Posted by: diehl ®
12/10/2002, 06:25:49
Author Profile Mail author
|
I like that... I regret not reading Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe yet... But I already have some I need to finish...Good thing I have a free summer... plenty of time to read As for that... :-) why not the only flaw in that would be needing a god for the big bang
|
Posted by: Nik ®
12/11/2002, 02:12:13
Author Profile Mail author
|
That was my main objection to it: do we actually need a God to create the universe? But that's another topic entirely.
|
Posted by: Gunnar ®
12/10/2002, 13:44:53
Author Profile Mail author
|
I was never particularly enamored of the idea that "proof denies faith." The more I think about it, the more that idea appears to be merely a device for insulating cherished religious convictions from honest but critical scrutiny in the light of the best available evidence and reason that might cast legitimate doubt on their credibility. It doesn't make sense to me that God would deliberately make it difficult or impossible to prove his existence in order to test our faith, and then punish us for having honest doubts due to that lack of compelling, supporting evidence.Gunnar
|
Posted by: Nik ®
12/11/2002, 02:16:23
Author Profile Mail author
|
It made sense to me. Faith is one of the major pillars of religion. Without faith, religion doesn't really work. It becomes more like science, which is different. So using this logic, without faith, there is no religion, and hence no God (since the god(s)/godess(es) stem from and rely on the religiong they are central to).
|
Posted by: Ramona ®
12/11/2002, 03:43:18
Author Profile Mail author
|
But I begged the great and powerful babelillusionfish" to intervene and stand as intermediary between myself and the Almighty. A great miracle did occur. Have you no faith man?Ramona
|
Posted by: Nik ®
12/11/2002, 04:01:12
Author Profile Mail author
|
This was a hypothetical event born from the creative imagination of a writer. I barely understand your post at all, so I am unable to give you the answer you want.And no, I don't have any faith man.
|
Posted by: Ramona ®
12/11/2002, 04:26:27
Author Profile Mail author
|
Nik,My attempt, albeit poor one, was to show that people will cling to that which is imagined in the mind of another. It's a case of the hypothetical Babel fish becoming "real." So real, in fact, that one might begin to perceive it as a religious entity. From there, divinity is but a generation or two away. Ramona Follow this time?
|
Posted by: Ramona ®
12/11/2002, 05:14:11
Author Profile Mail author
|
One last try:The Babel fish is not real, it was imagined/invented.
Some reader will want to believe the fish to be real, regardless of the author statement. As time progresses, if you do not believe in the Fish, you lack faith. The fish has become God. Ramona
|
Posted by: Nik ®
12/12/2002, 03:05:09
Author Profile Mail author
|
'History' doesn't prove anything, since it is full of many conflicting things. Ever heard the phrase 'History is only written by the winners'? Even the name points out that history isn't credible; his story -> history.However, if you are talking about largely credible history e.g most people agree WW2 happened, then your statement stand as truth. (To avoid confusion, that was supportive and not dismissive. There's always something nasty waiting to come out of an unclosed door, so close it!)
|
Posted by: Nik ®
12/12/2002, 02:28:31
Author Profile Mail author
|
"Some reader will want to believe the fish to be real, regardless of the author statement.As time progresses, if you do not believe in the Fish, you lack faith. The fish has become God." You could also equally say: 'A book was written about a man called Jesus. Lots of his good work in the community was over-hyped by fans idolising him, and all this hype was put in the book. In the original book, the author stated that some of the accounts might be exaggerated. As time progressed, people made copies of this book. One person believed all the hype, despite the author insisting that the accounts were probably not all that true. Not believing in the mythical Jesus (as opposed to the real Jesus) shows lack of faith. Jesus has now become God'
|
Posted by: Nik ®
12/12/2002, 03:06:14
Author Profile Mail author
|
I am a boy. Useful to know on fronts such as Xmas pressies ;)
Modified by Nik at Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 03:11:25
|
Posted by: grman ®
12/11/2002, 12:40:13
Author Profile Mail author
|
This puzzle is based on a presupposition that God does not exist and on your use of the word "faith" to mean belief in that which can't be proven. But isn't God's existence independent of proof or faith by any definition? He either exists or He doesn't, right? Here's a different definition of faith, which presupposes the existence of God: faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. This kind of faith accepts proof as revelation of that which was already known to exist. What do you think?
|
Posted by: Gunnar ®
12/11/2002, 16:39:02
Author Profile Mail author
|
I agree that "faith is the substance of things hoped for," but I do not agree that faith, in itself, can properly be regarded as evidence nor as an acceptable substitute for evidence. The notion than one doesn't necessarily have to have hard evidence for something before assuming that it must be true is, IMO, one of the silliest notions ever conceived by human minds. Still, I accept that faith can be a powerful motivator that can enable people to accomplish things, both good and ill, that they might otherwise not attempt. However, valid, honest faith must be tempered by objective evidence and sound reason. Otherwise, blind, subjective faith that is stubbornly held despite the absence of supporting evidence and even despite strong contrary evidence can have disastrous and destructive consequences. 9/11 is a prime example of the evil that can result from such blind faith. The more exclusively any religion or other belief system relies on the pillar of subjective faith, the more deservedly suspect it is.Gunnar
|
Posted by: grman ®
12/11/2002, 19:05:35
Author Profile Mail author
|
I should clarify by saying that hope is defined here not as wishful thinking, but as confident expectation of that which will be. Again, the definition presupposes the existence of God.An example might be something that is believed with the heart prior to having evidence, but which evidence eventually confirms or leaves room for. I should further clarify by saying that the definition I offered infers that the God of the Bible makes good on His promises.
|
Posted by: Martin ®
12/11/2002, 19:45:27
Author Profile Mail author
|
Dave,Do you acknowledge that you have absolutely no creditable, intellectually honest evidence for your religious beliefs? That they must be taken on blind faith? If not, please provide compelling, non-circular empirical evidence for your beliefs.
- Martin
|
Posted by: grman ®
12/12/2002, 13:42:39
Author Profile Mail author
|
Martin,
I have provided one or two non-circular, creditable arguments over the past couple of weeks that have been met with no response. I am openly researching subjects about which I have had no knowledge, and I have freely admitted my presuppositions. So I find no reason not to simply express my beliefs.
I will acknowledge the following: every world view is based on presupposition and rests ultimately on belief alone. Do you acknowledge?
Dave
|
Posted by: Martin ®
12/13/2002, 07:49:15
Author Profile Mail author
|
Dave,I notice you once again ignored my questions and ducked out. Why do you persist in disengaging from genuine discussion whenever you are put on the spot, like Jrmh? You write: "I have provided one or two non-circular, creditable arguments over the past couple of weeks that have been met with no response." I strongly doubt that. If they recieved no response, you probably didn't make your arguments clear. Please explicity repeat them here for us to consider.
- - - You also write: "I will acknowledge the following: every world view is based on presupposition and rests ultimately on belief alone. Do you acknowledge?" No. What you claim is not correct. There is more than mere belief and presupposition in our foundations, there is also empirical knowledge and evolutionary hard-wiring.
- Martin
|
Posted by: grman ®
12/14/2002, 03:47:06
Author Profile Mail author
|
Martin,
I did answer your question with a self-inclusive statement.
Although there may be evidence for evolutionary hard-wiring, it cannot be proven. Therefore, you expressed a belief as part of your definition.
|
Posted by: Martin ®
12/14/2002, 20:15:26
Author Profile Mail author
|
You're just making up blatantly false bullshit as you go or repeating the blatantly false bullshit of others. Your vapid argument is based on an implicit misrepresentation of what "proof" means in empirical contexts.
- Martin
|
Posted by: Jersey Girl! ®
12/13/2002, 08:55:26
Author Profile Mail author
|
Martin: Do you acknowledge that you have absolutely no creditable, intellectually honest evidence for your religious beliefs? Vicki: I acknowledge that what I view as evidence is fully subjective to my own personal experience and interpretation.
Martin: That they must be taken on blind faith? Vicki: Absolutely, yes.
|
Posted by: Jerome ®
12/12/2002, 04:11:15
Author Profile Mail author
|
Faith is believing (verb) in what YOU THINK of YOURSELF. (This is not held definitions of your beliefs: name, belongings, gender, religion (belief system held) job, nationality, race, roots, etc.)
God IS. I AM I - NOW/ Balance. There is only NOW and eternity.
This "NOW" would be like a video game character (us) trying to figure out where he came from (God).
His existence originates from the… non-existence of the "Trinity Balance" (the cross: beginning, middle and end) of the Sine (Sin: born in sin) Wave (Sin can be found in TRUTH/Christ/God) of the computer clock cycle. The existence resides in the imbalance of the “sin e”.The beliefs (Being) are the sin/sine wave or cycle mirrored in the machine language of 1 and 0, into codes, directories, DNA, files, programs (The "existence") held in Memory/ Subconscious.
Time is of and relative to the carrier cycle, plane. Our physical existence plane cycle is four quadrillionths of a second... and a second is relative to "our accepted" arch of rotation (cycle) of a speck of sand (earth) spinning in space.
Faith is believing (verb) in what YOU THINK of YOURSELF. It is not a religion: a stagnant belief system. The “belief in god” is a belief in Hierarchy structure or being that is symbolized as the Great Whore.
God IS, Beliefs are descriptions accepted (PAST) and held by the mind structuring the being. To believe in god is blaspheme, abuse of the term. Beliefs are educated thus the Great City of Babylon (Educational entities) is infested with every unclean Spirit/ NOW. They teach or program God as a being all-mighty (Dictator Monarchy). As you believe so shall you be and your society.
Man is but the “PRATICE” (cycle) of the eternal feelings of another soul.
|
Posted by: Jerome ®
12/18/2002, 02:39:18
Author Profile Mail author
|
That's correct, it makes no sense to Mario (video game character) for he can only see the structures comprising his BE-ing. As you believe so shall you BE (Stagnant/ structure/ stone)This makes no sense to the "Two-dimensional mind" (as P.D. Ouspensky observed how the mind works) that sees (Fruits) and WANTS TO SEE ONLY (Inertia) the surface shallow words and letters (Plato’s Cave shadows), judging these from its preprogramming (machine, “does not compute”), and not the hidden qualities and quantities and symbols of and behind what is "seen". The “Three-dimensional mind” seen beyond the objects to what forms those “things”; to the cycles comprising the atoms, etc. and the efforts of the many that are involved in that form/ concept, person, place or thing and the symbolized representation of those energies not experienced with the five senses. Which mind has respect for his life and others and the world. Which mind respects the people who post on this form? Respect is the principle of looking twice or twice as deeply. Respect goes beyond the surface appearances and superficial glances to discover a deeper meaning, purpose or basis for discovery. Without the principle of respect, the Book of Love will never be read, the Tree of Life will never be seen in full bloom, and the thousands of rainbows of the Land of Essence will never be viewed. But with the Law of Respect in action, the mysteries of the universe, or any part, will open layer after layer, like the unfolding of a thousand-petal lotus. Jerome #>
|
Posted by: Artem ®
12/19/2002, 03:31:21
Author Profile Mail author
|
"Where skeptical observation and discussion are suppressed, the truth is hidden. The proponents of such borderline beliefs, when criticized, often point to geniuses of the past who were ridiculed. But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."Carl Sagan
|
Posted by: Artem ®
12/11/2002, 21:54:35
Author Profile Mail author
|
It's a funny joke, but that's about it."I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." is what this joke is built on. "proof denies faith" and "without faith I am nothing" are two assumptions that make the clincher sound completely logical. If you don't take these for granted, which you wouldn't in a serious argument, then the logic falls apart. Proof doesn't deny faith, it only strengthens it. God exists or doesn't whether or not someone believes in God.
|
Posted by: Nik ®
12/12/2002, 02:34:53
Author Profile Mail author
|
I hope none of you are taking it that I believe that the Babel Fish disproves God.
|
|
