Is faith a reliable means of ascertaining the truth?

[Skwim]

Take or retake Philosophy 101. For you to think such an argument is logical is illogical or you don't know how to make a logical argument.

OMG!

Your premise

"Faith must be based on fact to be real. Faith purely based on fantasy is just fantasy."​

Is the existence of the one universal, transcendent, supreme god Ahura Mazda a fact? Some, Zoroastrians, say it is. Is the existence of the one universal transcendent, supreme god Jehovah a fact? Some say it is.

Assuming the qualifier "one" denotes "only possible" We then have

The claim that the only possible universal, transcendent, supreme god is Ahura Mazda, is a fact.​

and

The claim that the only possible universal, transcendent, supreme god is Jehovah, is a fact.​

HOWEVER,

Both statements cannot be true, and if one is true the other cannot be.

So. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Assuming, for the sake of argument, the only possible universal, transcendent, supreme god is Ahura Mazda is a fact, any faith based on this fact must real. Which means that the claim that the only possible universal, transcendent, supreme god is Jehovah, cannot be a fact, and any faith based on this non-fact cannot be real. Or in your words, "is just fantasy."

Of course, the same kind of a conclusion holds true if on accepts the proposition that the claim that the only possible universal, transcendent, supreme god is Jehovah, is a fact.

The problem then arises as to which of these claims is valid? As I see it, it comes down to establishing that the claimed fact is indeed a fact.

For the Christian, they need no more evidence than their Bible plus whatever else hits them as true, and for the Zoroastrian, it's whatever convinces them (I honestly haven't looked into this to see what this is). So, the "fact" in "Faith must be based on fact to be real." is simply a matter of what evidence one chooses to accept. Such a fact never reaching the level of a universal scientific fact, but one of personal preference. "I prefer to believe the evidence in the Bible." So, should such a fact even merit the designation "fact"? Should X be regarded as a fact simply because you prefer its evidence? No more so than should X be regarded as a fact simply because the Zoroastrian prefers its evidence.
What it comes down to then is, the validity of your "fact" which is grounded in nothing more than personal preference is no more compelling than the validity of a "fact" grounded in nothing more than someone else's personal preference.

Your "fact" never rises to fact's definition as a universal condition that's 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." Your "fact" aint no fact. It's a conclusion based on personal preference. Just as that of the Zoroastrian.


Hey! This has been fun. Thanks for the opportunity to explain it to everyone. . . . and. . . . to set you straight of course.

.

 

[Skwim]

That's what I ask non-Creationists all the time. How does it feel?

It makes me feel like asking you, why don't you read what they have to say WITH AN OPEN MIND?

.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Sure you do. If I have a smoking gun with a dead body on the floor you believe I killed him by faith. You didn't see me do it but it is pretty obviously I most likely did it.

But that's not based on FACT, it's based on your ASSUMPTIONS due to the circumstances. Your FAITH that the man holding the smoking gun could easily be proven FALSE, if the evidence provided by a video camera shows the man coming into the room after the body was already shot and picking up the gun. Once that FACT is established, there is now no longer any reason to accept your assumption based on faith.

 

[QuestioningMind]

If you wish to find the truth whether it be philosophical or scientific there are many paths you must take. Inspiration is usually a good one. Faith in oneself is a necessity. Can you find truth without faith no. When you find the truth your looking for you will know if faith was reliable.

"Can you find truth without faith no."

1 + 1 = 2 is a truth. Absolutely NO FAITH is required to arrive at this truth.

 

[QuestioningMind]

One needs faith to believe conclusions drawn from the fact that aren't so obvious.

If you're drawing conclusions, then it's not a fact, it's an assumption. Once the conclusion is obvious, it becomes a fact, and faith or assumptions are no longer required.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

It seems to me that people are capable of having faith in virtually anything. Since people can have faith in things that are clearly false, how can anyone claim that faith is required in order to comprehend truth?

Faith is simply intellectual suicide. The ultimate "I QUIT"

It's treason towards your own mind.

 

[QuestioningMind]

If you fall in love with someone, do you need someone to give you evidence of their love or can you have a genuine all around attraction by just being around each other displays more love than getting roses or or chocolates?

Do you need evidence from a family member to know they love you or do you know regardless? Do you love your loved ones based on what you give them or do you love them unconditionally without needing to give anything for them to know you love them?

Do you need evidence in order to trust someone?



You're mixing facts with truth. Many religious evidence is not based on facts but experience. If you shift your view of reference and go by the definition they use, you see how it makes sense even though you disagree.

If you are only using facts as evidence, you will not understand religious conviction and belief. You have to broaden your view of evidence to encompass experiences that actually exist, claims that actually exists, and beliefs that actually exist. A lot of which are not based on facts and that is not the purpose of many belief systems.

If you do not change your point of reference or the other person's shoes, you will not understand or be open to understand.

-

God has many definitions. In the most general definition it just means something that you worship. Something that you put at higher authority than yourself.

Describe what an entity or god is and start from there?

I am an atheist; so, I don't know what a god is just the experience of what others call god and the claims of his existence.

"If you fall in love with someone, do you need someone to give you evidence of their love or can you have a genuine all around attraction by just being around each other displays more love than getting roses or or chocolates?

Do you need evidence from a family member to know they love you or do you know regardless? Do you love your loved ones based on what you give them or do you love them unconditionally without needing to give anything for them to know you love them?

Do you need evidence in order to trust someone?"

Why would I think that someone loves me if they have never given any indication that they do? If my father has never given me any indication that he loves me through either words or deeds, why would I have faith that he loves me? Of course, if he provided me with a roof over my head and food to eat while growing up, THAT would be evidence that he at least cares about. If he refused to do such things, I would assume that he did not.

As for trusting someone, that all depends. If someone tells me they have a dog at home, I'm willing to take it on faith that they're telling the truth. I've known other people who own dogs and if if fact the person is lying to me, it doesn't affect me in any way. Now if the person who lied to me about owning a dog then told me they had a cat, my first experience would probably cause me to have have doubts about the validity of the claim. Of course, if someone walked past me in the street and claimed I had brain cancer and would die within a year, I would NOT take what they said on faith. I would get some sort of verification that I actually DO have brain cancer, before I started planning for the last 12 months of my life.

"You're mixing facts with truth. Many religious evidence is not based on facts but experience. If you shift your view of reference and go by the definition they use, you see how it makes sense even though you disagree."

An experience that someone else has is not evidence for me.

 

[bobhikes]

"Can you find truth without faith no."

1 + 1 = 2 is a truth. Absolutely NO FAITH is required to arrive at this truth.

Have to have faith you know what you are adding. Numbers and not out of sync waves. If you add 1 sperm and 1 egg you get 2 of what. You just know what the numbers represent.

 

[QuestioningMind]

You don't need faith to comprehend truth, IMO, but rather you need truth to have faith. Then, also, we need to define faith in as much, IMV, there is faith as well as foolishness and presumption in the name of faith.

A child may know the truth that they can walk a 4inch beam at ground level and yet have no faith to do it at 30 ft.

So there are too many variables as I see it.

" you need truth to have faith."

But if you have actual truth, what need is there for faith?

 

[QuestioningMind]

How is that a sensible question?

From your parking place you can walk east to the store, south to the Starbucks, and south-west to the bank. Since one can walk to numerous locations that are clearly not coffee shops, how can anyone claim that walking is required to get one's pumpkin spice latte?​

To show that faith is an insufficient guarantee is not at all the same as demonstrating that faith is unnecessary.

If as you say faith is an insufficient guarantee, then it clearly isn't a very reliable method for ascertaining the truth. What would you say that faith is necessary for?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Have to have faith you know what you are adding. Numbers and not out of sync waves. If you add 1 sperm and 1 egg you get 2 of what. You just know what the numbers represent.

No, actually whether or not I have faith in what I'm adding does not change the reality that 1 + 1 = 2

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Many believers do have words such as sacred text that leads them to believe their god loves them. Other god believers go by experience using sacred text as commentary.

Change your point of reference. This is like believers who dont want to shift their reference to understand someone who doesnt believe in god. Both of you have to shift your point of reference.

An experience that someone else has is not evidence for me.

It doesnt have to be. Just accept experiences are facts to some of us but not for you. Mental health professionals dont tell those in delusions they arent seeing things that they think are there. The clients actually Do see things. It is a fact they do. The experience and evidence of relating to the delusion is here.

Just because it is not there by medical fact does not belittle the clients' experience. If anything, many people do live with their delusions. If it doesnt harm self, others, and one can self care, why would anyone else care?

Regardless if god exists or not, why do you care when there are no tangible facts to proove it does?

 

[bobhikes]

No, actually whether or not I have faith in what I'm adding does not change the reality that 1 + 1 = 2

So in reality 1 wave lenght of blue light plus 1 wave lenght of yellow light gives you 2 wave lenghts of what?

 

[bobhikes]

No, actually whether or not I have faith in what I'm adding does not change the reality that 1 + 1 = 2

Another one

1 tsp salt + 1 liter water = 2 what?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Many believers do have words such as sacred text that leads them to believe their god loves them. Other god believers go by experience using sacred text as commentary.

Change your point of reference. This is like believers who dont want to shift their reference to understand someone who doesnt believe in god. Both of you have to shift your point of reference.



It doesnt have to be. Just accept experiences are facts to some of us but not for you. Mental health professionals dont tell those in delusions they arent seeing things that they think are there. The clients actually Do see things. It is a fact they do. The experience and evidence of relating to the delusion is here.

Just because it is not there by medical fact does not belittle the clients' experience. If anything, many people do live with their delusions. If it doesnt harm self, others, and one can self care, why would anyone else care?

Regardless if god exists or not, why do you care when there are no tangible facts to proove it does?

"Just accept experiences are facts to some of us but not for you."

That's seems to be a major problem in today's society. People seem to think there can be MY facts and YOUR facts and that somehow both are equally valid. 1 + 1 = 2 is a fact. Even if someone claims that from their 'experience' 1 + 1 = 9 their 'facts' don't get to have equal consideration. 1 + 1 = 2 is either a true statement or a false one. It's not a matter of opinion.

There's no question that the guy who claims that their dog keeps telling them to kill the lady next door truly believes that his dog can talk. But just because it is 100% real to the guy does NOT mean that his dog actually IS talking to him. His claims to have heard the dog would not represent any sort of evidence for you. And unless you think his dog really can talk, I suspect you don't think that his experience is any sort of reliable evidence for him that it truly did happen either. Such an experience would represent FAULTY evidence.

 

[QuestioningMind]

So in reality 1 wave lenght of blue light plus 1 wave lenght of yellow light gives you 2 wave lenghts of what?

That would give you two waves lengths, one that's blue light and one that's yellow light. 1 + 1 = 2

 

[bobhikes]

That would give you two waves lengths, one that's blue light and one that's yellow light. 1 + 1 = 2

Darn and I thought I would get 1 green wave length. I guess that is my faith interfering.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Another one

1 tsp salt + 1 liter water = 2 what?

Two ingredients. 1 ingredient + 1 other ingredient = 2 ingredients

Darn and I thought I would get 1 green wave length. I guess that is my faith interfering.

Yeah, one wave length of blue light plus one wave length of yellow light equals two waves lengths of different colors that combined to make green. The fact that you now have green doesn't change the fact that the there are two waves lengths of other colors required to make green. 1 + 1 = 2

 

[sun rise]

"Can you find truth without faith no."

1 + 1 = 2 is a truth. Absolutely NO FAITH is required to arrive at this truth.

1 + 1= 10 (binary). But I had faith you meant base 10 (or perhaps octal or hexadecimal).

 

[DavidFirth]

If you're drawing conclusions, then it's not a fact, it's an assumption. Once the conclusion is obvious, it becomes a fact, and faith or assumptions are no longer required.

Try telling that to scientists and see how far you get.