Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You missed the point. Faith is not 'acknowledging the obvious'. It is believing something exists without evidence (i.e. not observable).
In a way we have been wrong in this argument.
Faith isn't believing something exist without evidence. Religious faith is the belief in something despite the invalid evidence which underpins their entire belief system, in the case of Christianity, the Bible. To believe in the god of Abraham, one must either believe in the inerrancy of the biblical text, or must reinterpret its text to fit the countervailing evidence, faith in this context is the requirement to believe despite the presented evidence which underpins such a belief system.
You missed the point. Faith is not 'acknowledging the obvious'. It is believing something exists without evidence (i.e. not observable).
I agree with this. My ultimate authority tells me, "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" and "By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible" (Heb. 11:1, 3).
Thus far you are correct: Faith itself is the conviction of things not seen.
Quote:
Only if something is observable is it obvious, and then only when it is unavoidably observable.
Yes, I can see your point. I would add, however, that it is possible to avoid what is observable due to bias. Man rejects what is observable in natural revelation:
"18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." (Rom. 1:18-20)
As I said in another post, I don't think the problem is with the evidence. I think the problem lies within the person who rejects it. That's the part that you overlooked. Not only does faith not depend on evidence, but also faith involves the opposite of hostility toward God: a moral subjection of the will to God's calling (in natural revelation and elsewhere). Man rejects natural revelation because his mind is made up to be hostile toward God. It's not that he is neutral and perfectly willing to believe as long as he can just see the proof. The problem is precisely the opposite: He is not neutral; he is hostile toward God. That is an inner problem that all the evidence in the world will not change. That's why I don't try to prove the existence of God and also why I disagree with Christians who go around trying to do so. Furnishing the evidence, or pointing to it, won't produce faith.
Quote:
Your 'intelligent design' fallacy is like seeing two rocks next to each other and saying "That means that a guy named Stan Smiley came here at 5:04pm on March 1st and placed this rock here, and then this rock next to it."
Who said anything about intelligent design? But since you want to talk about that, I fear that your analogy does not do a good job of representing the concept. A better analogy is your computer: Since it is a system all of whose parts work together to accomplish a purpose, it must have been designed by intelligent beings.
But again, I don't try to prove the existence of God. I presuppose it, just as others presuppose empiricism or statistics or something else.
Faith isn't believing something exist without evidence. Religious faith is the belief in something despite the invalid evidence which underpins their entire belief system, in the case of Christianity, the Bible.
The Bible is not evidence. It's revelation. Evidence implies the attempt to prove something. I don't hold up the Bible and say, "See? God exists. This book here is the proof." Rather, I presuppose the existence of God, as does the Bible. I say, "God exists because revelation says so," just as scientifically minded folks say that X scientific finding is true because empiricism says so.
And yet empiricism is fallible, bringing it, too, under the criticism of your very own words: "Religious faith is the belief in something despite the invalid evidence which underpins their entire belief system." Not only is empiricism itself not 100% reliable, making it quite fallible, but also for this very reason the "evidence" arrived at via empiricism must also be called into question. If that's the case, is that evidence 100% valid?
Lets be done with semantics and get back to the topic. I was once a theist and atheism was made easy for me simply by researching and objectively (not blindly) reading the bible. I recommend this method for anyone wishing to lose their belief.
The Bible is not evidence. It's revelation. Evidence implies the attempt to prove something. I don't hold up the Bible and say, "See? God exists. This book here is the proof." Rather, I presuppose the existence of God, as does the Bible. I say, "God exists because revelation says so," just as scientifically minded folks say that X scientific finding is true because empiricism says so.
And yet empiricism is fallible, bringing it, too, under the criticism of your very own words: "Religious faith is the belief in something despite the invalid evidence which underpins their entire belief system." Not only is empiricism itself not 100% reliable, making it quite fallible, but also for this very reason the "evidence" arrived at via empiricism must also be called into question. If that's the case, is that evidence 100% valid?
What you have been going on about is akin to saying a circle may not be a circle because one has a presupposition about what a circle is and thus a circle may not actually be a circle.
At some point we humans decided to label things based on our observations. Empericism is nothing more than saying, "That shape is a circle. It exists, and I need to label and define it, so it's a circle."
From there, you can use your "presupposed" circle to define other things, things that are "not circles" or "nearly circles". But in defining anything, we must choose a starting point.
For the believer, that starting point is "faith". For the atheist, that starting point is the observable. I don't have "faith" that a circle is a circle. I know it's a circle because that's what we decided to call that particular thing we observed.
Actually Mystic has claimed that during meditation he slows his heart rate to 40 bpm, and breathing to two or three breaths per minute,,,Hence the danger of oxygen starvation.
The frequency of breathing is not related to the quantity or quality of the intake . . . just the duration of time between intakes. The intake is slowly lengthened as is the exhalation so as to minimize the physical sensations and demarcations of the breathing cycles and maximize the time of each stage.
What you have been going on about is akin to saying a circle may not be a circle because one has a presupposition about what a circle is and thus a circle may not actually be a circle.
At some point we humans decided to label things based on our observations. Empericism is nothing more than saying, "That shape is a circle. It exists, and I need to label and define it, so it's a circle."
Well, yes, but we do that based on what authority? Empiricism, of course. So, then, empiricism is the ultimate authority in that case--unless you want to establish the authority of empiricism using something else besides empiricism (you cannot prove something using itself). If you establish empiricism's authority using something else, then whatever you used to prove it is a higher authority. At some point, as you correctly state below, there must be a starting point, and that starting point is necessarily unprovable, or else it would not be a starting point and would be preceded by something of yet higher authority.
The Christian's starting point is the Bible; the atheist's starting point is (probably) empiricism. In both cases, the beliefs are based upon an unprovable foundation.
Quote:
From there, you can use your "presupposed" circle to define other things, things that are "not circles" or "nearly circles". But in defining anything, we must choose a starting point.
I quite agree; otherwise we have infinite regress. Beliefs are not built in mid-air but upon a foundation, and that foundation must be 100% authoritative, or else it is not a reliable foundation.
Quote:
For the believer, that starting point is "faith". For the atheist, that starting point is the observable. I don't have "faith" that a circle is a circle. I know it's a circle because that's what we decided to call that particular thing we observed.
Well said, but the only trouble here is that this doesn't make you any less reliable upon presuppositions than the one who claims divine revelation as his starting point. I say this because you said the starting point for atheists is the observable. The atheist must, then, be assuming that the observable has ultimate authority--since that is his starting point. Likewise, the Christian assumes the Bible to be divinely authoritative, since that is his ultimate authority.
The atheist has to rely upon presuppositions just as much as the Christian.
Well, yes, but we do that based on what authority? Empiricism, of course. So, then, empiricism is the ultimate authority in that case--unless you want to establish the authority of empiricism using something else besides empiricism (you cannot prove something using itself). If you establish empiricism's authority using something else, then whatever you used to prove it is a higher authority. At some point, as you correctly state below, there must be a starting point, and that starting point is necessarily unprovable, or else it would not be a starting point and would be preceded by something of yet higher authority.
The Christian's starting point is the Bible; the atheist's starting point is (probably) empiricism. In both cases, the beliefs are based upon an unprovable foundation.
I quite agree; otherwise we have infinite regress. Beliefs are not built in mid-air but upon a foundation, and that foundation must be 100% authoritative, or else it is not a reliable foundation.
Well said, but the only trouble here is that this doesn't make you any less reliable upon presuppositions than the one who claims divine revelation as his starting point. I say this because you said the starting point for atheists is the observable. The atheist must, then, be assuming that the observable has ultimate authority--since that is his starting point. Likewise, the Christian assumes the Bible to be divinely authoritative, since that is his ultimate authority.
The atheist has to rely upon presuppositions just as much as the Christian.
You missed my point.
I do not "presuppose" a circle exists. The "idea" of a circle does *not* come before the circle. The idea of circle come as a result of observing a circle, and categorizing in order to understand it.
If I show you a widget, your first question is "What is that?" You have observed it, and now, to understand it, you want to label and classify it. If I tell you, "I call it a widget," that doesn't mean much to you. So you will then ask what is different about the widget from non-widgets. You want to narrow it down.
None of this is a "presupposition" about what a widget is or that widgets exist. Trying to define the widget is a response to observing that a widget exists at all.
The frequency of breathing is not related to the quantity or quality of the intake . . . just the duration of time between intakes. The intake is slowly lengthened as is the exhalation so as to minimize the physical sensations and demarcations of the breathing cycles and maximize the time of each stage.
I meditate regularly, mainly because of the problems I have sleeping and to calm my heart (I suffer from atrial fibrillation), but I have never noticed my heart rate or breathing diminished to the rates you describe, but then I have never really counted. I have found meditation a great aid for these problems though, particularly my accelerated heart rate...During Afib it sometimes reaches 190 bpm and I can manage to get it down under 90....I yearn for the days when my heart rate was regular and in the low 60s
Yes, but didn't you presuppose the means whereby you discerned what a circle is?
Quote:
The "idea" of a circle does *not* come before the circle. The idea of circle come as a result of observing a circle, and categorizing in order to understand it.
Yes, I see what you mean. I don't think I missed your point. You're basing your idea of circle on observing a circle. So, the observation precedes the idea, but that means that the idea itself is dependent upon the observation that led to it. Thus, your observation is your starting point.
Quote:
If I show you a widget, your first question is "What is that?" You have observed it, and now, to understand it, you want to label and classify it. If I tell you, "I call it a widget," that doesn't mean much to you. So you will then ask what is different about the widget from non-widgets. You want to narrow it down.
None of this is a "presupposition" about what a widget is or that widgets exist. Trying to define the widget is a response to observing that a widget exists at all.
And that observation is your starting point. You must rely completely upon that initial observation of the widget's existence or else you could not arrive at your definition of the widget.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
