Why faith is an impossible argument

[loinburger]

But how do you determine which axioms to apply, and which to reject? Where's your starting point?

[Kuciwalker]

There is only one axiom: if I repeatedly and consistantly observe a certain result from a certain action, then I can state that that result is caused by that action. This axiom can be applied recursively.

[Soul Survivor]

You can say faith is illogical or impossible or just a way from people to live in ignorance, but faith in religion is no different than faith in anything else.

Take someone from 2000 years ago and try explaining to them our entire existence is derived from millions of units of repeating molecules which are reproduced billions of times to make a human body, they will claim you are crazy and your arguement is illogical and impossible. If you really think about it, this explanation is just as absurd as any other. Perhaps in another 2000 years they will look back on us and laugh - how could they have possibly believed that?

Faith is an essential part of life, we simply draw lines between what kind of faith is acceptable and what kind of faith is not acceptable. We believe in atoms and galaxies millions of light years away, even though none of us have seen them - only because we have faith in science. To take it even further, we have faith in our own existence - but it is very possible that all this is all just a figment of my imagination, or that I am simply a figment of your imagination. But this is not a "practical" way to think because it accomplishes nothing - just like believing in god/religion entirely and abandoning science accomplishes nothing.

Nevertheless, throwing religion out the window, on the grounds it is "illogical", is being hypocritical. You have faith that time passes by, you have faith that the universe exists, you have faith that what you see with your eyes is really there, you have faith that your thoughts are your own, you have faith that you have free will. Religion is not a very big step from there, renouncing one kind of faith while embracing another is absurd. And in response to the invisible rhinoceros in Nukapai's post, there is a slight difference between a rhino and an omnipotent being.

Now the question remains, is it even possible for god to prove his own existence to us?

[Edan]

Originally posted by Soul Survivor
Now the question remains, is it even possible for god to prove his own existence to us?

No. Or at least probably not. (Of course, god could fundamentally change the logic of the universe, so that it could be proveable...)

[Imran Siddiqui]

Soul Survivor: Very good post, very good!

I agree with it entirely. We all have faith in our lives of different things, things that we ourselves have not logically proved.

[Lorizael]

The problem with the "faith in science" thing is that we constantly change our ideas about science. We look for new data, test old theories, change things when it looks like they're different.

Science has faith in only those things that have been tested over and over again. And "seeing" something means nothing. There are methods of observation other than sight.

Yes, us regular people have faith that the scientists aren't all lying to us, but if we truly wanted to, we could go to university, learn what they have learned, and repeat the process for ourselves, thereby getting rid of the requirement for faith. With religion, even if you're a priest, you still gotta have faith.

God being omnipotent, he should be able to prove his existence.

[Edan]

God being omnipotent, he should be able to prove his existence.

Hmm? How could God prove his existence? What would satisfy you? Flashy Lights? A loud booming voice? Seeing a miracle? Cause all those aren't proof of God's existence.

[Lorizael]

Your thinking is too mundane. Omnipotent is all powerful. He can do anything he wants. Therefore, if he wants to prove his existence, he can. It doesn't matter how he does it, he just does, because there is nothing that he cannot do.

[Jon Miller]

sure

he can prove his existence

but why would he want to?

Jon Miller

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Soul Survivor
You can say faith is illogical or impossible or just a way from people to live in ignorance, but faith in religion is no different than faith in anything else.

Take someone from 2000 years ago and try explaining to them our entire existence is derived from millions of units of repeating molecules which are reproduced billions of times to make a human body, they will claim you are crazy and your arguement is illogical and impossible. If you really think about it, this explanation is just as absurd as any other. Perhaps in another 2000 years they will look back on us and laugh - how could they have possibly believed that?...

Once again - let me re-emphasize the point of the "best guess". Science is based on the best guess based on what we can see and perceive. Of course these may all be false. But the very point of science is to try to narrow it down, to get theories as close to the truth as possible. Perhaps our eyes are lying to us. Illusions exist. Science tries, at the same time, to tear through as many of these illusions as possible. We try with the best possible capability that humanity can muster to tear through illusions and false theories. I do not have "absolute faith" in science, but I do believe that it is the best bet we have in finding out about the world.

"Faith", on the other hand, has none of that. Faith is pointing randomly at theories, and with no basis at all, declaring "belief". That is utterly ridiculous and is an insult to human civilization.

[Lorizael]

Might bring him more followers.

Some people "know" that another religion is right. Now they would know they were wrong.

Some people aren't sure which one is right, so believe none. Now they would know which one is right.

Some people have no belief in a god, not seeing any evidence, now they would see the evidence, and would believe.

Why wouldn't God prove his existence, if he wants people to worship and pray to him?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Why wouldn't God prove his existence, if he wants people to worship and pray to him?

You're assuming that he wants people to follow him.

[Lorizael]

Well if Christianity or Islam is correct then yes, he does.

[Giant_Squid]

Science isn't about faith. The scientists know that it's true (or at least suspect that it's true) because they've done the experiments. The rest of us believe the scientists not because we take them on faith but for very logical reasons - the fact that scientists are generally smart people, scientists who lied would be out of a job, and, most importantly, the fact that every so often science leads to something like a car or a nuclear bomb so that we know they're doing *something* right over there.
What a Christian friend tells me about faith in religion is that it is not intended as a substitute for logic but rather as a sort of complement. Once you have developed belief in the existence of God logically, either through something like Biblical scholarship, scientific means, or personal experience, then you entrust yourself to Him rather than constantly being wishy-washy about it. An analogy is how a soldier is supposed to trust that his commander knows what he's doing rather than second-guessing every order and causing general chaos.
Which brings me to how I just intentionally killed eight battalions of Knights against a massively fortified enemy city in my last game of Civ3 because they were obsolete and it was too expensive to do something else with them and, on a related note, why I am not a theist

[Edan]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Your thinking is too mundane. Omnipotent is all powerful. He can do anything he wants. Therefore, if he wants to prove his existence, he can. It doesn't matter how he does it, he just does, because there is nothing that he cannot do.

Well, he could make me believe in him (or think he's true) but then free will goes out the door. OTOH, if I keep free will, I'm free to think thatr anything he uses to prove himself is an illusion or a problem with my eyes or whatever. Unless, as I said ealier, he changes the very nature of logic.