-2008, 08:11 PM

The only way I can make sense of your argument is to conclude that you believe that "faith" must be belief which is not grounded in evidence. Once compelling evidence becomes available, continued belief is no longer "faith".

I never thought of faith in this way before... and I don't think I ever will again. This is a red herring.

Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence

Faith
-noun
2. belief that is not based on proof

Wha, what? How the hell did you never think of faith that way before? Did I confuse something you said or something?

Monte314

07-16-2008, 08:20 PM

Wha, what? How the hell did you never think of faith that way before? Did I confuse something you said or something?

No, I'm not at all confused.

Mozzes

07-16-2008, 08:23 PM

No, I'm not at all confused.

I'm curious, Monte, what's your definition of 'faith'? It might clear up some of the miscommunication here.

Saint

07-16-2008, 08:23 PM

I asked if *I* confused something you said, not if you were confused or not.

Antares

07-17-2008, 01:00 AM

No, no fault implied.

Once again, God is not hiding.

Then what is he doing? Why doesn't he provide proof of his existence?

Faith, by definition, IS belief without or with inadequate evidence. If you think Loch Ness monster exists, you have faith. We never proved that it exists. Some people have faith in UFO.

blueback

07-17-2008, 03:08 PM

I never thought of faith in this way before... and I don't think I ever will again. This is a red herring.
Okay. As long as you are openly wrong I suppose that is better than being in denial about it. Words have specific definitions. . .many of them are listed in the dictionary.

Monte314

07-17-2008, 07:17 PM

The only thing I am objecting to is your insistence that faith vanishes when evidence appears. You have said that I am "not a person of faith" because God has proven Himself to me.

Our disagreemnt is whether your parochial view of "faith" is what the word means. I claim that it does not have this meaning denotatively, or colloquially.

Belief is not a binary phenomenon (fully present or completely absent). We all maintain levels of belief in the ideas we hold, recognizing that future experience may make it necessary to alter them.

Consider the following diagram, which depicts my level of confidence in some proposition on a scale from complete disbelief (-1) through no-belief-one-way-or-the-other (0), to complete belief (1). The diagram has a vertical tick mark showing that my belief in some proposition (call it A) is about 0.3, that is, I have more belief for it than against it (probably based on some evidence), but I'm not real sure it's true:

(-1)--------------------(0)------|--------------(1)

Most people would say that, in order to adopt A, some faith would be necessary.

What I hear you saying, though, is that as soon as I get to the right of 0, there is no faith whatsoever involved:

(-1)--------------------(0)|--------------------(1) implies faith = 0.

This odd definition is all your own. You assert that faith is something that is fully present until I get the slightest bit of evidence, at which point it is fully ABSENT. But there's more.

You can set then decision point pretty much anywhere you want, say at 0.9:

(-1)--------------------(0)------------------|--(1)

It STILL makes no sense to say that faith is wholly absent when we reach this arbitrarily set condition.

Here's what does make sense: the amount of faith I need is the DIFFERENCE between where I am now and complete belief. This is one of the techniques I use in quantifying belief and disbelief when I build expert systems. You may read about it in my book (available from Amazon.com).

That is, if my confidence (presumably based upon evidence) is at 0.75, and I STILL choose to regard proposition A as true, then the amount of faith I am exercising is 1.0 - 0.75 = 0.25. Under this definition, there is always SOME amount of faith required unless I have reached complete belief (= 1.0).

Biblical Comment: Atheists can skip this part:
This is consistent with what the Bible says. In Romans 1:20, the Apostle Paul says that "... the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse...." If your definition of faith were the same as the Bible's, this verse would imply that no one has any faith, since *everyone* already has ample visible evidence that there is a God who is the creator of the world.

Now, back to everybody:
Faith can be faith without being blind. Yet you insist that it's no faith at all unless it's blind, deaf, and dumb.

That's just not what the word means. Faith is present any time we even a hair shy from 100% certainly... frankly, I think that just about all the time.

blueback

07-17-2008, 08:33 PM

The only thing I am objecting to is your insistence that faith vanishes when evidence appears.

In that case, I'll support it.

Dictionary.com: belief that is not based on proof
American Heritage Dictionary: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence
Wikipedia: a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea that has not been proven

There are other definitions of faith, but they are either a direct substitute for another word (in which case the word is meaningless), or they are specifically religious (in which case they don't apply here). The word faith is a symbol (graphical or auditory) that represents a specific abstract idea. Other symbols represent other abstract ideas. It is necessary to make clear distinctions (wherever possible) between various symbols and various abstract ideas and to ensure that each idea is coded explicitly in language.

The word belief covers the abstract idea "confidence in the truth of something" much like the word rectangle covers the abstract idea "a shape made up of four lines and four right angles." The word faith covers the more specific idea "belief that is not supported" much like the word square covers the abstract idea "a shape made up of four lines of equal length and four right angles." Belief is to faith as a rectangle is to a square.

You should note that the definitions of faith I listed above all include words to the effect that belief does not is not supported. The clearest way to interpret this systemic use of verbage is to understand that faith disappears when evidence appears. The word faith covers all cases in which belief exists but not evidence and is replaced by the word belief when any evidence appears.

Our disagreemnt is whether your parochial view of "faith" is what the word means. I claim that it does not have this meaning denotatively, or colloquially.

I noticed that you didn't actually cite any references except your own book. I have used only other people's opinions to support my conclusion. If the only person you can find who supports your conclusion is yourself then maybe you should reevaluate your opinion.

Belief is not a binary phenomenon (fully present or completely absent).

You're right, but faith is. You either have faith in a conclusion or you don't because either the conclusion is supported or it isn't. You can have a belief with all sorts of varying amounts of support, that is entirely consistent with the definition of faith.

This odd definition is all your own. You assert that faith is something that is fully present until I get the slightest bit of evidence, at which point it is fully ABSENT.

Yeah, and I provided three sources which say the same thing I do. Even if I was the first one to invent this definition of faith and forced it on other people there would still be people who say the same thing I do, so your assertion that the definition I use is "all my own" is wrong.

Besides. . .the number of people who hold an opinion has nothing to do with the truth of the opinion. It can be a factor in whether or not you pay attention to it, but the truth is the truth no matter how many people deny it.

Here's what does make sense: the amount of faith I need is the DIFFERENCE between where I am now and complete belief.

You are not contradicting the definition of faith.

What you are saying, in a round-about way, is that the definition of belief covers the train of thought up until the tracks end. Then you are saying that faith covers the rest of the ground necessary to reach the conclusion. You are just pretending that the entire distance covered by the argument is one thing.

I am fine with the idea that a conclusion might rest on multiple prior conclusions and that some of those conclusions can be supported while some of them are entirely unsupported. However, the final conclusion, if based on any conclusions which are supported, is partially supported and is not faith.

In Romans 1:20, the Apostle Paul says that "... the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse...." If your definition of faith were the same as the Bible's, this verse would imply that no one has any faith, since *everyone* already has ample visible evidence that there is a God who is the creator of the world.

There is no direct connection between what exists and God. If there was, then no one would be able to look at a sunset (or a flower or a child's eyes or whatever) and not believe in God. There is a direct connection between what exists and gravity which is why no one disputes the reality of gravity.

Just because some guy looks around and interprets what he sees as evidence of God does not mean that it is evidence of God. Additionally, even if it actually was clear evidence of God, not everyone interprets it that way. If someone is presented with clear evidence to support a conclusion but misinterprets it then the evidence does not exist in their thought process. If the evidence doesn't exist for them they can't use it to support any conclusions so it can't invalidate faith.

Besides, the only reason you would bring this up is if faith was good in-and-of itself, and a logical lack of it would invalidate my argument. That is not the case. There are plenty of things that don't exist, but can be defined, and their lack of existence is neither good nor bad. . .unicorns for example.

[/B]Faith can be faith without being blind. Yet you insist that it's no faith at all unless it's blind, deaf, and dumb.

Correct. I do insist that and I am correct to do so.

That's just not what the word means. Faith is present any time we even a hair shy from 100% certainly... frankly, I think that just about all the time.

You are correct, again in a round-about way.
If a conclusion is based on multiple pre-conclusions, and even one of those pre-conclusions is unsupported, then the unsupported pre-conclusions is faith. The final conclusion only matters as an end to your artificial continuum of thought. If you choose to represent the series of pre-conclusions as a range between zero and one then the portion of the range which is covered by the faith-based pre-conclusions is the faith you are talking about.

A conclusion based entirely on pre-conclusions which are supported is not faith.

Monte314

07-18-2008, 05:57 AM

In that case, I'll support it.

Dictionary.com: belief that is not based on proof
American Heritage Dictionary: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence
Wikipedia: a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea that has not been proven

There are other definitions of faith, but they are either a direct substitute for another word (in which case the word is meaningless), or they are specifically religious (in which case they don't apply here). The word faith is a symbol (graphical or auditory) that represents a specific abstract idea. Other symbols represent other abstract ideas. It is necessary to make clear distinctions (wherever possible) between various symbols and various abstract ideas and to ensure that each idea is coded explicitly in language.

The word belief covers the abstract idea "confidence in the truth of something" much like the word rectangle covers the abstract idea "a shape made up of four lines and four right angles." The word faith covers the more specific idea "belief that is not supported" much like the word square covers the abstract idea "a shape made up of four lines of equal length and four right angles." Belief is to faith as a rectangle is to a square.

You should note that the definitions of faith I listed above all include words to the effect that belief does not is not supported. The clearest way to interpret this systemic use of verbage is to understand that faith disappears when evidence appears. The word faith covers all cases in which belief exists but not evidence and is replaced by the word belief when any evidence appears.

I noticed that you didn't actually cite any references except your own book. I have used only other people's opinions to support my conclusion. If the only person you can find who supports your conclusion is yourself then maybe you should reevaluate your opinion.

You're right, but faith is. You either have faith in a conclusion or you don't because either the conclusion is supported or it isn't. You can have a belief with all sorts of varying amounts of support, that is entirely consistent with the definition of faith.

Yeah, and I provided three sources which say the same thing I do. Even if I was the first one to invent this definition of faith and forced it on other people there would still be people who say the same thing I do, so your assertion that the definition I use is "all my own" is wrong.

Besides. . .the number of people who hold an opinion has nothing to do with the truth of the opinion. It can be a factor in whether or not you pay attention to it, but the truth is the truth no matter how many people deny it.

You are not contradicting the definition of faith.

What you are saying, in a round-about way, is that the definition of belief covers the train of thought up until the tracks end. Then you are saying that faith covers the rest of the ground necessary to reach the conclusion. You are just pretending that the entire distance covered by the argument is one thing.

I am fine with the idea that a conclusion might rest on multiple prior conclusions and that some of those conclusions can be supported while some of them are entirely unsupported. However, the final conclusion, if based on any conclusions which are supported, is partially supported and is not faith.

There is no direct connection between what exists and God. If there was, then no one would be able to look at a sunset (or a flower or a child's eyes or whatever) and not believe in God. There is a direct connection between what exists and gravity which is why no one disputes the reality of gravity.

Just because some guy looks around and interprets what he sees as evidence of God does not mean that it is evidence of God. Additionally, even if it actually was clear evidence of God, not everyone interprets it that way. If someone is presented with clear evidence to support a conclusion but misinterprets it then the evidence does not exist in their thought process. If the evidence doesn't exist for them they can't use it to support any conclusions so it can't invalidate faith.

Besides, the only reason you would bring this up is if faith was good in-and-of itself, and a logical lack of it would invalidate my argument. That is not the case. There are plenty of things that don't exist, but can be defined, and their lack of existence is neither good nor bad. . .unicorns for example.

Correct. I do insist that and I am correct to do so.

You are correct, again in a round-about way.
If a conclusion is based on multiple pre-conclusions, and even one of those pre-conclusions is unsupported, then the unsupported pre-conclusions is faith. The final conclusion only matters as an end to your artificial continuum of thought. If you choose to represent the series of pre-conclusions as a range between zero and one then the portion of the range which is covered by the faith-based pre-conclusions is the faith you are talking about.

A conclusion based entirely on pre-conclusions which are supported is not faith.

Good analysis.