3 of 3
3
The presumption of rationalism
Posted: 16 March 2009 12:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
VYAZMA - 15 March 2009 08:04 PM
Bryan - 15 March 2009 06:47 PM
VYAZMA - 15 March 2009 05:57 PM

But as long as it is presupposed that the Bible takes seriously the relationship between promise and fulfillment, it’s hard to argue that the model of faith is not based on evidence.

I don’t think we should presuppose any book,bible or otherwise,could be able to take anything seriously.The authors,or the readers may take the book seriously,but a book has no conscientious abilities.

Referring to the text rather than to the object itself, of course, but there’s enough humor in your semantic twist to wring a smile from me.  smile

As long as were out here in left field debating the existance of a god;and I know it’s been covered before;but the promise and fulfillment,reward and punishment thing is so humanly contrived.The funny thing about this conundrum,is that when you try to trace it backwards,using the “test’ of an actual creator,then it becomes even more contrived.It shouldn’t though,it should become more complicated,and more revealing.

Actually the subject was not the existence of God but the nature of faith and whether or not the Bible teaches the notion of faith without evidence.

Well my reply wasn’t a semantic twist.

It’s hard to take your claim here seriously.  You don’t think that any text treats any issue seriously?

It was a counter-twist directed at clever semantics.

Clever semantics like what?

I would have thought that “the nature of faith” and, “faith without evidence” in regards to the “teachings of the bible"would be directly attributable to the debate about the existance of god.

Noted.  Why would you be correct in that thought, as against what I’ve already argued?

In otherwords,in the above when mentioning the validity of the ideas,notions or inspired hallucinations of abraham,we must pre-suppose that these ideas were a direct influence from god.

No, we don’t.  And I’ve already explained it.  If you want to disagree then you can address my argument.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 March 2009 12:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Mathenaut - 15 March 2009 10:16 PM
Bryan - 15 March 2009 01:50 PM

I hope you’ve stayed abreast of the context, which deal with the model of faith as presented in the Bible—that is, a faith based on evidence.

Credible evidence that supports the claims of the bible?

No; that is not the subject.

Surely you should know better than to try this here.

I know better than to allow any old conversation to be drawn into a dispute over the reliability of the Bible.  That wasn’t and isn’t the point.  I think I made that clear while referring to another’s example of the film “Harvey.”

People with no divine origin or superpowers have made accurate predictions about future events, and there are all manner of great fiction stories (some with their own occult followings even!) based around characters who run by evidence-based faith.  People, stories, and religions that you will disclaim outright, even through your bible stands on no better footing.

Apparently you want to argue whether prophetic fulfillment offers good reason to regard the Bible as true.  That is not remotely the topic, here.  But I can work on trying to find you a pen pal on that topic if you like.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 March 2009 01:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  63
Joined  2009-03-12

Alright then…let me try to grasp the core of this without diverging too much on the matter.

Despite whether it is credible, sensible, or reliable, your argument is that there is still something at the basis of biblical belief…and that something counts as ‘evidence’?  Is this right?

I don’t suppose there is a real problem with that.  Though, understand that by this reasoning, faith in spiderman is based upon evidence.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 March 2009 06:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14

Referring to the text rather than to the object itself, of course, but there’s enough humor in your semantic twist to wring a smile from me.  smile

It was a counter-twist directed at clever semantics.

Clever semantics like what?

 

Clever semantics like refering to the bible as an authoritative “person”.You knew what I meant.I can only sharpshoot so much of your stuff-it’s tedious.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 March 2009 12:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
VYAZMA - 16 March 2009 06:46 AM

Referring to the text rather than to the object itself, of course, but there’s enough humor in your semantic twist to wring a smile from me.  smile

It was a counter-twist directed at clever semantics.

Clever semantics like what?

Clever semantics like refering to the bible as an authoritative “person”.You knew what I meant.

Yes, I knew what you meant, but as I explained to you that was not what I meant.  I meant the meaning on the page, not the object containing the words.  So if that’s your example then you’re the one with the clever semantics.  Congratulations.

I can only sharpshoot so much of your stuff-it’s tedious.

Meh.  So you’re a sharpshooter.  Wonderful.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 March 2009 12:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Mathenaut - 16 March 2009 01:50 AM

Alright then…let me try to grasp the core of this without diverging too much on the matter.

Despite whether it is credible, sensible, or reliable, your argument is that there is still something at the basis of biblical belief…and that something counts as ‘evidence’?  Is this right?

No, unless I’m just not quite following what you’re saying.

The point is that both “Harvey” and the Bible display a view of faith.  It doesn’t matter whether or not the events in either are real with respect to that proposition.

One might argue that “Harvey” is a true story, or one might argue for the historicity of the Bible.  Neither argument is remotely the subject of this thread up until very recently—and I wasn’t the one who introduced it, so far as I can tell.

I don’t suppose there is a real problem with that.  Though, understand that by this reasoning, faith in spiderman is based upon evidence.

It seems to me exceptionally likely that you do not yet see what the thread was hitherto about.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 March 2009 12:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  63
Joined  2009-03-12
Bryan - 16 March 2009 12:49 PM

The point is that both “Harvey” and the Bible display a view of faith.

Evidence-based faith though, yes?  Regardless of whether anyone else believes it for whatever reason, both are stories about people whose faith is based upon something.  Is that what you are saying?

It seems to me exceptionally likely that you do not yet see what the thread was hitherto about.

Probably….unless I’m correct with the above.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 March 2009 12:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Mathenaut - 16 March 2009 12:52 PM
Bryan - 16 March 2009 12:49 PM

The point is that both “Harvey” and the Bible display a view of faith.

Evidence-based faith though, yes?

Yes.  The type of faith that convinces J. Jonah Jameson that Spider-Man exists.

Regardless of whether anyone else believes it for whatever reason, both are stories about people whose faith is based upon something.  Is that what you are saying?

It seems to me exceptionally likely that you do not yet see what the thread was hitherto about.

Probably….unless I’m correct with the above.

Perhaps ... though it didn’t seem to me that you were talking about people in the Marvel universe believing in Spider-Man but rather people in our world.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 March 2009 07:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  323
Joined  2009-02-18

‘Evidence’ appears to be in the eye of the beholder. So my evidence that is the basis of my particular faith may not be your idea of evidence at all, but only a superstition. Or hallucination…

So if one accepts ‘evidence’ i.e. the bible, as a basis of faith, and I do not, I will agree that you have some kind of basis for your faith. I can still challenge your evidence by a rational attack on it’s validity historically or scientifically, but I will admit to your ‘evidence’ being the basis of your faith.

I can’t see that anyone can have any kind of faith or presumption that is not based on something, however odd or strange that something may be. Call it evidence if you will.

Faith remains a remarkably strong force in human interactions, and cannot be lightly dismissed even if we do not agree on the basis of that faith. Faith has tremendous power.

The power of faith makes it useful and dangerous at the same time. A true ‘thinking’ machine would not have faith in anything, in my opinion, but would consider everything in the universe to be the result of some collapse of a a bunch of probability wave functions, etc. So it would be able to predict events with some measure of probability, but without any faith at all. It would crunch numbers without any faith in any kind of outcome. And that machine without faith wouldn’t project a single original concept, because I believe that faith is a driving force in human originality.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 March 2009 09:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  63
Joined  2009-03-12
Bryan - 16 March 2009 12:59 PM

Yes.  The type of faith that convinces J. Jonah Jameson that Spider-Man exists.

J. Jonah Jameson doesn’t have ‘faith’ in spider-man.  He has solid, empirical evidence for spiderman.  There is no such evidence supporting the claims of the bible.

Perhaps ... though it didn’t seem to me that you were talking about people in the Marvel universe believing in Spider-Man but rather people in our world.

It was something I was alluding to.  Fictional characters that have evidence of other characters that exist in their setting.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 March 2009 10:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Mathenaut - 16 March 2009 09:48 PM
Bryan - 16 March 2009 12:59 PM

Yes.  The type of faith that convinces J. Jonah Jameson that Spider-Man exists.

J. Jonah Jameson doesn’t have ‘faith’ in spider-man.  He has solid, empirical evidence for spiderman.

Pardon me, I should have said the same kind of faith that convinces J. Jonah Jameson that Spider-Man is a threat.  smile
And convinces others that he’s a crime-fighter.

There is no such evidence supporting the claims of the bible.

Again, the issue here is not “the claims of the (B)ible” but rather the picture of faith painted in the Bible.  There is just as much evidence supporting these evidential claims respecting Abraham and Noah as there is for those respecting Peter Parker—if not more.

Perhaps ... though it didn’t seem to me that you were talking about people in the Marvel universe believing in Spider-Man but rather people in our world.

It was something I was alluding to.  Fictional characters that have evidence of other characters that exist in their setting.

Hopefully you’re poised to see my point, then.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 March 2009 03:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  63
Joined  2009-03-12

Perhaps ... though it didn’t seem to me that you were talking about people in the Marvel universe believing in Spider-Man but rather people in our world.

It was something I was alluding to.  Fictional characters that have evidence of other characters that exist in their setting.

Hopefully you’re poised to see my point, then.

Got it. smile

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 March 2011 04:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  39
Joined  2010-06-11

No stay in Egypt and no Exodus ever happened1
  Now, Alister Earl McGrath states that Dawkins uses an idiosyncratic definition of faith as blind faith, whilst no, theists use the leap of faith after finding evidence for Him, to have certainty in that belief, but that redounds to my saying : faith doth that to people! With, James, he fails as we rationalists note, with Clifford, we need adequate, provisional knowledge as that is certainty enough without precluding new evidence to cause us to change our minds.
  Another ruse is to maintain that faith grabs our whole being into action. No, our inner resources do that.

  Aquinas maintains that matters of reason cause people to accept God, but they need faith for the Trinity and such. No, because faith cannot instantiate nonsense! And reason eviscerates all arguments for His existence.
  Alvin Plantinga, like Aquinas, overrated as a philosopher, finds faith in his warrant that God is a basic belief like other minds and external reality are. No, because as the arguments from hiddenness and unbelief note, many have no such belief. Indeed, I find that ignosticism finds no God can exists. He finds that when people have epiphanies from reading the Bible or have religious experiences, that reveals the warrant, but no, that means that they don’t consider that that anthology contradicts itself and reality and has atrocious morality, and all religious experience stems from peoples own mental states, and to argue that He puts it into us, begs the question.
  I delight in faulting Plantinga!

  Trust from experience is not the same as religious faith!

  posts 256

[ Edited: 02 March 2011 04:10 PM by Carneades Thales Strato of Ga. [griggsy ] ]
 Signature 

[size=6][/“size][color=redLife is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning>” Inquiring Lynn
      ” God is in a worse condition than the Scarecrow, who had a body to which a mind could enter whilst He has neither. He is that married bachelor. No wonder he is ineffable. ” Ignostic Morgan
” Religion is mythinformation.” An Englishlman.
  ” Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.” Griggsy[/color]

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 3
3