What is Faith?

[Trailblazer]

understand, our bodies are not us, our bodies are just objects to manifest the spirits that is in the body. a body is simply an OBJECT, and objects is made up of compounds, compounds are made up of molecules, and molecules are made up of ATOMS, which are made up of protons, nutrons, and electrons, and they are made up quarks. so out bodies is another evidence of things not seen.

101G

Another WINNER.

 

[muhammad_isa]

There is no reason to believe that if something is undetectable that it exists..

Yes there is .. unless you are a materialist.
Some people have "spiritual eyes", and some don't.
A person who doesn't, sees no more than this worldly life,
and that is the greatest loss.

 

[Trailblazer]

Any experienced critical thinker can make that judgment.

They 'judge themselves' to be a critical thinker. If you cannot understand what is wrong with that I cannot help you.

And one who hasn't mastered critical thinking cannot.

And now YOU KNOW that I have not mastered critical thinking because I have concluded that God exists?
Your definition of a critical thinker is anyone who agrees with you that God does not exist.

All critical thinkers are atheists. No believers are critical thinkers.
That is the fallacy of black and white thinking.

The Black-or-White Fallacy is the provision of only two alternatives in an argument when there are actually more options available. ... It's also sometimes called the Gray Fallacy, between black and white options, or the middle-ground fallacy, after a middle ground between two warring camps.Domena writer.meteo24.nazwa.pl jest utrzymywana na serwerach nazwa.pl

black and white fallacy examples in politics - nazwa.pl

And here's some of that critical thought now. Commit an ad populum fallacy without saying ad populum: "How can that many people be wrong?"

I did not commit ad populum because I did not say that God exists is true because many or most people believe in God.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

Of course it makes sense that much of the world would be unskilled at critical thought. As you note, most believe in gods. The two are positively correlated.

Most everything in the world is run by the 93% of people who believe in God, governments, universities, everything, it is not run by atheists. How logical is it to say that 93% of the world population who believe in God are all unskilled thinkers?

I suggest you fold your deck because the skilled thinking argument is simply not working for you and you are just digging your grave deeper and deeper.
You cannot win this debate with ill-logic.

So I was right in what I said above, thus the fallacy of black and white thinking. I love how atheists have taught me how to recognize all the logical fallacies.

unskilled at critical thought = believer
skilled at critical thought = atheist

Faith is never justified. It's unjustified belief by definition.

The faith in the Messenger is justified if He is truly a Messenger of God. Even an atheist would agree with that if he had any logical capacities.
But you cannot agree with me because you have to be right all the time which means I have to be wrong all the time.
No critical thinker can fail to see that is true, but instead of admitting it is true you deflected again, true to form.

Another of your claims was just rebutted.

No, it is your claim that faith us unjustified belief by definition that has been rebutted. It was rebutted in my OP.

Faith is not unjustified belief by definition.

Whether faith is justified or unjustified is only a matter of opinion and opinions vary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, what is the definition of faith?

faith

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

faith means - Google Search

Yet your belief in Baha'u'llah is based in his claims anyway.

No, my belief in Baha'u'llah is not based upon the claims, it is based upon the evidence that supports His claims.

That is incorrect. All we need is sufficient evidence.

I have sufficient evidence. YMMV.

The belief becomes a claim as soon as one expresses it.

No, not unless they are claiming that it is true. I am not claiming it is true, I am only saying I believe it is true.

The evidence has been flying over your head. I generally identify two or more fallacies in each of your posts,

Yet you cannot identify even one logical fallacy and explain how I committed it, as I do with your posts.
Talk is cheap. Anyone claim that I commit logical fallacies but proving it is another matter.

And if you find it to be so and state that, you are making a claim.

No, I am not making a claim because I did not say that Baha'u'llah is a Messenger of God, I said I believe that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God.
Baha'u'llah made a claim when He said "I am a Messenger of God."

It is rather sad that someone who claims to be a critical thinker cannot even understand the difference between a person stating a belief and a person making a claim.

It's both.

It is not both a belief and a claim because a belief is not a claim. That is why there are two words in the dictionary.

Same thing. How many times do you want to repeat the same debunked claim without addressing the rebuttal to it?

You have only rebutted nothing except in your imagination.

I will repeat it for as long as it takes:

I made no claim because I never asserted that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger, I only ever said that I believe that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God.

There is no reason to believe that if something is undetectable that it exists.

Yes there is. It's called the Holy Bible. Ever heard of it?

Yes, and I have claimed that many are irrational in each of the multiple times I have identified your fallacies for you.

That is patently false. You have identified no fallacies that I have committed. If you think you have please present the evidence.
By contrast I have identified and explained all the logical fallacies you have committed.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes there is .. unless you are a materialist.
Some people have "spiritual eyes", and some don't.
A person who doesn't, sees no more than this worldly life,
and that is the greatest loss.

WINNER

 

[Valjean]

I am saying that it makes no sense that so many people would believe in God in the absence of evidence. You call it magical thinking but most of the world's population believes God is real. How can that many people be wrong?

And this isn't an ad pop?
Most people aren't critical thinkers or philosophers.
Critical thinkers, scientists and philosophers are less likely than the general population to believe in God.
The god-concepts that you subsume into 'belief in God' are extremely varied, and often not compatible with Abrahamic creator, lawgiver or judge. Instead of common belief, more apples and oranges.
Religious foundations are installed long before children have any logic or ability to evaluate them. They become part of their mental operating systems and resistant to alteration.
People are neurologically predisposed to personalization and to seeing patterns where there are none.

My belief in my religion is objectively supported by the objective evidence surrounding the revelation of Baha'u'llah, as noted above.

You don't agree with what?
I asked: "Why do you think that if God exists there would be testable or observable evidence for God?"

There is no objective evidence for God but there is objective evidence for the Messenger of God.

Because of the objective evidence surrounding the revelation of Baha'u'llah, who I believe was a Messenger of God.

I don't contest the existence of the Bab or Baha'u'llah, only their status. Prophets and people claiming divine revelation are, as I've said, a dime a dozen. Testimony alone doesn't support their various views.

 

[Valjean]

To say there can be no true Messengers because there are false messengers is illogical.
The fact that some messengers were false does not prove all messengers were false. That is the fallacy of hasty generalization, unless and until one has actually considered all the variables.

Agreed. So where is the observable, testable evidence supporting the revelation of the One True Messenger? Where is the objective evidence of God, himself?

It is true that the world is full of men who claimed to speak for God, but logically speaking that does not mean that there were not one or more Messengers who did speak for God.

As I said in my previous post, there is objective evidence but it is not testable. Testable is for science, not for religion.

First, we should establish that there is a God. Then we should test the claims of the messenger. If they're untestable they're also unbelievable.

We determine which claimant is telling the truth by looking at the objective evidence that supports their claims.

The faith in the Messenger is justified if He is truly a Messenger of God. The way we determine that is by looking at the evidence.
It can never be proven 'as a fact' that everyone will believe that a Messenger spoke for God, but we can prove it to ourselves.

But there is no objective evidence that I've ever seen. There are many theological arguments and much proposed evidence, but all of it is either flawed or debunked.

 

[F1fan]

I said: "Oh? I have never seen any of their work. "

This is not your work, it is just a continuation of your bragging about how great your thinking process is, how you 'believe' that my beliefs are irrational, and what you 'believe' about my personal qualities and abilities.

Bragging isn't accurate. It's just a fact that some of us have worked towards learning critical thinking skill and the self-monitoring that comes with it to avoid bias. We demonstrate this skill. You offer nothing that suggests this approach to considering ideas is negaive or unreliable. I don't understand why you have such contempt for critical thinking and how it can serve a person. You post so much content that we have an easy time assessing your abilities, and understanding your feelings.

You are the pot calling the kettle black. Your atheist blindspot is very effective in filtering out what you don’t like.

You use this pee Wee Herman retort of "I know you are but what am I" when you don't like a critique about your thinking. You are upset and coping by doing this, but I don't think you understand you are doing it.

You are the pot calling the kettle black. You seem to be so consistently absorbed in looking at me that you have no time to look at yourself.

Your critiques are spiteful and inaccurate. Have you considered how poorly faith serves you?

 

[Trailblazer]

And this isn't an ad pop?

No, it is not ad pop unless I say that that God exists is true because many or most people believe in God. I am not making that claim.
I am saying that it makes no sense that so many people would believe in God in the absence of evidence.

Most people aren't critical thinkers or philosophers.
Critical thinkers, scientists and philosophers are less likely than the general population to believe in God.
The god-concepts that you subsume into 'belief in God' are extremely varied, and often not compatible with Abrahamic creator, lawgiver or judge. Instead of common belief, more apples and oranges.

Are you saying that because most critical thinkers, scientists and philosophers are less likely to believe in God, that must mean God does not exist?

Religious foundations are installed long before children have any logic or ability to evaluate them. They become part of their mental operating systems and resistant to alteration.

I agree that is true for most people, since most people have a religion and raise their children in that religion. I was not raised in a religion or believing in God in a time when 95% of the United States were Christians. Both my parents were raised as Christians but they both dropped out of their churches as adults. Later my dad became an atheist but my mother had retained a belief in God and became a Baha'i at age 60.

People are neurologically predisposed to personalization and to seeing patterns where there are none.

I am not familiar with the research in this area.

I don't contest the existence of the Bab or Baha'u'llah, only their status. Prophets and people claiming divine revelation are, as I've said, a dime a dozen. Testimony alone doesn't support their various views.

Of course their testimony doesn't prove anything because a claim is not evidence that the claim is true.
The fact that many false prophets claim to be prophets does not prove that real prophets do not exist. That is illogical because it is the fallacy of jumping to conclusions and the fallacy of hasty generalization.

The fallacy of hasty generalization goes as follows:

If a person travels through a town for the first time and sees 10 people, all of them children, they may erroneously conclude that there are no adult residents in the town.

 

[We Never Know]

I have been having a discussion on another thread with @It Aint Necessarily So, and he claims that the definition of faith is unjustified belief.

@It Aint Necessarily So said: Millions agree with me that belief by faith is unjustified belief whether they use those words or not.

@Trailblazer said: If you are going to try to use that argument, many, many, more millions agree with me that belief by faith is justified belief whether they use those words or not.

Whether faith is justified or unjustified is only a matter of opinion and opinions vary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, what is the definition of faith?

faith

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

faith means - Google Search

I argue that people have to have faith in anything they cannot prove, and it could be God or something or someone else. Faith is justified by the evidence, so for example if a spouse was always trustworthy and honest that would be evidence and a reason to have faith in that spouse.

I argue that we cannot go through life without faith, even if we do not believe in God. We have to have faith in anything we cannot prove and there are many things that cannot be proven in the course of everyday life. I cannot prove that if I go to college I will graduate, so I have to have faith in my abilities. I cannot prove that if I retire things will go as I planned, because I could suddenly get ill. The list goes on and on.

If faith is necessary for so many things in everyday life what is the problem with having faith in God?

Well, I already know what atheists will say, that there is no evidence for God so belief is unjustified. Atheists say that if only there was sufficient evidence, we would not have to have faith to believe in God, but that is absolutely false because evidence is not proof unless it is verifiable evidence, and since God can never be verified there can never be any proof that God exists.

No matter what kind of evidence we had we could never PROVE that evidence originated from God so we would have to have faith in our evidence.

There is no proof that God exists so if we are going to believe in God, we need to have faith.

I argue that there is evidence for God’s existence so faith in God is justified.

I argue that it is illogical to expect to ever have proof of God since God is not subject to proof.

The only way we could ever have proof that God exists, making faith unnecessary, is for God to appear on earth so we could see God with our own eyes, but there is a good reason why God never appears on earth.

Exodus 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

That is why the Bible says that nobody has ever seen God, because nobody can see God and live.

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

1 John 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

The Writings of Baha’u’llah concur with the Bible.

“Were the Eternal Essence to manifest all that is latent within Him, were He to shine in the plentitude of His glory, none would be found to question His power or repudiate His truth. Nay, all created things would be so dazzled and thunderstruck by the evidences of His light as to be reduced to utter nothingness.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 71-72

If the God ever appeared on earth, so powerful is God’s light that we would all be reduced to utter nothingness. Sure, everyone would believe in God because it would be obvious to everyone that God exists, but what good would our belief be if we did not live?

"the definition of faith is unjustified belief"

I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow. Its been happening for billions of years so I would say its justified.

 

[idea]

Sounds like you've already done your time in hell. I hope you somehow find your way to heaven

If there is a heaven and hell, I'll be the last to make it to heaven. It's not heaven to me unless everyone is there.

 

[Trailblazer]

Agreed. So where is the observable, testable evidence supporting the revelation of the One True Messenger? Where is the objective evidence of God, himself?

There is no observable, testable evidence. If such evidence existed everyone would believe in the One True Messenger and everyone would believe in God and there would be no atheists.

First, we should establish that there is a God. Then we should test the claims of the messenger. If they're untestable they're also unbelievable.

You cannot establish that there is a God first, before you test the claims of the Messenger. Since the Messenger is the only evidence that God exists, you have to establish that the Messenger was sent by God first, before you can believe in God.

But there is no objective evidence that I've ever seen. There are many theological arguments and much proposed evidence, but all of it is either flawed or debunked.

I am not referring to the same kind of objective evidence you are thinking of.

Objective evidence refers to information based on facts that can be proved by means of search like analysis, measurement, and observation. One can examine and evaluate objective evidence.
https://askinglot.com/what-does-objective-evidence-mean

Subjective evidence is evidence that we cannot evaluate. In fact, we have two choices; to accept what somebody says or reject it. ... Objective evidence is evidence that we can examine and evaluate for ourselves.
Objective evidence - definition and meaning - Market ...

We can examine and evaluate the evidence for Baha'u'llah for ourselves because there are facts surrounding the person, life, and mission of Baha'u'llah, so in that sense we have objective evidence.

 

[We Never Know]

If there is a heaven and hell, I'll be the last to make it to heaven. It's not heaven to me unless everyone is there.

"It's not heaven to me unless everyone is there"

Even Hitler, Genghis Khan, Charles Manson, etc?

 

[Trailblazer]

Bragging isn't accurate. It's just a fact that some of us have worked towards learning critical thinking skill and the self-monitoring that comes with it to avoid bias. We demonstrate this skill.

Do you have a diploma to prove that you are skilled? You absolutely do not avoid bias. I have never seen anyone as biased as you and your sidekick @It Aint Necessarily So. You two elevate the word bias to a whole new level. The fact that you do not even realize that means you are not very self-aware.

You offer nothing that suggests this approach to considering ideas is negaive or unreliable. I don't understand why you have such contempt for critical thinking and how it can serve a person. You post so much content that we have an easy time assessing your abilities, and understanding your feelings.

It is easy to assess your inabilities by what you post. You have nothing substantive to offer in a debate, all you can say is "we are critical thinkers and you aren't." Where is the actual evidence that you can think critically, that you are smart enough to reject the only evidence that God has ever provided, and remain an atheist?

How is critical thinking serving you? Keeping you in an atheist box with a mind closed like a trap door. You do not look at any other viewpoints, you just keep repeating the same mantra - we are critical thinkers so we know better than to believe anything on faith.

You use this pee Wee Herman retort of "I know you are but what am I" when you don't like a critique about your thinking. You are upset and coping by doing this, but I don't think you understand you are doing it.

Your atheist filter is very effective in filtering out what you don’t like, and there you go, doing just what your sidekick does, deflecting when you cannot respond to what I said. You cannot show me how you don't filter anything out so you have to resort to deflection, just like @It Aint Necessarily So. Anyone with half a brain can recognize what you two are doing constantly. It is called deflection. When you cannot respond to what I said, you hurl accusations at me. I don't think you understand you are doing it because you have no self-awareness.

Your critiques are spiteful and inaccurate. Have you considered how poorly faith serves you?

My critiques are accurate and they are a long time coming. There you go again, deflecting. This has nothing to do with my faith and how well it serves me.

 

[We Never Know]

Do you have a diploma to prove that you are skilled? You absolutely do not avoid bias. I have never seen anyone as biased as you and your sidekick @It Aint Necessarily So. You two elevate the word bias to a whole new level. The fact that you do not even realize that means you are not very self-aware.

It is easy to assess your inabilities by what you post. You have nothing substantive to offer in a debate, all you can say is "we are critical thinkers and you aren't." Where is the actual evidence that you can think critically, that you are smart enough to reject the only evidence that God has ever provided, and remain an atheist?

How is critical thinking serving you? Keeping you in an atheist box with a mind closed like a trap door. You do not look at any other viewpoints, you just keep repeating the same mantra - we are critical thinkers so we know better than to believe anything on faith.

Your atheist filter is very effective in filtering out what you don’t like, and there you go, doing just what your sidekick does, deflecting when you cannot respond to what I said. You cannot show me how you don't filter anything out so you have to resort to deflection, just like @It Aint Necessarily So. Anyone with half a brain can recognize what you two are doing constantly. It is called deflection. When you cannot respond to what I said, you hurl accusations at me. I don't think you understand you are doing it because you have no self-awareness.

My critiques are accurate and they are a long time coming. There you go again, deflecting. This has nothing to do with my faith and how well it serves me.

You left off their critical thinking makes them believe the left is infallible.
Now I don't know about you but that tells me their thinking isn't so much as critical, as it is only one way.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Didn’t I read a post of yours saying you believe in some sort of God?

Yes, a non-reviled and non-interfering God, that only serves one purpose:
To solve the problem of whether the universe is real or not.
Since I believe the universe is real, but I have no evidence of that and being real is a human non-physical idea, it means the universe is a form of God.
That is a philosophical problem not even solved with evidence and reason as per your belief system. Read some actual skepticism.
You could start with the problem of realism in regards to epistemology. Or Rene Descartes and the evil demon.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And this isn't an ad pop?
Most people aren't critical thinkers or philosophers.
Critical thinkers, scientists and philosophers are less likely than the general population to believe in God.
The god-concepts that you subsume into 'belief in God' are extremely varied, and often not compatible with Abrahamic creator, lawgiver or judge. Instead of common belief, more apples and oranges.
Religious foundations are installed long before children have any logic or ability to evaluate them. They become part of their mental operating systems and resistant to alteration.
People are neurologically predisposed to personalization and to seeing patterns where there are none.

I don't contest the existence of the Bab or Baha'u'llah, only their status. Prophets and people claiming divine revelation are, as I've said, a dime a dozen. Testimony alone doesn't support their various views.

Or that the world is physical and real. The problem with the word God is not unique to that word. That goes for words like evidence, truth, proof, reason, rationality, logic, real and so on.
In formal philosophical words the problem is cognitive relativism and that is not unique to God or even religion.

 

[Truthseeker]

"A heart detached from all the peoples of the earth?" Explain, please.

That means you think independently from everyone else, and will do so even if what you think isn't liked by people you may want approval from. It doesn't mean you don't care about them.

 

[We Never Know]

That means you think independently from everyone else, and will do so even if what you think isn't liked by people you may want approval from. It doesn't mean you don't care about them.

So does it mean you live your life without worrying about what others think and without seeking approval from others but yet not with a cold heart?

 

[Truthseeker]

Literally none of what you wrote there is suited for determining "their truth".

Wow! Are you blind, or what!

 

[Truthseeker]

So does it mean you live your life without worrying about what others think and without seeking approval from others but yet not with a cold heart?

Yes, exactly.