Faith is believing something that you know isnt true.

[Jobar]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQX4mKvqSoo[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Jobar]

I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.
-Oliver Cromwell

That famous quote always seemed to me a very good statement of the skeptical outlook, despite his use of 'in the bowels of Christ' for emphasis.

But Faith, by my understanding of it expressed in the last sentence of post 15, is something held (or at least claimed to be held) without doubt, without admitting the possibility of mistake. That sort of absolute and unchanging certainty is not really possible, to us temporary and fallible human beings; yet I can find you any number of quotes, from sermons, holy books, and hymns, which make it plain that unquestioning certainty is exactly what Christians (and many other religions too) mean when they use the term 'faith'.

 

[remez]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQX4mKvqSoo[/YOUTUBE]

Just how does your faith video address the facts of the evidence for my position and the complete lack of evidence for yours? ……………. It doesn’t. It just babbles on about faith in the unknown.

This time take a look at some evidence………

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." - Alexander Vilenkin

Here is a whole lecture from Vilenkin himself….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IJLZO7o4Ak

Here is another article called in the beginning was the beginning where he explains the problem with cyclic models…
http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

 

[remez]

I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.
-Oliver Cromwell

I already addressed this with you here.................

As to your concerns of my Christian beliefs being wrong. Some of them were along the way and I revised and moved on. As to me being wrong about the universe having a beginning, well that would be like me admitting that I may be wrong that water always expands when it freezes.

.... so why are you still assuming that my faith is rigid.

But Faith, by my understanding of it expressed in the last sentence of post 15, is something held (or at least claimed to be held) without doubt, without admitting the possibility of mistake. That sort of absolute and unchanging certainty is not really possible, to us temporary and fallible human beings; yet I can find you any number of quotes, from sermons, holy books, and hymns, which make it plain that unquestioning certainty is exactly what Christians (and many other religions too) mean when they use the term 'faith'.

That is what you would call a blind faith. I'm presenting a reasonable faith. One that has changed over the years and One at the moment that has far, far more evidential support than yours.

Does that still sound blind and rigid to you?

 

[Jobar]

I've lost count of how many threads on the subject of Faith I've participated in; I know I've posted this list of quotes at least 4 times...

"Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.... A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the capacity for clear and realistic thought. He is not a mere ass: he is actually ill." ~ H.L. Mencken, New York Times Magazine, 11 September 1955

"Faith is nothing more than the license religious people give themselves to keep believing when reasons fail." ~ Sam Harris

"Faith is like a piece of blank paper whereon you may write as well one miracle as another." ~ Charles Blount (1654-1693)

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." ~ Richard Dawkins

"Faith is the antithesis of proof." ~ NY State Supreme Court Justice Edward J. Greenfield, 1995

"Faith is believing something you know ain't true." ~ Mark Twain [Samuel Clemens] (1835-1910)

"Faith is an absolutely marvelous tool. With faith there is no question too big for even the smallest mind." ~ Rev. Donald Morgan (b. 1933)

"Faith," said St. Paul, "is the evidence of things not seen." We should elaborate this definition by adding that faith is the assertion of things for which there is not a particle of evidence and of things which are incredible." ~ E. Haldeman-Julius

"Faith is deciding to allow yourself to believe something your intellect would otherwise cause you to reject -- otherwise there's no need for faith." - Unknown

"Faith is a cop-out. It is intellectual bankruptcy. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits." ~ Dan Barker

"Faith is believing in things when common sense tells you not to." ~ George Seaton

 

[remez]

I've lost count of how many threads on the subject of Faith I've participated in; I know I've posted this list of quotes at least 4 times...

"Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.... A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the capacity for clear and realistic thought. He is not a mere ass: he is actually ill." ~ H.L. Mencken, New York Times Magazine, 11 September 1955

"Faith is nothing more than the license religious people give themselves to keep believing when reasons fail." ~ Sam Harris

"Faith is like a piece of blank paper whereon you may write as well one miracle as another." ~ Charles Blount (1654-1693)

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." ~ Richard Dawkins

"Faith is the antithesis of proof." ~ NY State Supreme Court Justice Edward J. Greenfield, 1995

"Faith is believing something you know ain't true." ~ Mark Twain [Samuel Clemens] (1835-1910)

"Faith is an absolutely marvelous tool. With faith there is no question too big for even the smallest mind." ~ Rev. Donald Morgan (b. 1933)

"Faith," said St. Paul, "is the evidence of things not seen." We should elaborate this definition by adding that faith is the assertion of things for which there is not a particle of evidence and of things which are incredible." ~ E. Haldeman-Julius

"Faith is deciding to allow yourself to believe something your intellect would otherwise cause you to reject -- otherwise there's no need for faith." - Unknown

"Faith is a cop-out. It is intellectual bankruptcy. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits." ~ Dan Barker

"Faith is believing in things when common sense tells you not to." ~ George Seaton

I repeat.............

That is what you would call a blind faith. I'm presenting a reasonable faith. One that has changed over the years and One at the moment that has far, far more evidential support than yours.

Does that still sound blind and rigid to you?

 

[Keith&Co.]

But it is certainly not limited to just religious followers. Example your faith that all religious faith is blind faith.

my faith?

No, more of an observation.

Every time i ask for this evidence they claim rto have, i get presupposition, lousy math, word games...

Except when all i get is the blame for not automatically perceiving the evidence, or misstatements about my motives in even asking the question...

 

[abaddon]

... get is the blame for not automatically perceiving the evidence, or misstatements about my motives in even asking the question...

Sums up how remez demonstrates what reasoned faith is.

 

[abaddon]

I wonder what atheists think blind faith doesn't have reasons piled on top of it? If so then it's they alone who need to answer about that. There seems to be a notion that atheists in general think theists don't apply reasons to the mythical entities. "Reasoning" theists would like to disabuse everyone of that by arguing, "No, you!"

I was a theist and I thought about it. Eventually I stopped being insistent (or "rigid") about my reasons for why a mythic entity was necessary to anything. Because I didn't see God doing anything; words weren't enough even as a theist. Generally I successfully stopped wanting a best explanation for things that I don't need one for, like "Where'd it all come from?" It takes an emotional investment in 'having the answer' which isn't there anymore. It's not lack of curiosity; in fact it's quite the opposite. "I don't know" is just what it is -- not grabbing at a best explanation, and accepting there a lot of possibilities. Where only a dogmatist would insist there is one and that everyone should adopt it.

 

[Jobar]

That is what you would call a blind faith. I'm presenting a reasonable faith. One that has changed over the years and One at the moment that has far, far more evidential support than yours.

Does that still sound blind and rigid to you?

You are basing your faith on a version of the Cosmological Argument; 'The universe is created, and therefore must have a creator; and that creator is God.' (I am presuming here that you do have faith there is a God. If you're one of the extremely rare atheist Christians- yes they do exist, and I've talked to a few- then all my previous posts can just be ignored. )

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you and Vilenkin are correct, and that the universe is temporally constrained at at least one end (that is, it does have a beginning, and there was no matter/energy before the moment of the Big Bang.) That *still* does not provide you with adequate evidence for belief in God.

View attachment 15762

Think about that carefully. I think it destroys every version of the Cosmological Argument I've ever seen.

When you posit a God as creator of the universe, all you are doing is pushing the ultimate mystery of the origin of reality back a step; and there is no reason that extra step need be taken. We have no evidence, and no good arguments, which require a God.

Now, if you or anyone else can find something other than the existence of the universe that indicates there *was* some being prior to the universe- that there is need and justification for that next step, that further entity of explanation- then I could no longer use that little .gif.

 

[bilby]

The further back in time we look, the smaller the observable universe is. However at the Planck Epoch, our ability to look back any further ends, with the observable universe not only still finite in extent, but also with the exact same total mass-energy as today.

To look at those facts and conclude that, a little earlier than the earliest time that our theories can describe, the universe began to exist, is completely unsupported speculation.

To declare that speculation 'reasonable' because it conforms to your religious beliefs is just stupid.

To be a smug git about it is indefensible, and gets you placed back on 'ignore'.

 

[remez]

You are basing your faith on a version of the Cosmological Argument; 'The universe is created, and therefore must have a creator; and that creator is God.'

I’m not basing my faith solely on the KCA. That is just one of many pieces of evidence I can offer to support my faith. Remember the context here is the idea that my Christian faith has no evidence at all. Thus all the scientific evidence for a beginning universe is evidence that supports my faith.

And conversely your faith in any other cosmogonic model has far less evidence. Atheism is strongly wedded to an eternal universe as theism is to a past finite universe. If the universe is not eternal then is needs a cause and explanation for its existence. And that cause and explanation cannot logically be natural, because nature began to exist.

I’m not asserting that you have to find the reasons for my faith compelling. But I’m trying to make two direct points in regard to that context of that cosmology. First that I do indeed have evidence for my faith and secondly any position you hold against my evidence here will have far less evidence supporting it.

(I am presuming here that you do have faith there is a God. If you're one of the extremely rare atheist Christians- yes they do exist, and I've talked to a few- then all my previous posts can just be ignored. )

I’m not hiding the fact I’m a Christian. I’m not an atheist/theist.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you and Vilenkin are correct, and that the universe is temporally constrained at at least one end (that is, it does have a beginning, and there was no matter/energy before the moment of the Big Bang.)

Then I have evidence for my faith and atheism is on the ropes. That is my point here in the context of this thread.

I’m guessing that the rest of this post…………

That *still* does not provide you with adequate evidence for belief in God.



Think about that carefully. I think it destroys every version of the Cosmological Argument I've ever seen.

When you posit a God as creator of the universe, all you are doing is pushing the ultimate mystery of the origin of reality back a step; and there is no reason that extra step need be taken. We have no evidence, and no good arguments, which require a God.

Now, if you or anyone else can find something other than the existence of the universe that indicates there *was* some being prior to the universe- that there is need

…is your attempt to counter the KCA. That’s fine, but it is beyond the context of my point here in this thread. I, not only have evidence for my faith in this context of cosmology. I have more evidence than you do for your faith in atheism.

Your counter is incomplete in that your gif did not open when I read your post so I’m not exactly sure what you were trying to offer.

Now I have this question for you regarding that unopen gif. I’m not a computer expert, so is there some setting I need to change in order to view your gif, because this has happened to me before. Your earlier video was fine but that gif did not open and it is annoying.

 

[Lion IRC]

Here remez
https://m.imgur.com/gallery/MjNXXvM

 

[Lion IRC]

It doesn't destroy the First Cause argument.
It dodges it by making an alternate premiss - that the universe wasn't caused because it didn't come into existence.

Well duh!
Nobody on either side claims that past-eternal things are the result of a prior cause.

 

[Lion IRC]

...except science based on empirical, peer reviewed evidence told everyone that
the universe is ONLY 13.7b years old.

 

[Lion IRC]

The funny thing is that to claim the universe has existed forever would require evidence about the state of past reality that only someone with God-like power and knowledge could verify.

Take THAT William of Occam!!!

 

[remez]

The further back in time we look, the smaller the observable universe is. However at the Planck Epoch, our ability to look back any further ends, with the observable universe not only still finite in extent, but also with the exact same total mass-energy as today.

Ok……………….

To look at those facts and conclude that, a little earlier than the earliest time that our theories can describe, the universe began to exist, is completely unsupported speculation.

Completely unsupported?
To me that is you volitionally denying the obvious and refusing to follow the evidence where it leads.

To declare that speculation 'reasonable' because it conforms to your religious beliefs is just stupid.

I’m declaring that it is far more plausible given the science we have now that the universe began to exist.

It's just a matter of evidence.

Because from what we have now……..To declare that inference “UNreasonable” because it doesn’t conform to your worldview beliefs is just stupid.
additionally..........
That is not being smug, that is matching the tone you set.

To be a smug git about it is indefensible, and gets you placed back on 'ignore'.

Please be fair. I’m acting in good faith to present my case against the notion all faith is blind faith and that skeptics often hold positions opposed to the evidence. I’m confident in my case. But I will not stoop to name calling to match your tone there.

 

[remez]

Here remez
https://m.imgur.com/gallery/MjNXXvM

thank you.

 

[remez]

Here remez
https://m.imgur.com/gallery/MjNXXvM

thank you

Are you sure that was the link?
because....That line of reasoning is literally an accidental suicide.
The logic kills itself while shaving.

 

[bilby]

...except science based on empirical, peer reviewed evidence told everyone that
the universe is ONLY 13.7b years old.

Does science also tell people to equivocate on the difference between 'universe' meaning 'everything that exists' and 'universe' meaning 'observable universe'; Or is that merely a product of your ignorance?