• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Anchor of Faith

sealchan

sealchan

Well-Known Member
Cassandra said:
If it is beyond proof it should not be believed.
Nothing in Reality is beyond proof except lies.
That is what makes lies lies.
That is the very essence of lies.
Click to expand...

Do you think you act only on proof? If so see my earlier post to another, like-minded, participant on this thread.
 
1

1213

Well-Known Member
sealchan said:
Do you believe that loyalty has a positive net benefit in this life? Or is that benefit invisible until another time and place...that no one has ever proven to exist?

Do you accept the "tenuosity" of the practical assumptions you may be counting on?
Click to expand...

I want to be loyal to God, because He is the best, good, wise and otherwise nice. I think He has given me great wisdom and that is why I am thankful for Him and want to be loyal to Him.

But are there benefits? Loyalty to God means that I keep His commandment that is “love your neighbor as yourself”. What do you think, is it beneficial for other people, if I do so?
 
1

1213

Well-Known Member
ManSinha said:
Where is this eternal life and eternal punishment supposed to exist? I am told the Bible does not believe in heaven and hell
Click to expand...

Hmmm… …Bible tells there is/will be heaven and hell. But it doesn’t tell direct locations. I personally think heaven is higher level of existence. Like the level of ideas.
 
Cassandra

Cassandra

Active Member
sealchan said:
Do you think you act only on proof? If so see my earlier post to another, like-minded, participant on this thread.
Click to expand...
refute the argument, if you do not,
I will accept your surrender.

I repeat:
If it is beyond proof it should not be believed.
Nothing in Reality is beyond proof except lies.
That is what makes lies lies.
That is the very essence of lies.
 
sealchan

sealchan

Well-Known Member
1213 said:
I want to be loyal to God, because He is the best, good, wise and otherwise nice. I think He has given me great wisdom and that is why I am thankful for Him and want to be loyal to Him.

But are there benefits? Loyalty to God means that I keep His commandment that is “love your neighbor as yourself”. What do you think, is it beneficial for other people, if I do so?
Click to expand...

It can be beneficial...sometimes it is better to not trust your neighbor as they are untrustworthy and will simply take advantage. That can be determined by trial and error or, as they say in the Prisoner's dilemma club tit-for-tat.
 
sealchan

sealchan

Well-Known Member
Cassandra said:
refute the argument, if you do not,
I will accept your surrender.

I repeat:
If it is beyond proof it should not be believed.
Nothing in Reality is beyond proof except lies.
That is what makes lies lies.
That is the very essence of lies.
Click to expand...

I was hoping to avoid cutting and pasting but if that is easier...

Timothy Spurlin said:
Faith is believing without evidence.

I don't use faith, I use objective evidence. That is evidence that exist outside of the mind.

If there is no evidence for a god, why do you believe in one?
Click to expand...

I would dispute the notion that you only use objective evidence.
  • First I would say that you (everyone) frequently use subjective preference (left or right hand)
  • Second I would say that you often use practical assumptions (ignore the possibility of incidental calamities)
  • Finally I also claim that you rely on unquestioned but commonly held mythic ideas (free will, individual human rights, the attainability of objectivity, the absolute supremacy of rational truth)
I think this is a valid discussion here although not fully focused on the OP. I could break this big claim of mine into a separate thread.

To answer your question...I believe in a God as an expression of an objective psychological reality. My belief is wrapped in a story of how I was able to overcome a depression and understand the value of my life through a dialog/interaction with God. So the subjective evidence in my life is enough for my belief. However, I do not claim that this should be enough for anyone else's belief. I could make a case based on objective information that a belief in God can be efficacious but even then I would not say that it is an entirely necessary, exclusive or superior form of belief for others. Nature is much more dynamic than any "one way" consciously rational approach can fully encompass.

Also...

I recommend to you to read Chapter 29 and 30 of Douglas Hofstadter's Metamagical Themas. He makes the connection between rationality and moral optimization being at cross purposes. He uses the Prisoner's dilemma as a context for realizing this and even comes up with a lottery, funded by the Scientific American, to try and explore this conundrum.

Our moral decisions are often made in the context of how others will choose to make their moral decisions. I am coming into a realization here that this may also be a model for how we approach faith when there is a personal payoff to be had in some remote future. We are presented with a dichotomy between rational action and moral choice and to some extent we have God or some Way as our other prisoner to reckon with.

Eliminating the primacy of the future payoff would then be a last step in the development of one's faith. This leaves one in a context of having to negotiate one's fragile, subjective truths in a world where there is little guarantee that those truths will be considered. The strength it takes to stand up and go forward through the day requires a lot of faith without a lot of reward other than an appreciation of the fruitful bounty of the moment it seems.

Wikipedia treatments...

Chapter 29
Prisoner's dilemma - Wikipedia

Chapter 30
Superrationality - Wikipedia
 
ManSinha

ManSinha

Well-Known Member
1213 said:
Bible tells there is/will be heaven and hell
Click to expand...
Could you provide the quotes? My information based on some conversations is that word "Gehanna" was translated as hell - "gahanna" is a word for garbage dump where waste used to be burnt in ancient times -

There is no actual mention of a Hell or Heaven for that matter in the Bible

There is mention of Kingdom of God certainly = but to equate that with "Heaven" is a modern variation of the theme
 
T

Timothy Spurlin

Active Member
1213 said:
Hmmm… …Bible tells there is/will be heaven and hell. But it doesn’t tell direct locations. I personally think heaven is higher level of existence. Like the level of ideas.
Click to expand...

Heaven and hell are human constructs created to control people.
I don't believe in heaven or hell.
 
T

Timothy Spurlin

Active Member
sealchan said:
I was hoping to avoid cutting and pasting but if that is easier...



I would dispute the notion that you only use objective evidence.
  • First I would say that you (everyone) frequently use subjective preference (left or right hand)
  • Second I would say that you often use practical assumptions (ignore the possibility of incidental calamities)
  • Finally I also claim that you rely on unquestioned but commonly held mythic ideas (free will, individual human rights, the attainability of objectivity, the absolute supremacy of rational truth)
I think this is a valid discussion here although not fully focused on the OP. I could break this big claim of mine into a separate thread.

To answer your question...I believe in a God as an expression of an objective psychological reality. My belief is wrapped in a story of how I was able to overcome a depression and understand the value of my life through a dialog/interaction with God. So the subjective evidence in my life is enough for my belief. However, I do not claim that this should be enough for anyone else's belief. I could make a case based on objective information that a belief in God can be efficacious but even then I would not say that it is an entirely necessary, exclusive or superior form of belief for others. Nature is much more dynamic than any "one way" consciously rational approach can fully encompass.

Also...

I recommend to you to read Chapter 29 and 30 of Douglas Hofstadter's Metamagical Themas. He makes the connection between rationality and moral optimization being at cross purposes. He uses the Prisoner's dilemma as a context for realizing this and even comes up with a lottery, funded by the Scientific American, to try and explore this conundrum.

Our moral decisions are often made in the context of how others will choose to make their moral decisions. I am coming into a realization here that this may also be a model for how we approach faith when there is a personal payoff to be had in some remote future. We are presented with a dichotomy between rational action and moral choice and to some extent we have God or some Way as our other prisoner to reckon with.

Eliminating the primacy of the future payoff would then be a last step in the development of one's faith. This leaves one in a context of having to negotiate one's fragile, subjective truths in a world where there is little guarantee that those truths will be considered. The strength it takes to stand up and go forward through the day requires a lot of faith without a lot of reward other than an appreciation of the fruitful bounty of the moment it seems.

Wikipedia treatments...

Chapter 29
Prisoner's dilemma - Wikipedia

Chapter 30
Superrationality - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Telling me what I do or believe is a strawman.
 
sealchan

sealchan

Well-Known Member
Timothy Spurlin said:
Faith = no evidence
Proof = objective evidence
Click to expand...

Faith = insufficient scientific evidence or no scientific evidence; subjective preference and lack of available science
Proof = peer reviewed articles in a scientific journal read by a community of scientific researchers or common sense

Life = a mixture of both
 
sealchan

sealchan

Well-Known Member
Timothy Spurlin said:
Telling me what I do or believe is a strawman.
Click to expand...

When I say you do I mean everyone does. I don't mean to claim your truth...my apologies.

I've listed three examples of non-proof based truths that I think that you and everyone else uses on a regular basis. That is an answer I think.

I world full of complex, adaptive systems with too many relevant points to measure means we have to estimate, guess, assume, simplify, intuit, etc...and there are some pretty big assumptions we all make that we take for granted because they are axiomatic for our culture.

I treat the latter in the thread...The Modern Myth

Here was my concluding post:

Here is an update to my list. I think it is shaping up nicely. If you read one of these entries and think "oh, that's not a myth! What a way to dismiss the obvious..." then go back and read my explanation of myth.
  • Cause/Effect All things happen due to previous, relevant events. Important for the purpose of predicting the future through analysis of past events. Also, allows for blame/reward to be assigned in order to encourage certain behaviors deemed vital to societies' health and well-being.
  • Consciousness - Soul - Spirit - Includes such things as human consciousness as qualitatively different than animal consciousness (the Great Divide) despite the deep similarities of physiology
  • Faith - Includes believing intentionally in what cannot be demonstrated or proven concretely; necessary to give an individual the freedom and through traditions the guidance to make value-based decisions with life altering consequences
  • Free Will - Human Rights - The idea that individuals have the power and discretion to effect their reality and experience and that ideally no one has the right to supersede that so long as one does not themselves choose something that supersedes the same freedom for someone else
  • God - includes the notion of a singular, focal divine nature or personality (monotheism) which is all inclusive of creation and the mystery contained within it; significant for the purpose of "explaining away" mystery as all coming from a central, known personality or divine principle
  • Progress - Given time and lack of external, uncontrollable calamity, human culture improves; and even across separate cultures, knowledge and experience transfers such that never cultures are better than older ones; this idea is vital for the individual who sees their own small effort as helping to achieve a lasting outcome in their culture
  • Reason - The idea that self-consistent thought and "valuation" leads to an ideal of truth from which all experience and feeling and creativity can be judged as correct or incorrect; that consciously considered knowledge in the human mind is sufficient for the experience of truth and reality
  • Romantic Love - The idea that one's specific, passionate desire for the companionship of another is a paramount value and requirement for a sense of personal fulfillment
  • Truth - The idea that knowledge can be settled into a static claim or list of claims wholly sufficient for personal health and well-being. All other ideas that are not truth are falsehoods and detrimental to individual and collective well-being. Provides the value that time spent having to ascertain the nature of what is occurring is minimized. Social groups sometimes reinforce this sense of static knowledge and even justify acts that are explicitly stated as not truth in an effort to protect truths that are being "threatened".
 
T

Timothy Spurlin

Active Member
sealchan said:
Faith = insufficient scientific evidence or no scientific evidence; subjective preference and lack of available science
Proof = peer reviewed articles in a scientific journal read by a community of scientific researchers or common sense

Life = a mixture of both
Click to expand...

Your faith is subjective, coming from your mind?
 
T

Timothy Spurlin

Active Member
sealchan said:
When I say you do I mean everyone does. I don't mean to claim your truth...my apologies.

I've listed three examples of non-proof based truths that I think that you and everyone else uses on a regular basis. That is an answer I think.

I world full of complex, adaptive systems with too many relevant points to measure means we have to estimate, guess, assume, simplify, intuit, etc...and there are some pretty big assumptions we all make that we take for granted because they are axiomatic for our culture.

I treat the latter in the thread...The Modern Myth

Here was my concluding post:

Here is an update to my list. I think it is shaping up nicely. If you read one of these entries and think "oh, that's not a myth! What a way to dismiss the obvious..." then go back and read my explanation of myth.
  • Cause/Effect All things happen due to previous, relevant events. Important for the purpose of predicting the future through analysis of past events. Also, allows for blame/reward to be assigned in order to encourage certain behaviors deemed vital to societies' health and well-being.
  • Consciousness - Soul - Spirit - Includes such things as human consciousness as qualitatively different than animal consciousness (the Great Divide) despite the deep similarities of physiology
  • Faith - Includes believing intentionally in what cannot be demonstrated or proven concretely; necessary to give an individual the freedom and through traditions the guidance to make value-based decisions with life altering consequences
  • Free Will - Human Rights - The idea that individuals have the power and discretion to effect their reality and experience and that ideally no one has the right to supersede that so long as one does not themselves choose something that supersedes the same freedom for someone else
  • God - includes the notion of a singular, focal divine nature or personality (monotheism) which is all inclusive of creation and the mystery contained within it; significant for the purpose of "explaining away" mystery as all coming from a central, known personality or divine principle
  • Progress - Given time and lack of external, uncontrollable calamity, human culture improves; and even across separate cultures, knowledge and experience transfers such that never cultures are better than older ones; this idea is vital for the individual who sees their own small effort as helping to achieve a lasting outcome in their culture
  • Reason - The idea that self-consistent thought and "valuation" leads to an ideal of truth from which all experience and feeling and creativity can be judged as correct or incorrect; that consciously considered knowledge in the human mind is sufficient for the experience of truth and reality
  • Romantic Love - The idea that one's specific, passionate desire for the companionship of another is a paramount value and requirement for a sense of personal fulfillment
  • Truth - The idea that knowledge can be settled into a static claim or list of claims wholly sufficient for personal health and well-being. All other ideas that are not truth are falsehoods and detrimental to individual and collective well-being. Provides the value that time spent having to ascertain the nature of what is occurring is minimized. Social groups sometimes reinforce this sense of static knowledge and even justify acts that are explicitly stated as not truth in an effort to protect truths that are being "threatened".
Click to expand...

Can you prove your god is real?
What objective evidence do you have?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top