Reason vs. Faith...

[Dr.Who]

If God, by contrast, had a cause (did not always exist), then he is just another link in the infinite causal chain, the conditions of which can never be satisfied. But theology doesn't claim this, to the best of my knowledge.

Quite.

Most Christian theologicans claim this. Whether or not they have read their bible right depends on whether or not the biblical phrase "from everlasting to everlasting" means existing from eternity to eternity. I agree with the theologians.

 

[SW85]

Most Christian theologicans claim this. Whether or not they have read their bible right depends on whether or not the biblical phrase "from everlasting to everlasting" means existing from eternity to eternity. I agree with the theologians.

They claim that God has always existed, not that the causal chain stretches for eternity (i.e., that God hasn't always existed).

If God exists and did create the universe, he must have always existed; this is the only reasonable explanation, and it's the one the theologians endorse.

 

[Dr.Who]

They claim that God has always existed, not that the causal chain stretches for eternity (i.e., that God hasn't always existed).

If God exists and did create the universe, he must have always existed; this is the only reasonable explanation, and it's the one the theologians endorse.

To the best of my knowledge we both think the same thing; that God always existed and that theologians endorse this.

I do think there is another alternative. Namely that the law of cause and effect does not apply. This law is based on our own observations. So far every time we have observed an effect we have also observed a cause. But we could be wrong. Other than our own observations what reason do we have for thinking this law is true?

 

[numinus]

what are you asking? are you comparing faith to a political philosophy? I know you can't be comparing faith to reason.

What I am saying is that logic derives from some fundamental, self-evident truth. These truths, by virtue of being self-evident, do not need formal proof. The most common example are the truths claimed in the constitution and the declaration of independence.

There are other self-evident truths. They are formally called axioms. They are the necessary starting point in any logical conception -- such as axiomatic set theory, mathematics and science and, of course, philosophy.

 

[numinus]

I agree. That is why so many varied primitive people worshiped the sun. Their intuition told them that it was logical that the sun was god.

Nonsense.

The set of axioms of basic arithmetic are themselves, intuitive. They have no formal proof and they require no formal proof because they are self-evidently true.

And if you are inclined to go deeper into the basis of all human knowledge -- axiomatic set theory or first order predicate logic -- you would realize that they also start from a set of self-evidently true axioms.

I can understand if you are unaware of these, since, by your own admission, you do not have any formal higher education to speak of.

 

[numinus]

Reason and faith are about as far apart from each other as anything can get at times.

For example, please explain to me why I should have faith in the Holy Spirit when he makes someone bark like a dog at some crazy fundamentalist church, despite the fact there is no reason for the Holy Spirit to do anything like that.

There is nothing contradictory with faith and reason.

Faith, by definition, is a belief in something without formal proof.

But as I pointed out, all logical conceptions, be it set theory, first order predicate logic, mathematics (which is also fopl), science, etc. start from a set of self-evident statements that have no formal proof.

So, whether your reason is axiomatic or faith-based, makes no difference.

 

[numinus]

That is why I am an atheist. Belief in God is irrational. Belief in the Christian God is also irrational. There is just as much "evidence" that Santa Clause, and the Easter Bunny exist...proved by the presents under the tree and the baskets of candy. Actually the presents and the candy constitute more proof than existence of God.

And no, faith and reason cannot peacefully co-exist. Atheists are frequently subject to discrimination. It seems that persons of faith feel threatened by free-thinkers and rationalize a multitude of ways to discriminate.

For instance, the issue of prayer in schools. It is frequently heard: "...they have kicked God out of School" or,"...children cannot pray in school...", when in reality, a person can pray silently at anytime, anywhere if they so wish. The motive then, for the pro-school prayer people is to have everyone pray, whether so inclined or not.

Atheism is the most logically indefensible position that anyone can take.

It starts from the absurd premise that all observeable phenomena have only material causes and arrives at the more absurd conclusion that matter and energy have always existed and will always exist.

Nothing in modern physics lends support to such an absurd notion. And one can hardly see any real 'atheist' except the few hold-outs from the anti-religion establishment trying vainly to stay relevant against such overwhelming facts and logic.

 

[numinus]

A question for believers: Assuming there was a God, and he had lived for billions of years, but had died, what evidence would there likely be of his passing?

Do not use a Biblical quotation as an argument like: "...God is forever...", just likely differences in the world.

The evidence, if it isn't plain enough to you, is everywhere.

Everything must have come from something.

To say otherwise would be a clear violation of one of the most important and enduring tenets of science, the conservation of mass and energy.

To say that mass and energy has always existed and will always exist is a fallacy of infinite regress.

The conclusion is inescapable.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

There is nothing contradictory with faith and reason.

Faith, by definition, is a belief in something without formal proof.

But as I pointed out, all logical conceptions, be it set theory, first order predicate logic, mathematics, science, etc. start from a set of self-evident statements that have no formal proof.

So, whether your reason is axiomatic or faith-based, makes no difference.

I think you contradict yourself here.

If all logical conceptions, be it set theory, first order predicate logic, mathematics, science, etc. start from a set of self-evident statements that have no formal proof.

And Faith, by definition, is a belief in something without formal proof.

You are making an "if/then" statement, but leaving out the self-evident statements on which logical conceptions are based, which Faith does not have.

I suppose that you could use your if/then to prove the existence of God or some Prime Force, but there are no self-evident truths to substantiate the great house of cards of religion with all their conflicting claims and demands.

Therefore "faith based" can only equal axiomatic reason if you can produce the self-evident truths that undergird them.

 

[9sublime]

But numinus, explain to me what is logical about following one religion over another?

 

[numinus]

I think you contradict yourself here.

Of course not.

If all logical conceptions, be it set theory, first order predicate logic, mathematics, science, etc. start from a set of self-evident statements that have no formal proof.

And Faith, by definition, is a belief in something without formal proof.

You are making an "if/then" statement, but leaving out the self-evident statements on which logical conceptions are based, which Faith does not have.

I suppose that you could use your if/then to prove the existence of God or some Prime Force, but there are no self-evident truths to substantiate the great house of cards of religion with all their conflicting claims and demands.

Therefore "faith based" can only equal axiomatic reason if you can produce the self-evident truths that undergird them.

Axiom in arithmetic - commutative axiom: if a=b and b=c, then a=c;

Axiom in geometry - line postulate: there is exactly one line passing through two distinct points.;

Axiom in set theory - axiom of choice: For any set of non-empty sets, X, there exists a choice function f defined on X.;

Axiom in physics - invariance of the speed of light

Axiom in theology - god exists.

Clear?

 

[numinus]

But numinus, explain to me what is logical about following one religion over another?

The CHOICE of any religion is, of course, a subjective choice.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Axiom in arithmetic - commutative axiom: if a=b and b=c, then a=c;

Axiom in geometry - line postulate: there is exactly one line passing through two distinct points.;

Axiom in set theory - axiom of choice: For any set of non-empty sets, X, there exists a choice function f defined on X.;

Axiom in physics - invariance of the speed of light

Axiom in theology - god exists.

Clear?

I think what I found confusing was that you used the sentence: "So, whether your reason is axiomatic or faith-based, makes no difference." Which seemed to me to encompass religion rather than zeroing in on only the existence of God (hence my comment to effect in my post: "I suppose that you could use your if/then to prove the existence of God..."

So what you are saying is only that a case can be made axiomatically for the faith that a "god" exists, but you are not necessarily extending that to the wider scope of religion. Is that correct?

 

[Dr.Who]

I think you contradict yourself here.

If all logical conceptions, be it set theory, first order predicate logic, mathematics, science, etc. start from a set of self-evident statements that have no formal proof.

And Faith, by definition, is a belief in something without formal proof.

You are making an "if/then" statement, but leaving out the self-evident statements on which logical conceptions are based, which Faith does not have.

I suppose that you could use your if/then to prove the existence of God or some Prime Force, but there are no self-evident truths to substantiate the great house of cards of religion with all their conflicting claims and demands.

Therefore "faith based" can only equal axiomatic reason if you can produce the self-evident truths that undergird them.

You have stated the comparison or analogy well between the axioms, or self-evident truths, or assumptions of either philosphy, science, faith or any set of thoughts.

So why would someone pick one set of thoughts over another?

When one starts with a wrong axiom and builds on it eventually they will reach a wrong conclusion that becomes obvious. This is pragmatics and basically it is how we reject false scientific ideas. The same is true for any line of thought.

So far no major type of thought has been rejected while each has had many smaller parts rejected. This is a refining process which will eventually produce a consistent theory of both religion and science.

 

[numinus]

I think what I found confusing was that you used the sentence: "So, whether your reason is axiomatic or faith-based, makes no difference." Which seemed to me to encompass religion rather than zeroing in on only the existence of God (hence my comment to effect in my post: "I suppose that you could use your if/then to prove the existence of God..."


So what you are saying is only that a case can be made axiomatically for the faith that a "god" exists, but you are not necessarily extending that to the wider scope of religion. Is that correct?

Why do you insist on muddling the argument? Do you persist in the hope of devicing a face-saving formula for your posted nonsense?

RELIGION IS A RIGHT OF THOUGHT.

It is an individual's expression of something self-evident or faith-based. Of course it necessarily extends to the wider scope of religion in the same manner that the axioms of mathematics extends to the wider scope of mathematics in the same way that the axioms of science extends to the wider scope of science, etc. etc.

Do other people need your leave on how they wish to express their faith?