Is Religious Faith just another Religious Myth

[remez]

Reason and logic alone are not suffient, even for science.

Ancient Zog watched the skies and conclude the universe revolves around the Earth. In the day a perfectly logical and reasoned conclusion.

For ancient cultures trying to understand reality without science concluding there is a creator was a perfectly reasoned and logical conclusion.

For ancient cultures trying to understand reality without science concluding all life was winked into existence by a creator was a perfectly reasoned and logical conclusion..

parsed below.......

Reason and logic alone are not suffient, even for science.

Sufficient for what?
Context here is belief. What is sufficient for a belief to be justified if it is not supported by reason and logic?

Reason and logic alone are not suffient, even for science.

Science is based on reasoning and logic. So what are you saying there?

Ancient Zog watched the skies and conclude the universe revolves around the Earth. In the day a perfectly logical and reasoned conclusion.

Yes. But that was not so ancient. Only 500 years ago that was a strongly held scientific belief that happened to parallel a church belief as well.

I get what you are trying to LOGICALLY REASON. But you missed it big time. Science also had the same wrong belief. It was more evidence and reasoning/logic changed their beliefs.

Nice try.

 

[remez]

WTF? Over...

If nothing else you are prolific.

Bemoans the guy who authored three threads on the same topic.......Faith why proof?
and.....
If Moogly had been so wrong then I would have had less to correct.
But it is fun.

 

[steve_bank]

parsed below.......

Sufficient for what?
Context here is belief. What is sufficient for a belief to be justified if it is not supported by reason and logic?

Reason and logic alone are not suffient, even for science.

Science is based on reasoning and logic. So what are you saying there?

Ancient Zog watched the skies and conclude the universe revolves around the Earth. In the day a perfectly logical and reasoned conclusion.

Yes. But that was not so ancient. Only 500 years ago that was a strongly held scientific belief that happened to parallel a church belief as well.

I get what you are trying to LOGICALLY REASON. But you missed it big time. Science also had the same wrong belief. It was more evidence and reasoning/logic changed their beliefs.

Nice try.

Sufficient to deducing absolute truth, and that would be a philosophy thread. At this time relativity precedes any universal absolute point of reference, hence all our knowledge is relative to assumed reference points. In science it is the Systems International units.

I know this is beyond your pay grade, but there it is in short.

In contrast Christians clam absolute knowledge derived from ancient texts of unknown authors.

Science hs no belifs as you infer. Some may have personal belief, ome may not.

Science clams no absolute truth or knowledge. Any theory is subject to revision at any time.

The practice of science is a process independent of beliefs, Newton was a Christian as was Galileo. The majority of scientists leading up to the 20th century were Christian.

The scientific process rooted in the brain is not much different than how we do most things.

Oberve, hypothesize, test hypothesize. reject, or modify and retest.

We observe the sky color, smell, and feel of the air and can sense when rain may be imminent.

Science is more formal and is based on numerical quantification of variables, measurement, and mathematical models IOW equations.

We all do science but do not call it that. Science is a structured and formal practice of what we all do naturally.

People figured out how to spin stabilize arrows with feathers without any math or instruments. Romans and Egyptians were great engineers and builders without any of what we call sconce today.

 

[steve_bank]

WTF? Over...

If nothing else you are prolific.

Bemoans the guy who authored three threads on the same topic.......Faith why proof?
and.....
If Moogly had been so wrong then I would have had less to correct.
But it is fun.

Moogley who?

You are one of those who insists science is all wrong and does not get it, yet des not hesitate to get on jet and fly somewhere. Today we call hat cognitive dissonance. Simultaneous affirmation and negation.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

They are not just acting out. They are living a reality of gods and demons, the supernatural.

To then it is real.

They're just buying pretend lottery tickets because someone told them they have to, and they don't know any better.

 

[Rhea]

Remez, you have made some claims that your conclusion that a god exists and created the universe is based o science.


I have not heard you analyze this yet, I have only seen you list some sciencey stuff and claim it proved your god.

To wit:

For example, based upon the available evidence, I reason that the universe (the space time continuum to include all time, space and matter, not Uncle Karl’s pantheistic everything there is, or was or ever shall be.) began to exist. Evidenced by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, expanding universe, cosmic radiation background, the galaxy seeds, relativity, the BGV theorem, etc. So how is that an “uninformed decision?” Seriously it requires more blind faith (belief w/o or against the evidence) to reason that a past eternal universe is remotely plausible. Thus the theistic implications (decisions) of a past finite universe are not “uninformed.” Good luck arguing against the reasoning for a beginning universe.

So to just narrow in on one. Can you please review your analysis for how the theory of relativity proves that nothing existed prior to the big bang?

 

[DBT]

Absolutely none of my comment regarding your slip had anything to do with where Hebrews was in the Bible.

That's not true. You may be having trouble keeping up with what you have said:

You just stepped in it. BIG TIME. First Hebrews is not a gospel.

Which is what I was responding to.

It had to do with you finally beginning to address the evidence and reasoning I provided, which you reasoned I could not have in the first place. See the slip? If I have no evidence and reasoning then why are you asserting that my evidence and reasoning are flawed?

You never had evidence for your faith: a belief in the existence of a God. Your reasoning is not based on evidence, it is based on your faith.

(Side pt….not trick…not a gotcha….did you think is was Paul who wrote it. I do…..but I’m not absolutely sure.)

It doesn't matter who wrote it or where its situated in the bible. The point was that Hebrews 11:1 defines faith as being its own justification. That 'faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.'

The argument is sound and valid until you can show that the premises are wrong by something other than assertion or that conclusion does not follow from the premises….that it commits some formal or informal fallacy. Your assertions are hollow. Tell me which premise is wrong and WHY. Name the fallacy and explain WHY it applies. If the KCA is dead then this should be easy for you.

T.G.G. Moogly tried and failed. skepticalbip tried and failed. abaddon like you won't even try, you just assert that it is wrong. So yes Steve I'm having fun

Failed according to your estimate. Which ain't necessarily so.

The conclusion may follow from the premises, but if the premises are flawed in relation to the objective world, evidence or lack of, your conclusion is flawed in relation to that.

Rather than a 'hollow assertion' it is how logic and reason works. Faith is a poor means of understanding the world as it is, rather, it a hope for different world. A world that fulfills one's desires.

 

[DBT]

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Rather than a 'hollow assertion' it is how logic and reason works. Faith is a poor means of understanding the world as it is, rather, it a hope for different world. A world that fulfills one's desires.

If you boil it down you're left with, "I have faith, therefore there's a god." It's just belief in belief absent scientific understanding.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Rather than a 'hollow assertion' it is how logic and reason works. Faith is a poor means of understanding the world as it is, rather, it a hope for different world. A world that fulfills one's desires.

If you boil it down you're left with, "I have faith, therefore there's a god." It's just belief in belief absent scientific understanding.

If faith was a good way to acquire knowledge and to understand life, the universe, and purpose, there wouldn't be 5,000+ faiths.

 

[Elixir]

Rather than a 'hollow assertion' it is how logic and reason works. Faith is a poor means of understanding the world as it is, rather, it a hope for different world. A world that fulfills one's desires.

If you boil it down you're left with, "I have faith, therefore there's a god." It's just belief in belief absent scientific understanding.

If faith was a good way to acquire knowledge and to understand life, the universe, and purpose, there wouldn't be 5,000+ faiths.

Obviously religion is a good way to cultivate the illusion of knowledge and understanding or there wouldn’t be 5000 of them.
And if one begins with the assumption that knowledge and understanding are illusory, religions are da bomb.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If faith was a good way to acquire knowledge and to understand life, the universe, and purpose, there wouldn't be 5,000+ faiths.

Obviously religion is a good way to cultivate the illusion of knowledge and understanding or there wouldn’t be 5000 of them.
And if one begins with the assumption that knowledge and understanding are illusory, religions are da bomb.

Right. Religious faith is about pseudo-knowledge, but if I don't know any better it's the real deal. Some people need it unfortunately.

 

[remez]

Sufficient to deducing absolute truth, and that would be a philosophy thread.

But you continued with this…..

At this time relativity precedes any universal absolute point of reference, hence all our knowledge is relative to assumed reference points. In science it is the Systems International units.

…..which is your philosophy. Absolute truth can only be found in mathematics and logic.

I know this is beyond your pay grade, but there it is in short.

Fun.

In contrast Christians clam absolute knowledge derived from ancient texts of unknown authors.

I’m not claiming absolute truth. And my presented argument does not depend ancient scriptures other than the description of God. The argument is from universe to God’s existence …no scripture.

Science hs no belifs as you infer. Some may have personal belief, ome may not.

Didn't infer that at all.

Science clams no absolute truth or knowledge. Any theory is subject to revision at any time.

Good philosophy.

The practice of science is a process independent of beliefs, Newton was a Christian as was Galileo. The majority of scientists leading up to the 20th century were Christian.

The process of science is a philosophical structure.

The scientific process rooted in the brain is not much different than how we do most things.

Good philosophy.

Oberve, hypothesize, test hypothesize. reject, or modify and retest.

Good philosophy.

We observe the sky color, smell, and feel of the air and can sense when rain may be imminent.

Snore…

Science is more formal and is based on numerical quantification of variables, measurement, and mathematical models IOW equations.

More than its philosophical foundations?

We all do science but do not call it that. Science is a structured and formal practice of what we all do naturally.

Specialized reasoning process.

People figured out how to spin stabilize arrows with feathers without any math or instruments.

No math?

Romans and Egyptians were great engineers and builders without any of what we call sconce today.

The labeled process of science was not present, but the natural reasoning you just called science was. So what is your point?
Other post…….

Moogley who?

Moogly is the poster you quoted me responding to. Keep up.
And
YOU can’t possibly be sneering about a harmless spelling error. Seriously YOU? Look above. The act of reading your numerous misspellings has turned into an art form. But fun.

You are one of those who insists science is all wrong and does not get it, yet des not hesitate to get on jet and fly somewhere.

Ridiculous. Where could you possibly think I oppose science? I presented science as evidence that supports theism.

Read post 126 by Rhea. Who is she questioning?

Look at post 83 where I addressed Moogly misunderstanding of the First Law of Thermodynamics. Could you follow that one?

Look in your other thread where I scientifically shredded skepticalbip’s oscillation model. Post 44…. https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?21708-If-You-Are-Certain-God-Exists-Why-Prove-It/page5 .. Did you understand that one?

So please stop all this emoting that I oppose science. It looks bad on you.

 

[remez]

Remez, you have made some claims that your conclusion that a god exists and created the universe is based o science.


I have not heard you analyze this yet, I have only seen you list some sciencey stuff and claim it proved your god.

To wit:

For example, based upon the available evidence, I reason that the universe (the space time continuum to include all time, space and matter, not Uncle Karl’s pantheistic everything there is, or was or ever shall be.) began to exist. Evidenced by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, expanding universe, cosmic radiation background, the galaxy seeds, relativity, the BGV theorem, etc. So how is that an “uninformed decision?” Seriously it requires more blind faith (belief w/o or against the evidence) to reason that a past eternal universe is remotely plausible. Thus the theistic implications (decisions) of a past finite universe are not “uninformed.” Good luck arguing against the reasoning for a beginning universe.

So to just narrow in on one. Can you please review your analysis for how the theory of relativity proves that nothing existed prior to the big bang?

Gladly but you first.

Post 30 other thread 5 days ago EoG forum….. https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?21708-If-You-Are-Certain-God-Exists-Why-Prove-It/page3 ... It was Steve’s third thread on the topic. You did not respond. So show me you can be fair. I’ll be looking.

 

[remez]

That's not true. You may be having trouble keeping up with what you have said:

You just stepped in it. BIG TIME. First Hebrews is not a gospel.

Which is what I was responding to.

You dishonestly misquoted me and you know it.
You should have quoted the whole comment….

You just stepped in it. BIG TIME. First Hebrews is not a gospel. But more importantly…. What is assurance? What is CONVICTION?

I was and still am focused on how you reconcile that you are reasoning against the evidence and reasoning that a theists is giving you. While concurrently maintaining the belief that theists have no evidence and reasoning.

Where Hebrews is in the NT was over with my simple minor mention to it. I know you know it is not a gospel. That’s why I made no case over it at all.

Continuing on that same thought………

It had to do with you finally beginning to address the evidence and reasoning I provided, which you reasoned I could not have in the first place. See the slip? If I have no evidence and reasoning then why are you asserting that my evidence and reasoning are flawed?

You never had evidence for your faith: a belief in the existence of a God. Your reasoning is not based on evidence, it is based on your faith.

That is you denying the evidence before you. Hence why I called your reasoning a belief against the evidence. For quick reference look at Rhea’s post 126….she is quoting from the evidence I have been giving here on this board for years.

The argument is sound and valid until you can show that the premises are wrong by something other than assertion or that conclusion does not follow from the premises….that it commits some formal or informal fallacy. Your assertions are hollow. Tell me which premise is wrong and WHY. Name the fallacy and explain WHY it applies. If the KCA is dead then this should be easy for you.

T.G.G. Moogly tried and failed. skepticalbip tried and failed. abaddon like you won't even try, you just assert that it is wrong. So yes Steve I'm having fun

Failed according to your estimate. Which ain't necessarily so.

The conclusion may follow from the premises, but if the premises are flawed in relation to the objective world, evidence or lack of, your conclusion is flawed in relation to that.

Rather than a 'hollow assertion' it is how logic and reason works. Faith is a poor means of understanding the world as it is, rather, it a hope for different world. A world that fulfills one's desires.

It is not my estimate. Again you call my efforts assertion and estimate in the face of evidence like post 83 where someone braver than you tried to present a defeater to my evidence and reasoning. I didn’t assert they failed. I showed you it failed and NO ONE disagreed. Be Fair.

I addressed this with you in my last post. Simply telling me what I already know……how and argument fails does not make your case. You have to tell me how and why it fails…..Again……

Reason is only as good as the premises upon which it is founded. If your reasoning fine but your premises flawed or unfounded, your conclusion is not necessarily true even if it follows from your premises.

Of course reasoning is to be examined that way. Simply stating the obvious does not make your case that my reasoning is flawed. So why should I believe you when you simply assert that mine is flawed? You have not presented any reasoning as to why the premises are flawed…..nothing…..you just assert they are. That alone does not render the argument flawed.

The argument is sound and valid until you can show that the premises are wrong by something other than assertion or that conclusion does not follow from the premises….that it commits some formal or informal fallacy. Your assertions are hollow. Tell me which premise is wrong and WHY. Name the fallacy and explain WHY it applies. If the KCA is dead then this should be easy for you.

T.G.G. Moogly tried and failed. skepticalbip tried and failed. abaddon like you won't even try, you just assert that it is wrong. So yes Steve I'm having fun

What are you so afraid of?

 

[remez]

If faith was a good way to acquire knowledge and to understand life, the universe, and purpose, there wouldn't be 5,000+ faiths.

Obviously religion is a good way to cultivate the illusion of knowledge and understanding or there wouldn’t be 5000 of them.
And if one begins with the assumption that knowledge and understanding are illusory, religions are da bomb.

Right. Religious faith is about pseudo-knowledge, but if I don't know any better it's the real deal. Some people need it unfortunately.

Moogly…… Show me where I was wrong in post 83. Show me this pseudo-knowledge you speak of.

You are the ones blind to the fact that you are guilty of the “faith” you so criticize. Get out of the cuddle huddle you guys and brave up. Moogly (or any of you) have not addressed any of the evidence and reasoning I provided. You did offer one piece of pseudo-knowledge as a counter that was easy to defeat (post 83). Are you just going to let it die? Are you going to actually challenge the evidence I presented? Or are you simply just going to continue the childish cuddle huddle with one another ignoring the provided evidence to play your get out of reason card that theists have no evidence and reasoning to address?

 

[steve_bank]

But you continued with this…..

…..which is your philosophy. Absolute truth can only be found in mathematics and logic.

I know this is beyond your pay grade, but there it is in short.

Fun.

In contrast Christians clam absolute knowledge derived from ancient texts of unknown authors.

I’m not claiming absolute truth. And my presented argument does not depend ancient scriptures other than the description of God. The argument is from universe to God’s existence …no scripture.

Science hs no belifs as you infer. Some may have personal belief, ome may not.

Didn't infer that at all.

Science clams no absolute truth or knowledge. Any theory is subject to revision at any time.

Good philosophy.

The practice of science is a process independent of beliefs, Newton was a Christian as was Galileo. The majority of scientists leading up to the 20th century were Christian.

The process of science is a philosophical structure.

The scientific process rooted in the brain is not much different than how we do most things.

Good philosophy.

Oberve, hypothesize, test hypothesize. reject, or modify and retest.

Good philosophy.

We observe the sky color, smell, and feel of the air and can sense when rain may be imminent.

Snore…

Science is more formal and is based on numerical quantification of variables, measurement, and mathematical models IOW equations.

More than its philosophical foundations?

We all do science but do not call it that. Science is a structured and formal practice of what we all do naturally.

Specialized reasoning process.

People figured out how to spin stabilize arrows with feathers without any math or instruments.

No math?

Romans and Egyptians were great engineers and builders without any of what we call sconce today.

The labeled process of science was not present, but the natural reasoning you just called science was. So what is your point?
Other post…….

Moogley who?

Moogly is the poster you quoted me responding to. Keep up.
And
YOU can’t possibly be sneering about a harmless spelling error. Seriously YOU? Look above. The act of reading your numerous misspellings has turned into an art form. But fun.

You are one of those who insists science is all wrong and does not get it, yet des not hesitate to get on jet and fly somewhere.

Ridiculous. Where could you possibly think I oppose science? I presented science as evidence that supports theism.

Read post 126 by Rhea. Who is she questioning?

Look at post 83 where I addressed Moogly misunderstanding of the First Law of Thermodynamics. Could you follow that one?

Look in your other thread where I scientifically shredded skepticalbip’s oscillation model. Post 44…. https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?21708-If-You-Are-Certain-God-Exists-Why-Prove-It/page5 .. Did you understand that one?

So please stop all this emoting that I oppose science. It looks bad on you.

Ersatz.

I was emerged in science as a profession for most of my adult life. I know science an occupation. I also know religion from study and experience.

It probably makes you excited to argue against science. A great religious battle. My point is you argue against the efficacy of science, yet implicitly trust it by your actions.

You are not likely to jump off a roof thinking you will fly. You get on a jet knowing nothing about aerodynamics and et propulsion.


What you can not argue is that science produces useful and meaningful and tangible results. Religion does not.

The foundation of Christianity is the bible represents absolute truth from a one and only god.

 

[Lion IRC]

I love science.

The bed rock of the scientific method is that truth/untruth can be verified/falsified.

That the bible likewise presupposes the existence of the ontological category of Truth^TM puts science and the Bible on the same footing.

Imagine what science would be if the word Truth was meaningless.

 

[skepticalbip]

I love science.

The bed rock of the scientific method is that truth/untruth can be verified/falsified.

That the bible likewise presupposes the existence of the ontological category of Truth^TM puts science and the Bible on the same footing.

Imagine what science would be if the word Truth was meaningless.

You obviously have no understanding of the scientific method.

Scientific understanding and "revealed truth" have nothing in common.

 

[steve_bank]

I love science.

The bed rock of the scientific method is that truth/untruth can be verified/falsified.

That the bible likewise presupposes the existence of the ontological category of Truth^TM puts science and the Bible on the same footing.

Imagine what science would be if the word Truth was meaningless.

It is not about truth, it is about developing models of reality. A constant model that predicts results may or may not reflect actual reality. There is no way to know if the image of reality we derive form science models actually reelects true reality.I do not love scince, it is a means to an end. More sophisticated than a screwdriver, but a tool.