How does one know anything via faith?

[The Cadet]

Have you ever really thought about what it means to withhold belief? To believe something means you accept something as true or that it exists. So in regards to how the universe came to be, your claiming to not know how it came to be and this is fine. Except that claiming to not know does nothing to solve the problem, so one must ask questions in order to find an answer. However, before you can even ask a question about the origins of the universe you must first accept the truth that the universe exists.

So before you can ask a question about the universe you must believe the universe exists. Do you follow my reasoning? Now the very fact that the universe exists, begs the question, why does it exist? But any reason we can come up with for its existence will require belief.

The question of whether or not something exists is generally seen as independent from the question of where that thing came from - I can pick up a rock and know it exists without having any idea where the rock came from. We know the universe exists. We can agree on that, right? But we have no idea where it comes from, what its cause is, or even if those question make any sense to ask.

I don't know where the universe came from. This is not "fine"; I would very much like to know the answer to that question. However. Whatever that answer may be, it must be justified. Replacing "I don't know" with an explanation we cannot be reasonably sure is correct gets us nowhere. People have come up with all kinds of reasons for the universe's existence that I do not accept and do not believe to be true. If your claim is that there will never be an explanation which does not require belief without reasonable justification of some kind, then there will never be an explanation with reasonable justification. Personally, I think that making that claim really gets us nowhere. Maybe we will find an explanation with rational justification. Until then, we (pretty much by definition) aren't justified in accepting any of the existing explanations.

So it is most reasonable to believe the reason that makes the most sense

But if all we have are a bunch of different reasons, none of which make very much sense, what good does that do us? Wouldn't we be considerably better-off not accepting any of these reasons, and searching for one which is actually rationally justified?

and I'm just saying the reason that makes the most sense is God. But not just any God, an infinitely timeless God who created us and loved us so much He paid a price to keep us from being destroyed by His righteous judgement and the only God to ever describe himself in this way is God of the Holy Bible.

I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that this is the option that made the most sense. In fact, the being you just described is downright irrational in his own behavior - after all, if he loves us so much he has to save us from his own punishment, why not just do away with his own punishment? It makes no sense. In fact, Matt Dillahunty had a great lecture/comedy routine on just how little sense what God does makes, titled "Why won't you love me?". It's worth a look, if only because the jokes are really, really funny.

Honestly, can you think of a better way to describe timelessness that could be understood by a multitude of generations of people?

You keep coming back to "timeless", as though it were something we had proven. But it's not. It's something asserted, usually with the bible as a basis.

 

[Chriliman]

It seems you haven't truly considered the possibility that God doesn't exist and that you are something "without Jesus".

Your concept of God just doesn't make sense. Explain how you think it does!

Here's a link to a forum I started earlier this year when I was questioning my faith, from here I went through a really tough spiritual battle that I believe God allowed me to go through in order to teach me more about Himself. It starts with a thought experiment, read through it if you have time.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-faith/is-god-real-a-thought-experiment-revised-t49034.html

 

[brinny]

Some have posited faith as an epistemology here; that you can know something through faith in it.

For those making that claim, I have a simple question.

If you hold on faith that a particular god exists, and I hold on faith that your particular god does not exist, how do we determine which one of us is right? We cannot both be right; one of us must be wrong. But how, using faith, can we determine which of the two of us is in the wrong?

Would you care to elaborate on what faith IS, exactly?

 

[brinny]

I was many times called a 'backslidden' christian. Now i know that i'm a renewed human being.

renewed from what, exactly?

 

[Freodin]

Here's a link to a forum I started earlier this year when I was questioning my faith, from here I went through a really tough spiritual battle that I believe God allowed me to go through in order to teach me more about Himself. It starts with a thought experiment, read through it if you have time.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-faith/is-god-real-a-thought-experiment-revised-t49034.html

Core phrase :"... that I believe...". Good for you. I don't believe in that. Explain how you think it makes sense!

 

[Chriliman]

Can you hear yourself? Seriously?

Of course you would believe that god allowed you. It's part of your faith to believe this!

Would you rather me be dishonest about what I believe?

 

[Freodin]

Would you rather me be dishonest about what I believe?

I think he wants you to acknowledge that due to this being your belief, you might be a little biased about it, and perhaps a little less rational than you think.

As for the link you posted: it might be relevant... or not. I am not going to wade through 24 pages of badly formated text to look if there possibly is an answer to my question... not when I have you here to ask you directly.

So I still assert that the whole concept of the Christians God that you presented here - being conscious, creating, loving, sacrificing his son and all that stuff - does not make sense for an "infinitly timeless God". Please explain how you think it does!

 

[brinny]

Can you hear yourself? Seriously?

Of course you would believe that god allowed you. It's part of your faith to believe this!

....and yer point is.....?

 

[Chriliman]

I think he wants you to acknowledge that due to this being your belief, you might be a little biased about it, and perhaps a little less rational than you think.

As for the link you posted: it might be relevant... or not. I am not going to wade through 24 pages of badly formated text to look if there possibly is an answer to my question... not when I have you here to ask you directly.

So I still assert that the whole concept of the Christians God that you presented here - being conscious, creating, loving, sacrificing his son and all that stuff - does not make sense for an "infinitly timeless God". Please explain how you think it does!

Okay I'm going to lay out the questions that I believe lead to my rational belief in God and I want you to answer them honestly.

1. Do you believe the universe would exist even when/if you become unconscious?

2. If so, then you believe the universe does not depend on your conscious mind to exist. This is good and rational thinking so far. Now since you believe the universe exists independent of your mind, then you must believe the existence of the universe is an unalterable truth. Correct?

3. If its unalterably true that the universe exists and that you exist within the universe then its also unalterably true that your consciousness exists. Follow me?

4. If its unalterably true that your consciousness exists, how could it ever not be true that your consciousness exists? Wouldn't an unalterable truth have to contradict itself in order for your consciousness to cease to exist? Meaning your consciousness should reasonably exist forever. Make sense?

 

[Freodin]

Okay I'm going to lay out the questions that I believe lead to my rational belief in God and I want you to answer them honestly.

Let's see. I have followed your previous attempts on that, and I will try to explain why this doesn't make sense to me... and thus I wonder why it makes sense to you. I hope you will come to explain your reasoning after I have answered your questions, instead of just focusing on my answers.

1. Do you believe the universe would exist even when/if you become unconscious?

Yes.

2. If so, then you believe the universe does not depend on your conscious mind to exist. This is good and rational thinking so far.

Correct so far. I believe that the universe does not depend on my conscious mind. But I am also aware that this is a belief, and I am not certain how to verify or falsify it.

Now since you believe the universe exists independent of your mind, then you must believe the existence of the universe is an unalterable truth. Correct?

Incorrect. It only means that the existence of the universe is not dependend on my consciousness. It doesn't say anything about what else the existence of the universe might be dependent on.
(BTW: a great example to show the difference between rational thinking and belief: I do believe that the existence of the universe is 'an unalterable truth', for a given meaning of 'existence' and 'unalterable truth'. But I am aware that this is heavily dependent on the definitions of these terms, and not always rationaly backed.)

3. If its unalterably true that the universe exists and that you exist within the universe then its also unalterably true that your consciousness exists. Follow me?

For a given definition of 'exists' and 'unalterable'. I fear that these definitions are what is leading to our disagreement. Let's see.

4. If its unalterably true that your consciousness exists, how could it ever not be true that your consciousness exists? Wouldn't an unalterable truth have to contradict itself in order for your consciousness to cease to exist? Meaning your consciousness should reasonably exist forever. Make sense?

Ding. Ding. Ding. And here we are at the core of our disagreement... and what I fear is your mistake in rational thinking.
You confuse temporal and atemporal settings. "Ceasing" is an action. It includes a temporal relation. It only works in a temporal setting... and here of course it is rational and correct to assume that 'existence' is temporality limited. Something can exist at one point in time and not-exist at another point in time.

That is a observable truth. Things - especially the 'things' that we humans like to put into categories - do cease to exist.
So when you conclude from "exist at some limited distinct point of space-time within the universe" that "it exists forever", you have made an error of category. This conclusion is invalid.

Another problem: if your were correct, and "exists" would mean "exists forever" (why only 'forever'? Why not also 'everywhere'?)... you would have contradicted a core doctrine of Christianity: creation. Something that exists forever cannot be created... as God is said not to need be created because he exists 'forever'.

There wouldn't be a distinction between creation and creator if your "reason" would be correct.

So, no it doesn't make sense.

 

[The Cadet]

Okay I'm going to lay out the questions that I believe lead to my rational belief in God and I want you to answer them honestly.

1. Do you believe the universe would exist even when/if you become unconscious?

Yes. The universe's existence is not contingent upon my subjective experience thereof.

2. If so, then you believe the universe does not depend on your conscious mind to exist. This is good and rational thinking so far. Now since you believe the universe exists independent of your mind, then you must believe the existence of the universe is an unalterable truth. Correct?

Depends what you mean by "unalterable". I don't think it follows that if I believe something exists independent of my own mind, that that thing's existence is therefore unalterable in any meaningful way. The configuration of matter we label "The Twin Towers" existed regardless of whether I was conscious or not. However, that configuration no longer exists. The fact that the universe exists independent of my perception of it in no way leads to the conclusion that the universe will always exist. It is an "unalterable truth" that the universe exists now, independent of my conscious mind, but that only applies to that particular moment, and therefore isn't very useful.

3. If its unalterably true that the universe exists and that you exist within the universe then its also unalterably true that your consciousness exists. Follow me?

No. Here's the second major flaw. Simply because an attribute applies to a set does not mean that that attribute applies to each individual member of that set. The universe is made up almost entirely of a matterless vacuum (about 0.0000000000000000000042% of it is made up of matter); does this mean that I, part of the universe, am made up almost entirely of a matterless vacuum? Or, to take the infinitely more understandable example from Wikipedia:

1. A Boeing 747 can fly unaided across the ocean.
2. A Boeing 747 has jet engines.
3. Therefore, one of its jet engines can fly unaided across the ocean.

Makes no sense, right? You cannot generalize from the attributes of a set to the attributes of the components of that set. This is called the fallacy of division. Even assuming that it is somehow unalterably true that the universe exists, and assuming that I am an element of the set "universe",

4. If its unalterably true that your consciousness exists, how could it ever not be true that your consciousness exists? Wouldn't an unalterable truth have to contradict itself in order for your consciousness to cease to exist? Meaning your consciousness should reasonably exist forever. Make sense?

Nah, you've got one major non-sequitur and a fallacy of division. The argument doesn't work. But as Freodin points out, if it did, it would completely negate the need for any sort of cause for the universe. After all, the universe could not not exist.

Not to attempt to glean your motives or anything, but you seem to jumping from one argument to another with little interest in internal consistency, with the sole point being "therefore god exists". And I'm not sure what's up with that.

 

[Chriliman]

Incorrect. It only means that the existence of the universe is not dependend on my consciousness. It doesn't say anything about what else the existence of the universe might be dependent on.
(BTW: a great example to show the difference between rational thinking and belief: I do believe that the existence of the universe is 'an unalterable truth', for a given meaning of 'existence' and 'unalterable truth'. But I am aware that this is heavily dependent on the definitions of these terms, and not always rationaly backed.)

This is where you're reasoning shifts from being based on observation to being based on an assumption about my motives. You're assuming that my definition of these terms is not rationally backed. Which is unfortunate because this is what's preventing you from realizing the truth.

For a given definition of 'exists' and 'unalterable'. I fear that these definitions are what is leading to our disagreement. Let's see.

And here you verbalize your assumption and base our disagreement on your assumption.

Ding. Ding. Ding. And here we are at the core of our disagreement... and what I fear is your mistake in rational thinking.
You confuse temporal and atemporal settings. "Ceasing" is an action. It includes a temporal relation. It only works in a temporal setting... and here of course it is rational and correct to assume that 'existence' is temporality limited. Something can exist at one point in time and not-exist at another point in time.

Now your making another assumption based on your previous assumption, which is only getting you further from the truth.

Tell me what physical things(keep in mind physical things are made of atoms) can exist at on point in time and not-exist in another point in time?

Another problem: if your were correct, and "exists" would mean "exists forever" (why only 'forever'? Why not also 'everywhere'?)... you would have contradicted a core doctrine of Christianity: creation. Something that exists forever cannot be created... as God is said not to need be created because he exists 'forever'.

Well I do believe God exists everywhere at all times, meaning everything created by God depends on His existence. Meaning God is the only entity that has eternally existed everything else comes from that eternal existence and therefore has a beginning but no end.

There wouldn't be a distinction between creation and creator if your "reason" would be correct.

There is a distinction, the distinction is infinitely timeless vs having a beginning but no end.

So, no it doesn't make sense.

Well a lot of things tend to not make sense when you assume you know the truth and then base your reasoning on that assumed truth, as I've just shown that you have done.

 

[The Cadet]

Tell me what physical things(keep in mind physical things are made of atoms) can exist at on point in time and not-exist in another point in time?

Hawking radiation?

 

[Chriliman]

Hawking radiation?

Does really even makes sense to say something can go out of existence? If something actually goes out of existence, whatever exists could never perceive the thing as not existing. This is why I believe non-existence is impossible because even if it were possible we'd never be able to perceive something non-existing.

 

[The Cadet]

Does really even makes sense to say something can go out of existence? If something actually goes out of existence, whatever exists could never perceive the thing as not existing. This is why I believe non-existence is impossible because even if it were possible we'd never be able to perceive something non-existing.

Okay, let's assume for the moment that the base particles that make up our universe actually are eternal and cannot be destroyed in any meaningful way. This does not follow for any given configuration of those atoms. Which is what we are. Our configuration, particularly the bit of it that is responsible for consciousness, is, like all configurations of atoms, volatile. It can be there one minute, and gone the next. So why would our consciousnesses be eternal? You make the inherent assumption here that our consciousnesses are inherently individisible or untouchable or (I'm having trouble finding the right word to describe this) something in a similar way to the fundamental particles and forces of the universe. I reject that assumption wholeheartedly, given how much of what makes us "us" can be changed by altering the brain.

 

[Chriliman]

Okay, let's assume for the moment that the base particles that make up our universe actually are eternal and cannot be destroyed in any meaningful way. This does not follow for any given configuration of those atoms. Which is what we are. Our configuration, particularly the bit of it that is responsible for consciousness, is, like all configurations of atoms, volatile. It can be there one minute, and gone the next. So why would our consciousnesses be eternal? You make the inherent assumption here that our consciousnesses are inherently individisible or untouchable or (I'm having trouble finding the right word to describe this) something in a similar way to the fundamental particles and forces of the universe. I reject that assumption wholeheartedly, given how much of what makes us "us" can be changed by altering the brain.

But you can't prove that our consciousness was derived from the physical, therefore, its also reasonable to assume that whatever non-physical existence our consciousness is derived from could be capable of destroying the physical and freeing our consciousness from the physical. This is what I believe death is. Death is our consciousness being freed from the physical, but only to be entered into the timeless non-physical or spiritual realm, which is far beyond our physical comprehension. Only when we enter this realm are we capable of any comprehension of it. The term "comprehension" not even sufficing to describe this spiritual realm.

If you can assume I can also assume, but only when we choose to not assume, but rather observe and believe, do we begin to see the truth.

Start to take note of how many theists you come across who are similar to me and see how many are Christian, I'd wager a lot of them are Christian, just trying to express the truth to you. You'd probably never find a muslim willing to go this deep into thought about existence, I could be wrong there, but I don't know.

 

[The Cadet]

But you can't prove that our consciousness was derived from the physical, therefore, its also reasonable to assume that whatever non-physical existence our consciousness is derived from could be capable of destroying the physical and freeing our consciousness from the physical.

Firstly, the idea that consciousness is primarily physical is backed up quite heavily within neuroscience. Brain injuries can cause distinct shifts in how our personalities work. The study of split-brain patients is particularly interesting; apparently cutting the corpus callosum in half (this is done to alleviate seizures) essentially creates two distinct, different personalities. Did splitting the brain somehow create two souls? Especially interesting for people who believe in hell is the case where one personality is a theist and one is not. The idea that we're somehow souls possessing bodies becomes more and more untenable as neurology gets better and better at understanding what's going on in our brains.

But even if this were not the case, it would not be reasonable to assume that our consciousness had non-physical existence, nor to assume that it persisted on after the brain ceased to function. Those are specific claims which require justification.

This is what I believe death is. Death is our consciousness being freed from the physical, but only to be entered into the timeless non-physical or spiritual realm, which is far beyond our physical comprehension.

Okay, why do you believe that?

Start to take note of how many theists you come across who are similar to me and see how many are Christian, I'd wager a lot of them are Christian, just trying to express the truth to you. You'd probably never find a muslim willing to go this deep into thought about existence, I could be wrong there, but I don't know.

I've seen them at numerous occasions. Scientologists as well.

 

[Chriliman]

staff edit

His argument breaks down when you take time away. When the chumash indians existed, I was not experiencing space or time, but the fact that I was not experiencing space and time does not mean that space and time did not exist before I existed. What he seems to be suggesting is that the chumash indians existence only matters because he's here to talk about them, meaning there existence only has significance because it helps his argument. Also implying that if he never existed then the chumash indians would have never existed. Essentially putting his existence at the center of all existence. Hmm...this sounds familiar, oh yea God claims the same thing.

Also, before I was born I had not made any wrong choices so why would I have to suffer before I was born? Only after I'm born do I make wrong choices and contribute to the problem of evil. So it would only make sense that I would have to suffer after I was born for the wrong choices I have made in the life I've lived. Also, if you consider God as timeless then He sees what every single human to ever exist does in one single moment, so to him there is no past and present and future, its all simultaneous, but He can also interact with us. So from Gods perspective, its pointless to separate human existence into past present and future. Past present and future only matter from our perspective and their only purpose is to teach us the truth of God.

Also, its a contradiction to believe in non-existence. You would logically need evidence that proves non-existence is possible in order to accept it as truth, except that if something non-exists it can't possibly provide evidence of its non-existence because if it could it would have to exist. Get it?

So, since you exist, its reasonable to believe you will exist forever, unless you believe in logical contradictions, in which case I would say you're being irrational.

 

[Chriliman]

Firstly, the idea that consciousness is primarily physical is backed up quite heavily within neuroscience. Brain injuries can cause distinct shifts in how our personalities work. The study of split-brain patients is particularly interesting; apparently cutting the corpus callosum in half (this is done to alleviate seizures) essentially creates two distinct, different personalities. Did splitting the brain somehow create two souls? Especially interesting for people who believe in hell is the case where one personality is a theist and one is not. The idea that we're somehow souls possessing bodies becomes more and more untenable as neurology gets better and better at understanding what's going on in our brains.

But even if this were not the case, it would not be reasonable to assume that our consciousness had non-physical existence, nor to assume that it persisted on after the brain ceased to function. Those are specific claims which require justification.

Now ask yourself this honest question. Does it seem ethical to be splitting people's brains in half in order to attempt to prove that God does not exist? I could foresee in the future someone wanting to force me to believe that God does not exist and forcibly split my brain in half in order to get me to say that God does not exist. Obviously, I would hope this would never happen, but you never know what evil is capable of.

Okay, why do you believe that?

Well one simple reason I believe it is because it makes sense and does not contradict the possible.

 

[Freodin]

This is where you're reasoning shifts from being based on observation to being based on an assumption about my motives. You're assuming that my definition of these terms is not rationally backed. Which is unfortunate because this is what's preventing you from realizing the truth.

Well, that is a rather incorrect reading of my post. I didn't mention you or your motives at all... I mentioned only my own beliefs.
And - read again - I did say nothing about "your definition of these terms".

What I said was: I have these beliefs. "This" - the belief - is heavily dependent on the definitions used, and this - the belief - is not always backed up rationally.

If you cannot consider a post without thinking it is a personal attack... you should really reconsider your stance.


And I couldn't keep noticing that, while you managed to misinterprete this posting as an attack on your motives and telling me what I "assume"... you also managed to completely ignore the point that I was making, in direct response to your question:
The universe is not dependent on my consciousness. That doesn't say anything about what the universe might be dependent on.

And here you verbalize your assumption and base our disagreement on your assumption.

There are different definitions. This is a fact in the field of philosophy. I assume that we use different definitions... and this my assumption is shown correct by the rest of your post: You mix temporal and atemporal definitions.

Now your making another assumption based on your previous assumption, which is only getting you further from the truth.

You are talking about "ceasing to exist". Does that term have any meaning for you?

Tell me what physical things(keep in mind physical things are made of atoms) can exist at on point in time and not-exist in another point in time?

Categories, dear Chriliman, categories. We humans tend to think in them. Atoms are such a category. "Physical things" is another one. "Consciousness" is another.

Take a glass of water. Drop it. Smash it. It isn't a glass anymore. It is a bunch of wet shards.
Scope up the water. Send a lot of electricity through it. It isn't water anymore... it is a bunch of hydrogen and oxygen atoms.
Bombard the oxygen atoms with neutrons. You will get a bunch of different atoms and other particles... but no more oxygen.
With the correct settings, you could even convert these "physical things" (made of atoms) into pure energy. Some GigaJoule of energy.
Is that still a glass of water? Or has the glass of water ceased to exist? Can you still drink it? No.

Do the same thing to an apple. You get some GigaJoule of energy. Why is this one GigaJoule a glass of water, and the other one an apple? It isn't.

Same with the consciousness. It existed once. Its existence depended on a certain configuration of matter, energy and time. If that configuration is changed, the consciousness ceases to exist.

Of course you can say that the "basic stuff" that once made up this consciousness still exists - be it matter, energy or spirit.

But it isn't a consciousness - your consciousness anymore... just as some atoms of carbon, hydrogen and silicium isn't a glass of water or an apple.

There is a distinction, the distinction is infinitely timeless vs having a beginning but no end.

That would mean that your reasoning, based on the apparent contradiction of "unchangable truth of existence" and "non-existence", is false. If you assume a "beginning", you assert a state of non-existence.

I quote you:
"Tell me what physical things(keep in mind physical things are made of atoms) can exist at on point in time and not-exist in another point in time?"

Did things not-exist at a point of time before their beginning? Or did they exist?

Well a lot of things tend to not make sense when you assume you know the truth and then base your reasoning on that assumed truth, as I've just shown that you have done.

Your position is based on faulty conclusions... as I have just shown, here in the last paragraph.