Is Faith Evidence of Things Not Seen?

[robocop (actually)]

Yes, I looked at Alma, and it says what I've been saying -- if I know something I have no need to believe it. What it doesn't say is WHY I should believe something I don't know. Mysterious omission, really.

And I do not see "repentance" as a necessity for improvement. I can admit to being imperfect without needing to feel guilty about it, and repentence is, after all, about guilt. I've spent a lifetime trying to improve, as I am able, through learning, through reflection and many other ways, but I'm certainly not going to feel guilty and get all repentent because I'm not the best human being ever.

But perhaps you and I see "living the right way" differently. I do it without ghosts.

Mysterious omission; no showing faith is like hypotheses that you can test.

You proved my point about repentance.

The Father and the Son have bodies of flesh and bone in my religion; not ghosts.

But you just always know more; strange.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Right back at you.

I encouraged free exercise of conscience, the flip-side of promoting religious competition and allowance.

 

[robocop (actually)]

I think that your are conflating "free exercise of religion" with the claims of religion. The claims are under attack. As well they should be.

I think I'm not. Free exercise of religions and the claims of religion can both be wrong. People should look for a religion with righteous claims and there should be religious competition so they can find their favorite if there is one. When they've found it though, they should be able to freely exercise it in the public square, and that's what I'm talking about.

Did I do good or bad?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is just a bald assertion. Come back when you can demonstrate that there is a third option.

EDIT: Or (epistemically) a second.

That is simple. It has to do with the 3 versions of wrong.
It is wrong, that I can fly in earth gravity solely by the use of my body. (P as physics)
It is wrong, that in base 10 that 1+1=10. (C as cognitive)
It is wrong to kill another human. (M as moral)

Now if everything is one category you have to be able to reduce P, C AND(logical strong and) M down to one or alternatively prove P, C AND M.
So what is involved in the 3 categories: Observation, cognition and feelings.
Now we test if you can observe everything. No, because you can't observe a feeling. You feel it, don't observe.
Now we test if you can think everything. No, because you can't think an observation. You observe, don't think.
Now we test if you can feeling everything. No, because you can't feel an thought. You think, don't feel.

So now to logic. Something can't at the same time and place and in a sense be and not be in that sense.
So for P, C AND M they can't be made logical consistent because the different senses of P, C and M can't be made into one.
I.e. you can't do everything humans do, only doing one of the categories and there is no one way to say what everything is in one sense.

The third option is that we can't do everything so that it adds up and makes sense. In naturalistic terms as per biological evolution we are evolved to live in the world and that doesn't require that we can make sense of everything.
Some religious people believe they can make sense of everything using God. They can't.
Some non-religious people believe they can make sense of everything using science. They can't.
Some people know there is a limit to both religion and science in terms of making sense of everything. They are called skeptics.

So you are a believer in that everything is physical. It is not, because it is too simple, just as God is too simple.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Agrippa's trilemma is addressed frankly by my three assumptions. Since you share those assumptions, we can talk. If we didn't, we couldn't.

Those three assumptions also demonstrate rather thoroughly that I'm not a solipsist.

So we make assumptions in our minds, therefore the world is physical.

P1: We make assumptions in our minds
C: The world is physical.

You are missing a lot from that we make assumptions to that it is a fact that the world is physical.

 

[blü 2]

So we make assumptions in our minds, therefore the world is physical.

P1: We make assumptions in our minds
C: The world is physical.

You are missing a lot from that we make assumptions to that it is a fact that the world is physical.

As I said, they're not just my assumptions. You share them and at the least as to the first two, so does everyone I've ever met.

Why? Because they work extremely well.

Where do you think your air, your water, your food, your parents come from? Not from within yourself, surely?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As I said, they're not just my assumptions. You share them and at the least as to the first two, so does everyone I've ever met.

Why? Because they work extremely well.

Where do you think your air, your water, your food, your parents come from? Not from within yourself, surely?

That we share assumptions, doesn't make the world physical.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Most of what happens in spiritual practice is on the personal level and can not be "proven" by science. I do not believe it is meant for science to understand spiritual experiences.

Another convenient "out."

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Another convenient "out."

Well, here are some things science can't do:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

And that is written by scientists.

 

[Kenny]

Yes, of course it could have been faith; it also could have been aliens. But the time to believe something is when there's evidence for it, not merely when you can't prove it didn't happen.

And yet we have evidence of faith having worked. If a woman (Candace my friend) has X-ray evidence of no eardrum, no ear and no hole and many doctors who said their is nothing they can do and next thing, after prayer, she has an eardrum and the doctors said "all we need to do is open the hole" - pretty solid evidence to me. You could say angels are aliens

But that's exactly the evidence we don't have for faith. Faith works...sometimes. other times, it fails miserably. As I said, it's a crapshoot. So when someone throws a free throw, and half the time they make it and half the time they miss, what are we to conclude?

Let me translate:

Let's not take cancer treatments because it its a crapshoot.
Let's not have a bone marrow transplant because sometimes it takes and sometimes it doesn't
Let's not use hydroxychloroquine because it works sometimes and sometimes it doesn't

OR

Let's find out why it didn't work and see if we can make it better.

Most Jews globally havent maintained their language or culture, though. So just like every other people group on earth, a group of them have maintained the "old ways," and many of then have dispersed and integrated into the cultures where they live. The reestablishment of Israel as a recognized nation took place through completely human, natural means.

That is ignoring what every Jew and most people understand that it has never happened before.

So your claim is that anyone whose prayer has ever not been answered wasn't answered because they didn't really have faith? Really? Is that really your answer? Because that's a basic No True Scotsman fallacy. You don't get to just count the Ws. You have to count the Ls as well. That's like sitting in front of a slot machine and only taking note of the times when it pays out, and thinking you have some kind of special, magic slot machine. What about all the times it didn't pay out?

It that really what you understood? Please take it in context You asked why sometimes it doesn't work and I gave you 1 answer as to a potential why but you take it as a global answer for all situations. One can always get faith if one doesn't have it (I know because I include myself)

How many people get a gold medal saying "I'll NEVER get a gold medal". none! - no faith. But doesn't translate into "Everybody doesn't make it because they said that."

Do you really want to understand?

 

[Kenny]

Is that the Amplified Bible?

Hebrews 11:1 AMP
Now faith is the assurance (title deed, confirmation) of things hoped for (divinely guaranteed), and the evidence of things not seen [the conviction of their reality—faith comprehends as fact what cannot be experienced by the physical senses].

Sounds good.
I was thinking though, wouldn't the title deed be considered as evidence of the reality... though not beheld.
One does not behold the actual property.

Yes it is amplified.

YES! The title deed, what is written, is all that we need to believe. It is the evidence that something has and is happening.

But whatever happens in the spiritual manifests in the natural so in verse 3

:3 By faith, we understand, the worlds were framed by the word of God

It isn't "we just have to accept it by faith" but rather - God used faith to create the framework where the physical could attach itself to it - and it became what He believed and spoke.

 

[stvdv]

Depending on your favorite translation, Hebrews 11:1 reads:

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Is Faith Evidence of Things Not Seen?

I would rather say:
"The above quote is Evidence that Faith is the hope to fool others into believing that Faith is Evidence of Things Not Seen?

 

[robocop (actually)]

Yes, I looked at Alma, and it says what I've been saying -- if I know something I have no need to believe it. What it doesn't say is WHY I should believe something I don't know. Mysterious omission, really.

And I do not see "repentance" as a necessity for improvement. I can admit to being imperfect without needing to feel guilty about it, and repentence is, after all, about guilt. I've spent a lifetime trying to improve, as I am able, through learning, through reflection and many other ways, but I'm certainly not going to feel guilty and get all repentent because I'm not the best human being ever.

But perhaps you and I see "living the right way" differently. I do it without ghosts.

I think that your are conflating "free exercise of religion" with the claims of religion. The claims are under attack. As well they should be.

My schizophrenia is OK if you guys want to talk to me. Am going for a walk.

 

[Left Coast]

And yet we have evidence of faith having worked. If a woman (Candace my friend) has X-ray evidence of no eardrum, no ear and no hole and many doctors who said their is nothing they can do and next thing, after prayer, she has an eardrum and the doctors said "all we need to do is open the hole" - pretty solid evidence to me. You could say angels are aliens

Three things: 1) if prayer caused that to happen, why did doctors have to open the hole? If God did the miracle, why didn't he go all the way? 2) What is your evidence that faith actually caused the eardrum to grow? Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy. 3) You're again not addressing my earlier point. How many deaf people have prayed to hear and it never happens? You have to count Ws and Ls if you want to be objective here.

Let me translate:

Let's not take cancer treatments because it its a crapshoot.
Let's not have a bone marrow transplant because sometimes it takes and sometimes it doesn't
Let's not use hydroxychloroquine because it works sometimes and sometimes it doesn't

OR

Let's find out why it didn't work and see if we can make it better.

Not at all. If prayer was as effective at treating cancer as chemo or radiation or surgery...we'd prescribe it. The reason doctors don't, is because it isn't. Cancer treatments go through rounds of extensive clinical trials to determine effectiveness, and have to actually be shown to be consistently effective and safe to be approved by the FDA, etc. Prayer has also been scientifically tested...do you wanna know what the results have been? (Hint: not good)

That is ignoring what every Jew and most people understand that it has never happened before.

Sorry, untrue.

It that really what you understood? Please take it in context You asked why sometimes it doesn't work and I gave you 1 answer as to a potential why but you take it as a global answer for all situations. One can always get faith if one doesn't have it (I know because I include myself)

How many people get a gold medal saying "I'll NEVER get a gold medal". none! - no faith. But doesn't translate into "Everybody doesn't make it because they said that."

Do you really want to understand?

I said before that there are always ways to rationalize Ls if you're using motivated reasoning. Why didn't my lucky socks help me win the gold today? Oh, it was a Tuesday, I washed them on the wrong day, my attitude wasn't right, I didn't really believe in them...the excuses are endless. But the bottom line is, neither prayer/faith nor lucky socks have been shown to have any consistent miraculous sorts of effects. What it produces are similar to slot machine results, with just enough rewarding coincidences to keep people playing.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Well, here are some things science can't do:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

And that is written by scientists.

I'm a bit disappointed that you think me stupid enough not to be aware of that. I've never pretended that science could have anything definitive to say about ethical matters (though it can contribute), or about esthetic ones, either. But that still doesn't mean that we get to make any supposition that we like, and suppose that it must be right because science can't prove it wrong. This is, of course, where I think the idealism of Bishop Berkeley went so wrong in his idealism and immaterialism.

Think, for example, of the work going on now to create a vaccine against COVID-19. If it should work, we have to ask, how it works -- what is the mechanism by which such a vaccine could provide immunity to the virus? Which "mind" is that work dependent upon, if nobody can ever perceive it, let alone know how it is working?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm a bit disappointed that you think me stupid enough not to be aware of that. I've never pretended that science could have anything definitive to say about ethical matters (though it can contribute), or about esthetic ones, either. But that still doesn't mean that we get to make any supposition that we like, and suppose that it must be right because science can't prove it wrong. This is, of course, where I think the idealism of Bishop Berkeley went so wrong in his idealism and immaterialism.

...

Well, now we are getting somewhere. The interesting part is the bold one. What is the status of that sentence itself? Can you prove it right with science? Well, no, because it is not based on an observation as such. So what is the status? Well, it seems to be a combination of morality "... doesn't mean that ..." and aesthetics/morality sort of "... that we like ...". Now the joke is also the "we". It is free floating because it is not establish who it is and with what authority it speaks.
So first off, the sentence is self-referring because it is also about itself and thus we don't get to make it, because we don't, says the "we".

You are not that good at this, now are you, Evangelicalhumanist? You make a statement, which is not permissible under its own rule and you claim a "we" out of nowhere.
So here it is with yelling: YOU CAN'T SPEAK FOR ME WITH A "WE". You are not the authoritative source of humanity and I will resist your kind regardless of religion or not. You are in effect wrong, not morally, but intellectually because you have made an self-refuting rule without establishing the authority of the "we".
So "we" don't like that!

 

[blü 2]

That we share assumptions, doesn't make the world physical.

That

(a) we both think the world is physical and
(b) we have no reason to think the world is not physical and
(c) the only reason we're communicating is because the world is physical and
(d) the great majority of folk think the world is physical​

is a much more comfortable place to be standing than arguing that

the world is not physical but
being totally without evidence and
stuck with the realization that if the world isn't physical then the only thing it can be is a concept or thing imagined in an individual human's brain.​

Or so it seems to me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That

(a) we both think the world is physical and
(b) we have no reason to think the world is not physical and
(c) the only reason we're communicating is because the world is physical and
(d) the great majority of folk think the world is physical​

is a much more comfortable place to be standing than arguing that

the world is not physical but
being totally without evidence and
stuck with the realization that if the world isn't physical then the only thing it can be is a concept or thing imagined in an individual human's brain.​

Or so it seems to me.

Very short version:
You: The world is physical.
Me: No, that is too simple. Parts of it are physical, but you can't use the notion of physical in all cases. This being one such case. Now it doesn't mean that there is a God. It means, that, the idea the world is physical, is too simple, because everything, humans do in practice, is not physical. Further there is no theory of everything as physical. That should tell you something.

 

[blü 2]

Very short version:
You: The world is physical.
Me: No, that is too simple. Parts of it are physical, but you can't use the notion of physical in all cases. This being one such case. Now it doesn't mean that there is a God. It means, that, the idea the world is physical, is too simple, because everything, humans do in practice, is not physical. Further there is no theory of everything as phy sical. That should tell you something.

What does 'non-physical' mean then, other than purely conceptual / imaginary?

Define it clearly so I know what you're talking about.

Show me. Give me evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What does 'non-physical' mean then, other than purely conceptual / imaginary?

Define it clearly so I know what you're talking about.

Show me. Give me evidence.

I can't show it to you, I can show it to you like 2+2=4. We are playing naive empiricism, namely that all experiences are external sensory experiences. That is easy to show and test:
Someone: All experiences are external sensory experiences.
Me: No!

E.g. you use of the word "mean" is purely conceptual/imaginary, because I can't show you the meaning of this sentence, yet you understand it. Do you see, that you can't see it? I am using 2 different meanings of "see". Have I shown you enough?

I can't help you, because your rule against purely conceptual / imaginary is itself purely conceptual / imaginary and you accept that and then turn around and use your conceptual / imaginary non-physical rule against anything non-physical.
As long as you insist on doing that, we are stuck.
You: I don't accept the purely conceptual / imaginary.
Me: That is purely conceptual / imaginary.