Is Religious Faith just another Religious Myth

[Learner]

Everyone knew the rules BTW

"Knowing" the rules and having the capacity to understand them--which would necessarily include the ability to comprehend the ramifications/consequences if they are not followed--are two entirely different concepts. Which is why, once again, in Judaism, you don't need to understand the rules--or the consequences--you just need to do as you are told.

Not understanding the nature of good and evil means that you don't understand the consequences of your decisions in terms of good and bad.

You naively make decisions that turns out bad because you don't have the necessary information, no matter how good your brain, no matter how intelligent, you simply don't understand the consequences of your decisions in terms of good and bad...until, as the verse tells us, your "eyes are opened" and you do understand. But then it's too late, God curses you, your partner and the whole world over a poor decision made in naivity.

The consequences was previously established!


Genesis 2:16-17

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Case closed.

 

[ideologyhunter]

A case derived from a text with a talking animal, with genetic characteristics altered through the magic of striped sticks, with a god who kills everyone but 8 zealots, (including all earth's human infants, who couldn't possibly understand moral consequences), all starting with a curse over disobedience around SNACKING. Give me more of that book! It must truly be the profound message of a wise, just, loving creator to his creations.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

A case derived from a text with a talking animal, with genetic characteristics altered through the magic of striped sticks, with a god who kills everyone but 8 zealots, (including all earth's human infants, who couldn't possibly understand moral consequences), all starting with a curse over disobedience around SNACKING. Give me more of that book! It must truly be the profound message of a wise, just, loving creator to his creations.

How any rational person could take such a fanciful tale literally does give one pause. But people do. It's nothing short of astounding.

 

[Rhea]

The consequences was previously established!


Genesis 2:16-17

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Case closed.

I remember when my kids were toddlers and we worked to keep them from getting hit by cars in the street. Of course, the FIRST thing we did was say, “But in the street of cars and trucks, thou shalt not enter without holding thy parent’s hand. Thou shalt surely die.”

But you what is astonishing? They did not understand the consequences or even what a rule was, nor even the meaning of “die,” at all..
Despite me establishing the rules!!!!

You know what I did? I did not leave them alone until their eyes had been opened (by development and experience) to the danger and the consequences.
It’s what loving parents do, btw.


Instead, we played “red light, green light” until they acquired the habit of stopping when we call out “stop,” (because they don’t understand that, either, unless it is a game in which stopping equals benefit) and we talked about it over and over and over and over. And we also never left them alone near a street until they had finished with the apple of good and evil and knew how to detect and protect against evil.

If you don’t know what evil looks like, you cannot avoid it or protect against it. You are blind to it.
So the parent takes that role - for as long as needed.

So simple. It’s called love.

 

[steve_bank]

Have you heard of Dhing Dhong?

No, so you're a Dhinga Dhongist then instead. How long is has this been about?

As Joseph Campbell pointed out all myths pretty much portray the same human emotions, in the local metaphors.

Rambo was Homeric. A warrior on a journey back home. In today's metaphors and culture. John Wayne's film persona was a modern myth in our culture Rambo and John Wayne became verbs. To Rambo or John ayne a situation. Like talking snakes handing people apples....

That is what myths have always been about. . Christians tend to be literal with no insight into the meaning of their myths.

Same human emotions and same themes. Classical Chinese practically mirrors the Hewbrew theology being isolated from each other thousands miles apart. What are the chances? But yes I'm sure he's right in some cases, can't be 100% the case for all of them though .

Apparently there are talking apes.

BTW I am not a Bhuddits. I drifyed through a number of things in the 70s and took away some things that benefited me from all of it.

I ascribe to Freethought. Rejection as much as possible of fixed ideologies and -isms of all kinds.

Fair enough.

I have heard this before, Hebrews were the source of most everything. Unfortunately it appears Hebrew/Abrahamic monotheism was taken from elsewhere.

Archeology shows the early Semites ha a male and female principle, with the female aspect being discarded.

Thee history of Chinese culture , its philosophy and mystical traditional are nothing like the ancient Hebrews. The similarity is only that leaders and empowers claimed divine backing and created religion to support their power. As with Hebrew kings,. In Israel Netanyahu appears to be a literalist who uses religion to shore up his power base. Some things never change.

The ancient Hebrews were minor players among larger civilizations, and in the end lost out. Finally by Rome.

Dhing Dhong is the male principle, Bhim Bho is the female. As written by the Chinese philosopher Hung Lo.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The consequences was previously established!

Once again you confuse something being stated with something being understood. How the fuck does someone who is immortal understand what it means to die?

 

[Keith&Co.]

The consequences was previously established!

Once again you confuse something being stated with something being understood. How the fuck does someone who is immortal understand what it means to die?

I don't even claim to fully understand the consequences if they tell me the fine is in Euros. Five hundred? Is that a lot? Are we talking pocket money, wallet money, or bank loan? And i'm like one google search away from a conversion calculator.

Kind of amusing that the lack of understand of good, evil, and the consequences of misbehaving is not grasped by someone who constantly fails to grasp straightforward science until it's been carefully dumbed down to words he can actually use.

 

[DBT]

Not understanding the nature of good and evil means that you don't understand the consequences of your decisions in terms of good and bad.

You naively make decisions that turns out bad because you don't have the necessary information, no matter how good your brain, no matter how intelligent, you simply don't understand the consequences of your decisions in terms of good and bad...until, as the verse tells us, your "eyes are opened" and you do understand. But then it's too late, God curses you, your partner and the whole world over a poor decision made in naivity.

The consequences was previously established!


Genesis 2:16-17

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Case closed.

No counter case was made. If someone is incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions, they don't have the necessary information, they are not making an informed position, they are handicapped in their decisionmaking process, they should be helped rather than punished.

Yet Genesis has God not only punishing Adam and Eve for their naive decision to eat of the forbidden fruit, but the whole world.

 

[remez]

I had no 'wires crossed' -

It’s all right there. But MORE IMPORTANTLY you moved on and so will I.

I pointed out what the accepted definition of faith happens to be in relation to religious belief: a belief held without the support of evidence,

And I did not deny you said that. Still don’t.

and provided a quote from the bible

Yes you did.

that describes faith as being it's own justification, it's own 'evidence.'

Disagreed with your interpretation. Lightly referenced synonymous words in other versions….trust confidence etc. But even that was not my concern.

You can't deny the fact that faith - not trust or confidence - is a belief held without the support of evidence.

Yes I can. But I wasn’t. For the sake of conversation I was allowing you for now to label all faith……. blind faith.
But this…………

Or that a belief in the existence of a God or gods is a matter of faith.

You talk about reason but fail to provide evidence,

My belief in God is NOT a matter of faith. That is your straw man. I have presented evidence and reason for what I believe.
And to that evidence and reasoning………All you have asserted …….repeatedly…..again ……and again………….is that because it has the possibility to be wrong then it is wrong……..watch……..

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.

Followed by………….

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.

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…

Then I quoted my request AGAIN.
And…..
You let it go. I gave you ample opportunity to provide specific reasoning as to why to KCA fails.

So the only reason you have to reject my evidence and reasoning is that it could possibly be wrong.
I’m fine leaving it at that.
Well…….
For abaddon’s sake I’m fine leaving it right there. See abaddon is under the impression that since you guys have reasoned against me then theism (particularly the KCA here) is wrong. I’m trying to show him that it is more a matter of reasoning than just stating its wrong. Thank you for helping with……..that reasoning gem…..”because it could be wrong it IS wrong.”

So abaddon…… Did DBT’s reasoning present a reasonable case to dismiss the KCA?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I have presented evidence and reason for what I believe.

You have presented neither, so repeating this baseless assertion only serves to allow you to continue to avoid both.

Tiresome.

 

[remez]

dodged this

But I’m saying with reasonable certainty that the universe began to exist.

You are saying it without offering any evidence to support your argument.

I offered….. the expanding universe, GTR, and the BGV theorem, etc.

How is that not plain to see?

Remember that was just a quick few. For any evidence supporting them would be evidence for my reasoning as well. For example and expanding universe is supported by red shift. Thus red shift would be evidence for a past finite universe as well.

Now. We both know that p2 is the universe began to exist. So if I support p2 with the scientific evidence of an expanding universe then why I’m I wrong to reason that I just offered scientific evidence for my beliefs.
For if…….
You rewind the expanding universe with GTR you come to the limit of science (nature) at the singularity. The BGV does not even assume GTR to accomplish same conclusion that you can’t escape a cosmic beginning. This is obviously straight forward reasoning with 3 given evidences.

Now….
Precisely tell me where I’m wrong with that obviously, straight forward, reasoning and evidence. My approach is reasonably obvious …no semantics. You are the one that is going do all the semantic gymnastics to get out of the crystal clarity of what I’ve reasoned.
Further…….
Before you attempt to use the line of reasoning….…..”Well the expanding universe does not ABSOLUTELY conclude that the universe began”…… you need to recognize that it would be YOU arbitrarily reasoning absolute certainty against me as the standard reasoning. And we just painstakingly established that it is not a reasonable approach. So don’t go there and make me waste time having to repeat US.
Also regarding absolute certainty vs reasonable certainty…….
Don’t assert that I’m claiming absolute certainty either. I’m claiming that it is far more reasonable that the universe began then it is eternal in the past. So don’t use absolute certainty to deny the very very very reasonable certainty that my evidence reasonably supports a past finite universe.
So again…….

You are saying it without offering any evidence to support your argument. Therefore I am reasonably certain that your claim is a semantic argument only, and therefore reasonably dismissed.

……. here is the big question….
Why is the evidence and reasoning I presented above not to be considered evidence and reasoning for what I belief? Sematic or otherwise.

But if you were able to show how any part of that universe began to exist, something simple, then we could have a reasonable discussion. We could then extrapolate that demonstration into that larger observation we call the universe.

But you know you cannot, which is why you don't.

Categorical fallacy in your reasoning there. I’m not claiming I know HOW it began. I’m claiming with reasonable certainty THAT it began.
Think about it…….
Would it be reasonable for me to conclude that since you can't tell me HOW life began to exist that you are unreasonable to belief THAT life began to exist?

This is essentially your reasoning there. Right?

Hence fallacious reasoning doesn’t damage the KCA.

Your position is a faith argument, not defensible science.

It is your position that is in need of evidence and good reasoning. Because all you just presented was obvious error in reasoning on your part that you concluded eliminates the KCA.

Really examine what I wrote above. What reasoning did you offer (that I did not reasonably counter) to conclude the KCA is dead? And that theists don’t have evidence and reason for their faith.
Thus….for the obvious lack of evidence and reason……….
Your last statement there is one of “faith.”

 

[remez]

Ok, what are your 7 pieces of evidence?

1
3
3
4
5
6
7

Why only seven……
Expanding universe, red shift, GTR, CBMR, BGV, predictive H/He abundance, SBBM, failure of all other models, 2nd Law of thermodynamics with regards to star formation quickly off the top of my head. More quickly cosmological constant, electromagnetic force constant, all singularity theorems from Hawking/Penrose to BGV, P-E mass ratio Etc….
Now…..You challenged me….I responded.
Your turn………..
Does an expanding universe more plausibly support a past finite or infinite universe?

Have some courage.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I’m not claiming I know HOW it began. I’m claiming with reasonable certainty THAT it began.

Well, HOW it began is the whole shooting match, so even if you were to somehow establish THAT it began, it would be irrelevant to HOW it began and thus, once again, you are wrong, you have provided neither evidence nor reason as to HOW it began (aka, your beliefs).

You believe a magical being somehow existed before the universe began and that this magical being somehow willed the universe into being. That you can point to the Big Bang--or the expansion or the red shift, etc--in NO WAY evidences your beliefs, let alone that your beliefs are reasoned.

You have effectively stated that because of the Big Bang, a magical Elf must have started it. While we all know you would agree such a statement would be utter nonsense, somehow when you just substitute in "a God must have started it" you lose all capacity for rational thought.

 

[remez]

I’m not claiming I know HOW it began. I’m claiming with reasonable certainty THAT it began.

Well, HOW it began is the whole shooting match, so even if you were to somehow establish THAT it began, it would be irrelevant to HOW it began and thus, once again, you are wrong, you have provided neither evidence nor reason as to HOW it began (aka, your beliefs).

You believe a magical being somehow existed before the universe began and that this magical being somehow willed the universe into being. That you can point to the Big Bang--or the expansion or the red shift, etc--in NO WAY evidences your beliefs, let alone that your beliefs are reasoned.

You have effectively stated that because of the Big Bang, a magical Elf must have started it. While we all know you would agree such a statement would be utter nonsense, somehow when you just substitute in "a God must have started it" you lose all capacity for rational thought.

Go back and quote the whole comment I made and then try again.

 

[Learner]

I’m not claiming I know HOW it began. I’m claiming with reasonable certainty THAT it began.

Well, HOW it began is the whole shooting match, so even if you were to somehow establish THAT it began, it would be irrelevant to HOW it began and thus, once again, you are wrong, you have provided neither evidence nor reason as to HOW it began (aka, your beliefs).

You believe a magical being somehow existed before the universe began and that this magical being somehow willed the universe into being. That you can point to the Big Bang--or the expansion or the red shift, etc--in NO WAY evidences your beliefs, let alone that your beliefs are reasoned.

You have effectively stated that because of the Big Bang, a magical Elf must have started it. While we all know you would agree such a statement would be utter nonsense, somehow when you just substitute in "a God must have started it" you lose all capacity for rational thought.

I don't think this discussion is for you. You don't seem to be interested by your response(s).

 

[steve_bank]

Ok, what are your 7 pieces of evidence?

1
3
3
4
5
6
7

Why only seven……
Expanding universe, red shift, GTR, CBMR, BGV, predictive H/He abundance, SBBM, failure of all other models, 2nd Law of thermodynamics with regards to star formation quickly off the top of my head. More quickly cosmological constant, electromagnetic force constant, all singularity theorems from Hawking/Penrose to BGV, P-E mass ratio Etc….
Now…..You challenged me….I responded.
Your turn………..
Does an expanding universe more plausibly support a past finite or infinite universe?

Have some courage.

You side you had 7 scientific evidences.

The BB along with expanding universe is not provable. Personally I conceptually reject expanding universe.

There is nothing in the items you posted that say anything about a finite or infinite unversed. You can interpret science philosophically as you please, but it is all speculation.

Try using sylogisms.

p1 expanding universe says this
p2 red shift says this
c1 therfpre universe is finite.

It all comes down to something from nothing, counter to aws Of Conservation, or the unverse cme out of nothing which I reject as an unreasonable hypothesis

Abrahamic religions say it was created by god without any definition of god. I assume god was around for all time unless it too just winked into existence from nothing. Given god exists as your presumption, then you can sysnthesize any sort of theology and creation myth. God is all powerful, so god can do anything.

Creationism is riddled with problems in logic and reason, and unexplained questions. All dismissed by a faith in god. I know god exists, theerefore creationism is true.

It is the logical fallacy of bootstrapping. The assumed conclusion with no proof is used to validate the evidence. God is true therefore the evidence of science has to validate that god is true.

It is banned from legal trials.

 

[Learner]

A case derived from a text with a talking animal, with genetic characteristics altered through the magic of striped sticks, with a god who kills everyone but 8 zealots, (including all earth's human infants, who couldn't possibly understand moral consequences), all starting with a curse over disobedience around SNACKING. Give me more of that book! It must truly be the profound message of a wise, just, loving creator to his creations.

There are quite a few cases in your list. At least the "Adam and Eve are dumb" argument is old and redundant, I'd say ( I know you (plural) like to stretch it further as you do. Cue the "lack of knowledge" posts.).

 

[Learner]

The consequences was previously established!

Once again you confuse something being stated with something being understood. How the fuck does someone who is immortal understand what it means to die?

you might as well ask, "How does someone know he's immortal or what it means?"
I'm a bit tired to focus and comment further.

 

[DBT]

Yes I can. But I wasn’t. For the sake of conversation I was allowing you for now to label all faith……. blind faith.

I don't 'label.' I gave an accepted definition of faith. Nothing controversia, I provided both the dictionary meaning in relation to religious belief, a belief held without the support of evidence, and the definition given in Hebrews 11:1...which is essentially the same: that faith is its own justification, its own 'evidence' - needing no independent, objective, verifiable evidence to support a belief.

Faith: ''firm belief in something for which there is no proof '' on faith: without question took everything he said on faith''

You let it go. I gave you ample opportunity to provide specific reasoning as to why to KCA fails.

I was not concerned with the KCA. Others have already addressed its flaws and assumptions; ''giving special exclusive status to a deity that would need no creator or origin outside of itself- a necessary being--without acknowledging that such status could be given to the basic stuff, physics, of the universe, its energy, that can take different forms'' etc... as you should be able to see, my focus was on the nature of faith.

 

[remez]

You side you had 7 scientific evidences.

Where? I have a lot more than that.

The BB along with expanding universe is not provable.

Again you have no idea what you are talking about. Proof is only found in math and logic. I said I have evidence and reasoning that support a past finite universe. NOT PROVE a past finite universe.

Personally I conceptually reject expanding universe.

Then is it shrinking or static? And what is your evidence for such an out of the mainstream reasoning?
And…
What you speculate about an expanding universe doesn’t matter to the question I asked you last time. Does an expanding universe more reasonably support a past finite or past eternal universe?

There is nothing in the items you posted that say anything about a finite or infinite unversed.

I did say it did. I said it supports (not says) a past finite universe. Does a gun “say” who the murderer is? vs. Can a gun be used as evidence to support a case that identifies who the murder is?

You can interpret science philosophically as you please, but it is all speculation.

Thus you are in the same game. So the issue is …..are you more reasonable or am I? After all you are denying that the universe is expanding……which is you interpreting science philosophically.

Try using sylogisms.

p1 expanding universe says this
p2 red shift says this
c1 therfpre universe is finite.

Straw man representation of KCA.
Which is…..
p1 everything that begins to exist has a cause
p2 the universe began to exist
C the universe has a cause.

It all comes down to something from nothing, counter to aws Of Conservation,

Not at all. AS explained earlier. The LoC is physical law that governs our physical universe. If the physical universe did not exists then LoC would not exist. If you are right, why don’t cosmologists consider the LoC a violation of the SBBM? They don’t. And the reason they don’t is the reason your speculation that the LoC supports and eternal past universe doesn’t work.

or the unverse cme out of nothing which I reject as an unreasonable hypothesis

Remember we are dealing with the notion that the universe began to exist. All space, matter and time came into being from nothing. Meaning no space. No matter. No time. That is what we are dealing with.
Unless….
You have a more reasonable theory that would support that the universe is past eternal. You have provided nothing but your emotions that it is eternal. You are asserting a nature-of-the-gap reasoning.

Abrahamic religions say it was created by god without any definition of god.

Yes the say God created the universe. So God is creator. What’s the problem?

I assume god was around for all time unless it too just winked into existence from nothing.

Yes God is eternal. That which is eternal did not begin to exist.

Given god exists as your presumption, then you can sysnthesize any sort of theology and creation myth. God is all powerful, so god can do anything.

First, I don’t presume He exists. I reason that He exists as the eternal first cause of all else that exists.
Second, “sysnthesize” and “myth” are examples of you “sysnthesizeing” and “mythizing”. You are in the same boat/universe. Your creation myth is the the universe is eternal based on your errant belief the the LoC “proves” the universe is eternal.
Third, God cannot do that which is logically impossible.

Creationism is riddled with problems in logic and reason, and unexplained questions. All dismissed by a faith in god. I know god exists, theerefore creationism is true.

I have NOT DISMISSED anything. I have addressed all you have presented so far. It is you that is dodging your burden to give a reasonable explanation that is purely natural. I have asked you many questions that point the errors in your reasoning and logic…..BUT you never address them. So if you don’t answer my question above regarding the LoC, you would be affirming my assessment that it is you that is denying your burden.

It is the logical fallacy of bootstrapping. The assumed conclusion with no proof is used to validate the evidence. God is true therefore the evidence of science has to validate that god is true.

Easy to emote. This time show me where God is assumed in any of the premises. You won’t be able to, because your assertion is purely emotional. You heard it somewhere and have a blind faith that it is true.