Why faith is an impossible argument

[Edan]

Originally posted by Lorizael

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

Cause he wants people to have free will? If people know that there is a god, there's a lot less free will in the world.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by skywalker
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.

How do you determine whether or not there is a causal relation, though? Or do you just assume that repetition denotes causality?

Also, how do you determine whether or not to believe somebody else who has claimed to repeatedly and consistently observe certain result-action pairs? E.g., "My experiments prove that atoms exist," or "Good things always happen when I diligently pray"?

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Edan


Cause he wants people to have free will? If people know that there is a god, there's a lot less free will in the world.

Adam and Eve knew there was a god. Satan knew there was a god. The presence of an omnipotent being does not eliminate free will. That being may choose not to exercise its power. People may feel that their choices have no meaning, but they still have a choice. And God granted free will, so that even if he may not like what we do, we can still do it.

Loin: it's always odd seeing you make serious posts. Whenever I see your name I expect something humorous, but when you're really debating, you make good points.

[loinburger]

Yeah, too bad they don't allow DL's here, I could just avoid confusion by making a new login, like "loinburger@mentally_masturbating" for debates or whatever.

[Lorizael]

Ah... that's about more what I expect.

[Soul Survivor]

About god proving his own existence;

Its a nasty little paradox, like can god create a stone he could not lift. Because no matter what he says or does (whether it defies logic, physics anything), there is no way we could say with 100% certainty that it is not some evil genie trying to trick. But being omnipotent, he must be able to do anything, including prove his existence.

Giant Squid;

I'm not saying there is no difference between faith in science and faith in religion. Yes science uses expirements and empirical evidence to try to describe the universe around us - but it is far from absolute and even science concedes that there are certain things that it cannot hope to describe, ie what happens at less than 10^-35 cm or before 10^-43 seconds after the big bang. But in the end belief in one is just as absurd as belief in another, albiet belief in science is far more practical for human civilization.

About repitition and causality;

I like your arguement and have my own version of it. The fact that I exist right now and have existed before proves I will exist forever. Unfortunately attempting to prove causality empirically has been, problematic at best.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Lorizael


Adam and Eve knew there was a god. Satan knew there was a god.

I don't even know that there was an Adam or Eve or Satan (indeed, I don't believe in Satan). So that means nothing to me.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Soul Survivor
About god proving his own existence;

Its a nasty little paradox, like can god create a stone he could not lift. Because no matter what he says or does (whether it defies logic, physics anything), there is no way we could say with 100% certainty that it is not some evil genie trying to trick. But being omnipotent, he must be able to do anything, including prove his existence.

Well, I can think of several possibilities:

1. He needent be all-powerful, merely all-knowing and very very powerful.

2. He could force us to believe in him, but that would take the fun out of it.

3. And, of course, he could change the very nature of logic in the universe, so e's proveable.

Personally, I see know problem with God being "omnipotent" and not being able to do contradictory things (like make a rock to heavy to life) but maybe thats just me.

[Ben Kenobi]

Sure wish I could have replied to this sooner...

As is, I'll give it a shot.

Its a nasty little paradox, like can god create a stone he could not lift.

Soul Survivor:

Actually, your example makes no sense in this context. Making sense of God's omnipotence has nothing to do with whether God can or cannot prove that he exists.
The stone lifting problem is a seperate issue.

there is no way we could say with 100% certainty that it is not some evil genie trying to trick.

True. This is a problem for believers as well because we are told that false prophets will come and work miracles, in order to decieve. Believers are instructed to gauge the fruits produced by the person before deciding whether they are from God.

It's not a matter so much of whether God has made his existence known, throughout the Bible there are examples of some of the ways in which he tries to convince people of his existence.

But in the end belief in one is just as absurd as belief in another, albiet belief in science is far more practical for human civilization.

Now my question here is why. If both systems are absurd, why would science be more practical than faith? For a believer there is nothing more essential than one's relationship with God, and we see evidence when we start to stray, and cut ourselves off from his blessings.

Edan:

Cause he wants people to have free will? If people know that there is a god, there's a lot less free will in the world.

The quote you are looking for is the one that Jesus uses, do not put your Lord God to the test. The reasoning behind the commandment is that God makes his presence abundently known, and to ask again for God to appear on your terms is the height of unbelief. Look at the Israelites who had very good evidence for God, yet rejected him because Jesus did not fit their expected Messiah. How can you be sure that when God makes His presence known, that He will do so in the way you expect?

Giant Squid:

then you entrust yourself to Him rather than constantly being wishy-washy about it.

Greater understanding takes time. In my own example, my profession of faith was to ask God for help, that I could no longer do things on my own. I believed God could help, even if I did not understand everything about him.

Your friend is right, you don't need to know everything to believe in God.

trust that his commander knows what he's doing rather than second-guessing every order and causing general chaos.

So you don't trust God, because you don't see the motives behind the commander. Fair enough. For you, where does God fall short?

ranskaldan:

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.

Try reading some theologians, and you will see how our ideas about God, within Christianity have changed over time. Therefore, your accusation has no basis, Christianity still seeks to improve its own understanding of God.

As for the basis of faith, it is not that religion does not say the basis, but merely that you reject their theory. In the Christian example, why don't you believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead?

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Edan


I don't even know that there was an Adam or Eve or Satan (indeed, I don't believe in Satan). So that means nothing to me.

This is a theological debate, so whether or not the bible is true is unimportant. We must assume, for the sake of argument, that it is true. After all, I do not think that there are any gods above us, yet I want to discuss this. If I were to argue with my thoughts, no progress at all would be made.

What is important is that Adam and Eve were faced with an omnipotent god yet still had free will.

The assumptions of science, Soul Survivor, are not absurd because they have been thoroughly tested for many hundreds of years. The assumptions of religion cannot be tested, because they are based on supernatural forces, which cannot fit into a natural system of logic and reason.

While I may have faith that gravity will bring me back down every time I jump, this faith can be tested very easily, by jumping.

[Rogan Josh]

I find the statement that scientists don't need faith amusing. When someone tells me that he can measure the gluino mass to within 4GeV at the LHC (the number currently quoted by the ATLAS collaboration), I need a lot of faith!

[Edan]

Originally posted by Lorizael


What is important is that Adam and Eve were faced with an omnipotent god yet still had free will.

Only if you believe that real people will act the same way when they know there's a god and that they'll go to everlasting damnation if they don't follow him.

[Zero]

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.

beautifully said! Although atheists/agnostics wont like it because it leaves a loop hole for religious foos to defend existence of god. but if god exists, this explanation is more than enough for why such and such is this way and that...

[GePap]

WE NEED BUDDHISTS AND HINDUS IN THIS THREAD! I AM SICK OF THE ONLY RELIGIOUS PEOPLE BEING MONOTHEISTS!

[Edan]

I'M NOT YELLING. I'M JUST DEBATING... LOUDLY.