It seems science, in terms of our coming to be here, has a few ideas as to how it happened. Doesnt this take faith. Just a question. Im still searching for what I believe in terms of the world and things unkown. This is just a question of faith. I think all lines of thought involving things unseen and untouchable take faith. I believe being an atheist takes as much faith as being a muslim, jew, budist......

Jew - Jewish religion. Just wanted to be clear.

I agree that being atheist takes a form of faith - belief in an unprovable assertion.

If there is a realm beyond what we can experience, directly or indirectly, then it's hard to "know" anything about it. Science doesn't help since it is requires observation. Some people have tried to "reason" about what must be outside of the physical realm, but I find those arguments uncompelling. Even mathematicians dispute which forms of logic and reason are valid.

So if God is outside the physical, knowable realm, then I don't see how it is possible to KNOW he doesn't exist any more than he does - those are both definitive assertions. That's not to say that people can't have some experience of that realm, but they must admit the possibility of illusion. That's also not to say that people can't believe one thing or another about that world, nor that it is wrong to have beliefs about things which are inherently unprovable.

Science, and the scientific method, relies on the principle of parsimony to choose between multiple theories of reality. Science proposes that any simpler theory is preferable to any more complex one, and, as an aside, any theory which posits God as part of the causal mechanism is less simple that one which doesn't. But parsimony is just a guideline, and there is no assurance that that is the way the universe works, nevermind that sometimes it's hard to decide what is "simpler"

well said, I think if we all could start thinking in these terms, religion in all forms would be less harmful to those around. Its all personal and only that person can deside what the believe or have faith in.

be it atheist, muslim, Jewish-religion, budist........

As an atheist/agnostic/non-theist/non-believer/secular-whatever I have never felt the need to prove anything or, I need to say, "convert" anyone to my way of thinking or try to talk a believer out of believing. It requires no faith for me to say that I have never seen any evidence that would convince me that God exists. I don't gather with like minded people on a given day of the week and join them in proclaiming that I believe and that I have faith. What I have doesn't require faith and is open to revision at any time.

didnt mean to start thread and run but my boy needs his swing set put together and I have never been what some would call a manly man, so this could take hours, days, weeks, months. Yikes. Anyway, will check back.

Same as me. But to me faith doesn't mean gathering in groups and proclaiming your dogma. To me, faith means belief in the unknowable. In my case, it's a private matter. I have no problem telling someone what I have come to believe, but I never try to convert. I do sometimes try to loosen someone from what I see as excessive attachment to dogma, or belief based in insecurity, but that's usually an argument for trying to expand ways of seeing, not to proclaim what I think is right in any absolute sense.

Then dont you have faith in your views? As in, faith you dont need to worry about heaven. Faith there is no hell. Faith that some scietist isnt just pumping thier own ego? Again sorry, got to go swingset to ruin.

No.

And I hear you on that swing set. Good luck

I guess we are pretty similar then. The basic difference between us might be that I don't think that anything is unknowable.

A great writer once said (paraphrasing) : "There is no special word for the lack of belief in Leprechauns, but yet we don't argue with those who have this point of view"

As an atheist since the age of about 8, it has not required any faith to continue my assertions. Nothing has changed that I can tell with exposure to many versions of similar faith based "stories". Going on 30 some odd years now and I have no reason to change my initial reaction to religion or the existance of god. It's still a flat out: "Yeah right..... how much money and/or devotion do you want? "

See atheist is the opposite of theism. If the perception is that there is no "theism" then the opposite requires nothing of the same dynamics to keep it "going" or to perpetuate it. There is no anti-leprechaun point of view or word, there is only those who believe and those who don't , till of course one jumps out of the wood and hands them a pot of gold.

Leprechauns, BigFoot, Yeti, it's all the same as god to "us". In fact one could argue there's more evidence for just about any other phantasmagorical story then a god. I'm more likely to become a believer in the LockNess Monster then a god who's followers requires adherence to some form of story or morality.

Where's the god who's followers who can believe in anything, even in his/her lack of existence? That's my god, and it should be yours too. See there isn't one, because religions and god are creations of mankind's own brain, and for what ever reason, whether hardwired on purpose or through societal need they are created, over and over and over again.

What disfigured said.

There has been a lot of thinking in this arena in mathematical logic. One of the best classes I ever took was a grad class in mathematical logic. The class developed rigorous theory of assertions, theories, truth, provability, and on. There was a reasonable definition of "true" that was different from the natural definition of "provable". With respect to those definitions, it was actually easy to show that there were many more "true" proposition than there were "provable" assertions. In other words, many things were true, that weren't provable, which was the only way to "know". So, from that class, if you accept the definitions, you must accept that there are many things which are unknowable/unprovable, but that are worth knowing (cause they are true).

A more complicated result, but more amazing, is Godel's Incompleteness Theorem(s). See link. This isn't really generally accessible without some math training, but it (first theorem) says basically that any theory as complicated as arithmetic (the universe is, of course), can't be both consistent and complete, which means there are true but not provable assertions about it.

Okay, I'm rapidly getting in over my head here. Doesn't take more than a foot or two before the waves are lapping around my mental eybrows

Could it be that there are things that are unprovable now simply because we currently lack the tools and the concepts needed to formulate the proof?

And in terms of God, if I felt that God existed or that there ought to be one because nothing else made sense I'd probably have faith that eventually the proof would follow or, far more likely, I'd find out for myself in 60 years or so. But I don't and I can't pretend otherwise.


Another difference between us is that I write in sound bites and you write in big meaty posts that actually require some effort and brain power to get through. That's why the above response may be a Beta 1 version at this point.

There are known known and unknown known and unknown know known and known unknown know known..... aaaaaug forget it.
Damn you Don Rump Field.

My take in the long and short of it.
We don't ever die, we change energy, and Love and Life are GOD, and I know I'm not "God" because there is you. Then again maybe we are all gods. Yeah... if everyone has super power then no one has super power.
However, this is no new philosophy.

The proof of the unprovability of some true assertions is what is called a "countability" argument. It observes that for the definition of "true" that there are as many true things as there are "real" numbers (numbers on the number line). But the number of proofs is only as great as the number of integers, or rational numbers, which is actually provably a smaller infinity than the infinity of the reals. This kind of proof isn't subject to the discovery of new tools or methods, because the "cardinality" of proofs will always be less than the cardinality of true propositions. So no matter what new proof methods come up, if the proof can be written down or spoken, then the number of them is too small.

What was the reasonable definition of "true"?

That is the very good question, and I'm trying to remember, without my text ... it was more than 40 years ago, and I sold 'em. But my recollection is that it was something like "valid in all theories", but I'd have to go back and review to give you a proper answer to that. Which I might do for my and your interest, but at lower priority. I won't forget, might take a little time tho.

Theorems of truthyness aside, for there are a mathematicians who have formulas pages long to "prove" 1+1=2, there are very simple ways for an individual to come to the conclusion on their own that the existence of a god is all baloney.

Religions and their sustainability often require evangelicalisms, even if only in small amounts. Meaning, there are very few people who on their own come to some individual concept of a god. They are either indoctrinated to it or in the least the concept at an early age, or are out right introduced to a compelling and/or appealing version of said god.

Most of the scientific analogies represented here wouldn't be taken seriously if they had as much outside influences as any one particular religious person. They would be considered moot points in the quest for any "truth".

All one has to ask themselves is if anyone, anywhere, at any time, actually came upon a spiritual belief that wasn't first presented to them by some one else? Or by some other thing, such as an "vision", hardship or phycotic episode. Native Americans base some religions around the use of a highly hallucinogenic drugs. Altering the brain via this method or by simple association through societal norms is an entirely uncontrolled environment. Something any scientist would cringe if attempting to draw any conclusions.

Isolate a human being and see what happens. Till then there's nothing scientific about studying religion and if its "reality" or "truth" has merit, no matter what the definitions of these variables. The fact that neurologist have stumbled upon triggering religious like experiences while trying to cure other ailments should tell us something.

There's more evidence to ponder the lack of our own existence then there is to introduce a "god", assume its existence with utterly no evidence (regardless of the definition of truth, evidence or real), then begin to try and make a case against it.

The only thing it takes to make a lie real, is if some one keeps repeating it.

I had a buddy that came from Hong Kong. He told me about Buddha, I told him about Christ. That was in between his kicking the crap out of me, that is another story...lol. I told him, "When you get in trouble some day, ask your Buddha for help, and when it doesn't come, try asking God. It couldn't hurt." He went out to El Mirage dry lake out in the Mohave Desert one weekend alone with his truck and dirt bike. A storm came out of nowhere and while trying to leave he got stuck. It was poor visibility and it was cold and raining hard.

He was getting scared, he was stuck near a flash flood running by him, it was getting closer. He started praying to Budda.......... nothing. He then remembered what I said, and started praying to God. Someone started beating on his window, he got out and there was a man that did not speak English. My friend pointed to the truck and then the direction he wanted to push the truck while trying to get the wheels to grab. They prepared more rocks and stuff to drive over, he got in, the truck moved and he drove it onto the better ground. He stopped, and got out to thank his new friend, he was gone. Visibility was poor but, where did he go.

My friend showed up one day and told me the story, he shook my hand, "I believe you!" Very strange but, that is what he told me.

It might be interested in seeing what several definitions of faith are:

A dense nugget from the Catholic Encyclopedia on Belief, asks:

QUOTE

How far do we believe--in the sense of trusting our natural faculties in their reports and judgments; and in how far can we be said to know? (David) Hume, in accordance with his sensistic principles, would restrict our knowledge to purely ideal truths. We are capable of knowing, according to the Scotch sceptic (Hume), such ideal principles as those of mathematics, together with the conclusions that are derived from them. But our attribution of an objective reality to what we imagine to be the causes of sensations is a belief. So also are such judgments as that of the principle of causality. We cannot be said to know, but to believe, that there is actually such a relation as that of effect to cause. We believe this, and other similar truths, because of a peculiar character of vivacity, solidity, firmness, or steadiness attaching to our conceptions of them. The division is an arbitrary one and the explanation offered as to the nature of belief unsatisfactory and insufficient.

The skeptics such as Hume suggested that much of what we "know" is instead what we "believe." He puts down elements of what lead to firm belief - a peculiar character of vivacity, solidity, firmness, or steadiness - but shrinks from a more solid certainty than merely the profundity of perception to characterize knowledge.

Hume derived certain elements of his thought from John Locke, a progenitor of certain ideas which came forth in the American Revolution.

QUOTE

Locke's theory of mind is often cited as the origin for modern conceptions of identity and "the self", figuring prominently in the later works of philosophers such as David Hume, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Immanuel Kant. Locke was the first philosopher to define the self through a continuity of "consciousness." He also postulated that the mind was a "blank slate" or "tabula rasa"; that is, contrary to Cartesian or Christian philosophy, Locke maintained that people are born without innate ideas.

WikiLink

I tend to like Hume, and tend to see elements of belief, in empirical certainty - which most people consider "knowledge." I tend to look upon any conjecture on the existence of God to have elements of belief, no matter the nature of the conjecture.

Back at me?

Conjecture, by definition requires belief. Even if it's just speculation, it has to allow for the possibility.

I'm reading an interesting book at the moment. It's called The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins....some of you might find it interesting!!

I like what Hume has to say also and that is pretty much as I see things. His attribution of certainty to mathematics rings a little hollow to me, since all mathematical knowledge is more just consistent models build on axioms which might have some or no relation to some concept of reality. And that is further diluted by the fact that there isn't even agreement on what constitutes "valid" reasoning amongst mathematicians (In particular there is a school which doesn't like the inference rule: If P OR Q, and Not P, then Q. That school doesn't accept proofs using that inference rule). So math is more a game, than knowledge.

But as he speaks about how we know there even IS an underlying reality, given all the partiality, distortion of our senses or instruments, not to mention interpretation stemming from of perspective, or experience. I tend to agree. Even the notion of causality, if you want to push on it, is shaky.

IMO, the more you try to get to what you really KNOW, the less sure you become that that knowledge is absolute, both in the "ideal" of mathematics and also the physical world. I think if you press a world class scientist on the validity of theories he got the Nobel Prize for, he'd be the first to say it's his "working theory", but not perfect.

Good story!

The sad thing is your friend was all enthusiastic about being a Buddhist, and he didn't know anything about the faith. Buddhists don't pray to Buddha. Buddha isn't a god.

I'd like to meet a god who would put an end to all the bull spit and start getting people to do the right thing. I'm just tired of all the wool that god allows other to pull over the eyes. If gods been around as long as they say, one would think that god gets tired of seeing the same ole curruptions.... but that's just an opinion!

Wow, you couldn't be more wrong. An Atheist is simply someone without a deity belief. That's it. No "form of faith" required. Just reason, logic and rational thought. Admitting illusion must be done by those who believe without any evidence.

I hear ya! It would be nice is some Evangelical Christians felt the same way. My sister is one of them and is always trying to convert me, or shall I say "bring me back to Jesus." Her stance is that if the country would just legislate the bible, then all would be well and right in the world. I fear she might turn me into the powers that be so that I can go to a "re-education" camp when it all goes down. Scary!

Atheism requires no faith in a deity. However, an atheist may have faith in their own sense of judgment or convictions.

Pretty much all we've got isn't it? In my case that's a little scary, the judgment part anyway. But I'm going with it. Atheism is a faith to the same extent that not collecting stamps is a hobby. Old and a little hackneyed, but true imo.

Yes, but only assuming that humankind must have some faith in something.

Faith requires existence. But does (human) existence require faith?
More specifically, does consciousness demand faith?

Or can we exist and be conscious of our existence without faith?

Obviously we have no way of knowing the answers to the following questions, and even our conjecturing about the answers depends on some pretty sizable and anthropomorphic assumptions, but do E. coli bacilli have faith? Do carrot plants have faith? Do bees have faith? Do human fetuses in utero have faith?
If your answer to any of these questions is no, at what point does faith begin to be required?

Another great read is Breaking The Spell, by Dan Dennett.
I recommend both of these books.

And your point is ...?

From Mirriam-Webster:
1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith

Good topic. I've tried a couple of times to phrase a response and have backed up only to try again. Perhaps I lack faith Maybe It's just that it's late and I'm not at my best, but I think it is that I don't really have the answer, just more questions. So here's another. Expect a computer program to perform a function for which it has no code and it locks up. Ask a human to perform in a situation for which they do not have all the necessary information and that person will do any number of things, but unless they are one who we would consider mentally unhealthy they are still able to continue on with life whether they accept the challenge to perform, refuse it, counter with a different challenge, or whatever it is that person chooses to do. Why is that?

I don't know how well this is going to go over but I will try. Let us hypothetically say that, there is a God... OK. This individual makes beings that are perfect by our standards, their world is perfect, and things go on for eons and everything is OK.

One day one of these beings decides, you know, I am not all that my maker is, he held out on me, I want what he has. So this individual pushes the subject and gets told no. With me so far... OK.

This individual gets a bunch of others to listen to him or her, gets a bunch of them to agree and try to back the maker into a corner to at least let one more have the same degree of being and existence.... with me so far... hypothetically of course...

They wont take no for an answer and there becomes a great battle where the one side tries to take out the other side, the maker watches the battle.

The malcontents lose and are banished from the realm to a lower dimension of existence. While this is going on, the maker must show that his way is the correct way, also, he wants beings that love him or her unconditionally, and there is only one way this can happen, free will. With me SO far... lol...

The maker creates a being that will choose for himself which path to follow. Some how or another what happens is this. The malcontents wish to prove that this lower form of being with free will, will not follow the maker unless he treats them properly. The maker wants to prove to the malcontents that even if you beat on them, they will still know in their hearts what is right and wrong.

The malcontents have reign over this realm and torment the beings, there is one loop hole though, anyone who is of a righteous heart will find the maker.

So this is how the government is setup, there are different dimensions with real physical laws, the maker has to abide by them... with one loophole.....lol.


With me sooo far, it gets good here...... my ohhh my.....

The maker has total control of the dimensions and the beings, but allows free will, its mostly a hands off deal, with the malcontents doing what they can to torture the beings.

Every once in a while, during one of the loopholes in the laws, the maker interacts with the beings. He can even take the being into the other dimension if he or she so desires to. Hypothetically of course... lol.

In the bible, Elisha was one of these beings, he simply asked, "Do I have to die to go to heaven?" God walked him into heaven.

I have met people who have seen the light, or traveled the black box. It all depends on whether you are dying, or being taken there for some reason. This was not hypothetical, I asked the right question once..... did I blow your mind....lol. Not bad for a rotten bastard ayyyy.

Rene Descartes proved existence of self. "I think, therefore I am." That's what that was about. Since the senses can be fooled, they cannot be used to prove existence. However, thought is independent from all senses, therefore thought proves existence.

Okay. I tend to agree with what Descartes has to say having read the famous 'Discourse' and not much else. In it he does seem to set aside much of what religion has to offer in favor of what the thought processes of man can achieve.

So is faith a thought process - a decision to disregard what one does not know in favor of a belief that what one does know will suffice or at least lead to the opportunity for discovery to fill in the gaps? Or is faith the absence of thought in favor of other forces?

Ok, so what's the punchline?

Laying aside my disagreements with his conclusion, and granting that thought proves existence,
the questions I asked were does existence prove faith?