yes. but you know… I was wrong hehehe
what doesn’t make sense? it is a “prison” for satan and also for every sinner. what is so complicated here?
you are orthodox?
As Zen said above you, which I agree with, faith is not based on evidence. Logically, God is very possible and the assumption of His existence can answer some fundamental questions. In faith, however, there is no assumption; there is simply truth. If you’re basing your faith on evidence, you’re doing it wrong.
Assassin, yes, I am.
Which fundamental questions are those, pray tell?
And in faith, there is only assumption. Something is not true simply because you believe it to be. You have to actually assert truth.
So if your only real reason for believing in god is faith, then why do you believe in the christian orthodox god instead of any of the other millions of gods? There’s just as much “evidence” for any other god, and you can have faith in anything.
Also I think your view of faith is wrong. Faith is something that can be proved wrong. If I were to say I have faith that you will get kicked in the balls at 8:00 every friday, I believe very strongly in this. I have no evidence to support this belief, only my unending faith. Friday comes along, and what happens?
Nothing. But I still persevere in my belief. I tell everyone that it wasn’t this time because the circumstances just weren’t right, but I have just as much faith that it will be next friday.
That is the fundamental problem with that kind of faith, it has no basis in reality and therefore gives you the excuse to just avoid any evidence to the contrary even if you see it with your very eyes.
I say, if your eyes are affixed in longing to heaven up above, or in fear of hell down below, you will never see all the beauty in the world all around you.
And, in an anticipation of you saying “God created the universe’s beauty”, I say this: according to you, living on this earth is punishment. Adam and Eve sinned and cast humanity out of the grace of god, out of Eden. God created Eden for us to enjoy, his perfect creation in all its splendor because of love for us, and in return we sinned against him. So he cast us into the pit of earth, to make humanity experience pain, never to see true beauty and innocence again. Perhaps, we are already in hell, paying for the sins of our ancestors by living this wretched life of suffering.
Or that’s what you think anyway. Kinda sad if you think about it.
you see?
I didn’t ask what hell is.
You explained how God could allow evil to exist so that free will could exist. However, allowing hell to exist still makes no sense at all, because there could clearly be no hell and still there to be free will.
what you think hell is?
I think hell is not, it does not exist. So simple!
Rant: https://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2065080,00.html
Fuck!
I don’t understand how a person can be so hard headed as to honestly believe without a doubt that Mahatma Gandhi went to hell simply because he didn’t “accept Jesus as his savior”.
And worse: fire a pastor from a church simply because this pastor does not believe that 8|
What is wrong with these people?
One of them can be how we got here. Again, while it can be used to fill that void, it creates new questions that need answering. I was just saying that when using reason, it can fill that specific logical void. I’m not denying that there might be further questions to ask.
Faith is an assertion of truth without evidence. If you examine faith with reason, then yes, it appears to merely be a mere assumption. Why do you use reason? The entire system of reason/logic may very well be logically false. Logic may contain tautologies within it, but it, itself, is not a tautology. That is, unless you can prove that logic will always be correct in every circumstance, including circumstances not yet known. Good luck with that. Another objection is circularity; can you give me a reason for using reason without using reason? If you use reason to prove reason, then your argument is circular. I’m not denying that reason is useful to us, I think that we’re built to use it, my point is that reason also has its limitations. There appears to be no non-circular basis for using reason. Just because it seems like it’s right, does not mean that it is right… unless you want to put faith in logic (which seems kind of weird). The Buddhist Philosopher Nagarjuna used logic to undermine logic in a very sophisticated fashion. You should look into him.
Simple, it’s because I have faith in the Christian God. Again, you’re bringing evidence into the realm of faith.
You don’t have to believe reality. Even if it doesn’t happen, someone could still conceivably have faith that it did happen. You don’t even have to explain to anyone that the circumstances weren’t right, as that explanation would use evidence and reason. You can just believe it happened, even though it doesn’t appear that it did. Is that kind of nutty? Sure. Have you actually seen an atom or an electron before? There might be evidential proofs for their existence, but just because you’ve never seen them does not mean that they do not exist.
Anyway, this why I think that faith isn’t appropriate for everything. I think it’s only truly appropriate when we hit what looks like a logical dead-end; when reason appears to be exhausted. I’m not saying you should simply give up at that point, just that faith is applicable in such cases (though people can apply it wherever they see fit, that’s just my opinion). If someone comes up with a purported rock-solid proof that there is no God, then I’ll take a look at it. I don’t think that’s possible though, as no one seems to have ever been able to conclusively prove a negative. Appearance or a lack of appearance are not conclusive proofs, unless you prove that your sense are not only infallible, but can always sense everything. That said, I think honest science should be completely devoid of faith, much like honest faith should be completely devoid of science.
Who said that faith has a basis in reality? It doesn’t. You may choose not to use faith, though I’d argue that you do at least use degrees of faith, due to that reason. Your choice. It is not an excuse to avoid evidence, and evidence is never a feature of faith.
Somewhere along the line in your belief system, if you aren’t a Pyrrhonist like I am, you’re going to find at least one belief that has no basis in “reality”. Reality is a subjective term. Like your belief that our current conception of logic is correct. Or your belief that reality is real. How do you know all this is REALLY real? It seems like it, sure, but do you know it for certain?
My eyes are not affixed in longing to Heaven or avoiding Hell. I’m focused on doing what is right because it is what I believe to be right. Do I want to go to Heaven? Sure I do. That is not, however, the reason that I live my life the way I do. I choose to live the way I live and think the way I think.
I don’t view living on Earth as punishment. On the contrary, I view it as a gift through which we might gain understanding. I think the whole point we are here is to try and figure out and try to understand what is truly good, and then choose to live our lives in accordance with it of our own free will.
You are a lost cause
You know I think you won this debate Hawkeye, but not because of your massive amounts of “Evidence”, more of the fact that you are clearly an idiot who says evidence and logic/reason are ILLOGICAL. There is no point in argueing if you are just going to act like a kid saying “I"M RIGHT AND YOUR WRONG NAHNAHNAHNAHNAH”
Just a note: the page you provided said he found contradictions, not flaws in logic, he did not undermine logic. A contradiction shows at most that you must restrict, e.g., the affirmations that you accept as affirmations or objects that you accept as valid ones.
For instance, the following sentence:
“This sentence is a lie”
cannot be considered as a valid affirmation.
Since I don’t have access to the article, I cannot go further.
That is a classic argument from ignorance. You are using god to answer questions we do not know the answer to. Humans have been doing this for aeons, and the questions answered with ‘god’ are lowering in number very, very fast.
We use reason because our brains are constructed in such a way that reason is the best tool we have to create a faithful (lol) isomorphism between our brains and the world around us.
Logic is not “flawed,” it is incomplete, just like every other sufficiently powerful formal system. You should read up about Gödel’s incompleteness theorem. I recommend Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid.
-
Reason and logic are 2 different things - that you don’t understand this indicates that you don’t know what either of them are.
-
If you want to prove logic as false, have at it, buddy. This is a goofy idea anyway, as logic is not a belief system. You really don’t understand it or what it is and have some ridiculous, undefined, vulgar idea about it.
-
Your posts all use reasoning, although not necessarily logic or valid logic.
This is completely fallacious on it’s face. This is a ridiculous, fallacious, and unreasonable demand.
And even if there WERE such an extreme and unknown case where P is NOT P or something, that case would not undermine the validity in any other case or use.
And, again, if you want to invalidate a use of logic, you can do that in a specific, local case, known case.
This entire idea is completely retarded in every respect. The argument itself is fallacious in a number of different ways. You are attempting to shift the burden of proof, you’re creating a strawman, etc. And that’s just the form. Your assumptions of the meanings of logic and reason are incorrect as well.
Thanks, but I don’t need it.
-
You don’t know what reason is. Reason is NOT logic. Reason can be OBSERVED physically.
-
No, this isn’t what circular reasoning is. Circular reasoning means using a statement P to prove the proposition P.
-
Interestingly enough, you’ve attempted (unsuccessfully) to use logic to invalidate logic. And YES, in the statement you DO mean logic, not reason.
Fuck dude - logic and reason are not the same thing AT ALL. Stop using them interchangeably. And AGAIN - over and over again - YOU use reason, and in this case AGAIN, YOU attempt to employ logic when you (incorrectly) claim argumentum ad circulum.
Logic is NOT a belief system. It’s not a religion. It’s not the same kind of thing at all. So, attempting to use the same arguments to attack logic that have been used to attacked religion doesn’t work.
The 'I know you are but what am I? or ‘I’m rubber and you’re glue, what you say bounces off me and sticks to you’ approach in defending religion is so old and so tired and SO fucking retarded. We all know what this is. It’s bad thinking and a really immature approach to debate, and frankly, just retarded. It’s such an insult to our intelligence to even attempt retarded shit like this, as if we’re stupid enough to take it seriously or think that it’s an honest attempt at debate.
You really don’t know the first thing about logic, dude.
ahahahaha Nagarjuna doesn’t ‘undermine’ logic.
Not that this is completely related to Nagarjuna, but paradox and self-referential loops do not ‘undermine’ logic.
This entire line of thought, the ‘logic’ is invalid sort of thing is the biggest, lamest pile of shit, both in content and intent, both formally and informally.
Intellectual dishonesty like this pisses me off.
YES - OF COURSE. Do you live under a rock, dude?
No - if you want to claim that God exists, then the burden of proof is yours.
The idea that ‘God exists until you prove he doesn’t’ is argumentum ad ignorantiam.
That’s ridiculous. OF COURSE you can prove a negative. The fallacy, argumentum ad ignoratiam, doesn’t mean that you can’t prove a negative.
There’s a difference between ‘absence of evidence’ and ‘evidence of absence’
You really need to just stay away from talking about stuff like logic, reason, science, and philosophy - you don’t know shit about any of this stuff. Yet, you try to bullshit us by using words and concepts that you clearly don’t understand. It’s annoying.
Say your thing, but be honest about it.
Ehm…religious people.
Reality is subjective. Logic is not subjective. It’s not based on faith or belief. It has been demonstrated - over and over and over an over. There’s no faith required AT ALL.
Reality is real by definition. P is P.
You JUST said that reality is subjective, which means that we define it. And since we define it, we can be absolutely certain of it.
The rest of your comment is just some solipsistic shit. Grow up. And stop demanding people prove or disprove shit inappropriately. YOU prove or disprove your own shit, mutherfucker.
And get some learning up in ya, boy.
Really, though, take some fuckin classes. You’re bright, but badly educated and with poor thinking skills. You need to learn how to think.
There’s just as much reason to believe in any other god, or anything, since your basis on believing something is based on absolutely nothing, there is no reason, evidence or not, that you shouldn’t believe in any number of religions. So why christianty?
Also I see absolutely no value in believing something because of absolute faith in the face of enormous amounts of evidence. Just because you can’t see the air around you, doesn’t mean we can’t demonstrate its existence by showing its effects, so your whole “You’ve never seen it before, you’re using faith” is nonsense, because we can demonstrate that these things exist by measuring their effects on the environment around us.
You can’t see gravity, and yet we can calculate exactly how long it will take something to hit the ground after dropped from specific heights. Your or any god however, has the same effects on the world as something that doesn’t exist.
bro thats…
thats just an oxymoron
im too genuinely baffled that you think this to be angry about it
This reminds me of a song with a voice sample that says:
“Have you seen your brain? What makes you think you have one?”
that sort of argument is ridiculous, whatever you use it for
Holy fuck, this thread exploded while I slept. :fffuuu:
I have faith in humanity. I get my faith from my knowledge that things are getting better as humanity progresses. We aren’t generally throwing people to lions for entertainment anymore. We don’t generally burn people at the stake for the belief (without evidence) that they’re some kind of evil person anymore. We don’t generally believe the Earth is the center of the solar system anymore. I have faith in humanity’s future (despite some of the posters here). That faith comes from evidence. I am not “doing it wrong”.
I also have faith that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe. I have no actual evidence that it exists beyond simple mathematics and knowledge about how life forms and evolves. If you don’t believe in that, that’s fine; I won’t push the matter unless we create a thread for extraterrestrial life. 
I certainly won’t kill you for your unbelief or even mock or condescend you for not believing.
I do not have faith that a god exists because I have never seen a shred of evidence for any deity.
I, too, would like to know why, if you have no actual evidence for any deity, that you wholeheartedly believe that it’s a specific deity that did it? If you have gaps in the knowledge (as we all do), then why is it THAT deity and NO OTHER?
EDIT: As for the “seen an electron?” question: Just because we can’t see something doesn’t mean that we can’t detect it or use it with predictable results. By the way, we can see the effects of electrons VERY easily…and reliably. Buy a Jacob’s Ladder. Or one of those plasma spheres. Or just stand outside during a thunderstorm. Effects of electrons: visually.
Please tell me the reliable method of detecting and predicting God.
There isn’t any use dealing with him, he is too closed minded and stubborn to convince him he is wrong, its like argueing with a kid
Dead Phil: Please try not to be insulting here towards Christians of any stripe. It doesn’t help. At all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3QQJEHuefQ
There are tons of these. IBMs TV ad logo used to be their logo written in arranged atoms.
Oh, BTW - the human eye is sensitive enough to detect the glow of a single electron - so none of this is such a big deal. Ironic that the guys name is Hawkeye.