Let's define "faith"

[True Scotsman]

First, your notion is wrong. For example, some believe might believe God is beholden to the the laws of logic; God cannot transcend the law of identity, etc. The only type of logical consistency problems on the analytical level I've encountered (with any consistency, that is) is with orthodox Christian conception of God (Trinity, divinity of Christ, etc.).

Okay, so how does the notion of "God" break any of the four axioms? God exists and is something. The whole "creation ex nihilo" might be a problem, but not if you make God pantheistic, have God coexist with some sort of matter, have God on a plain of existence unfathomable to humans, etc., or if you reject ex nihilio creation.

Consciousness exists. God, as a conscious agent, would always exist. God, at the beginning point, would count as existing, being aware of his own existence and subsequent internal conditions of his mind.

Identity holds. If I need to argue why it does for God, then nothing I say will ever change that.

How does it contradict the axioms? In every way. Clearly the concept of God contradicts the primacy of existence principle. A god that created everything distinct from itself, maintains everything and can alter anything by an act of conscious will explicitly affirms the primacy of consciousness view of existence. Since all four axioms are corollaries of each other, to contradict one is to contradict all of them. If things obtain their identity and are dependent on a consciousness for their existence then A can be A or non A at the whim of the controlling consciousness. Water can turn into whine and people can walk on water. With the faith of a mustard seed you can say to the mountain move and it will move. There goes identity and along with it existence since the two are inseparable. And consciousness goes out the window as well because consciousness is no longer the faculty which perceives reality but creates it. Also if these self evident facts are false then man's consciousness is not a means of awareness of reality but of unreality.

Primacy of Existence. I don't really get the point of this. At all. When Rand talks about this, she treats existence in a weird way; that is, she treats consciousness as a thing that does not exist.

This is not a mark against you since the primacy of existence principle is unique to Objectivism. Certainly Objectivism is the only philosophy that I am aware of that states the principle explicitly and upholds it consistently. I'm not sure what you mean by "she treats existence in a weird way". I don't see anything weird about acknowledging the fact that existence exists independent of anyone's conscious desires. Probably it seems weird to you because every other philosophy teaches the primacy of consciousness in some fashion, even if only implicitly. You know the whole faith of a mustard seed thing. I'm not sure where you got that Objectivism treats consciousness as something that doesn't exist. This is a common claim but since Objectivism has as one of its most fundamental principles the axiom of consciousness this does not make much sense.

Alright, so your epistemology is the correspondence theory. Okay. So, please tell me the truth value of the following statement:

This statement is false.

Does the factual claim of the above statement correspond with reality?

Well no since it doesn't reference anything in reality.

It's sounds like you've accepted Ayn Rand's Objectivisism and treated it as the whole of philosophy. Every time I google for these axioms, it always ties back into a site either on Objectivism.

Yes I have accepted Objectivism but no I don't treat it as the whole of philosophy. I mean that the axioms of Objectivism are implicit in all knowledge and so are necessarily implicit in all philosophy. Other philosophies, notable the Christian world view, make use of them implicitly while at the same time contradicting them. This is the fatal flaw of all theist claims, the stolen concept.

Furthermore, it's not really the axioms themselves most people have a problem with, it's the metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical conclusions Rand tries to argue for based of upon them.

Whether or not people accept the Objectivist ethics and epistemology is irrelevant to the truth of the axioms. They are true whether anyone likes it or not because existence holds primacy.

 

[True Scotsman]

In what way does belief in God contradict reality?



What are the four axioms of philosophy, who identified them, and why should I care about them?

Since you asked essentially the same questions as Chany, if you don't mind I'll refer you to my three part response to her on pages 4 and 5 of this thread. It's late and I have to get up early and work tomorrow.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This is what you said before when I gave this explanation. As you said a God of the Gaps. I am not saying scientists or anyone should stop investigating things. I am saying that what they are seeing is something different that is making some come up with unusual hypothesis and theories. So why isn't it fair to consider that it maybe God as one of the hypothesis. I am not the first to put forward that what we are seeing can be lined up with what the bible says about God. But of course just like multi universes and holograms theories it can never really be confirmed because they are all in another realm beyond ours.

This is where faith comes in. We can have indirect evidence but we will never get any direct evidence. So scientists can put forward many ideas about what they see and fit some of that indirect evidence to it just like you are saying I am doing with God. But when we consider some of the bigger questions we have to deal with like something from nothing I believe God is the best Hypothesis to put forward. He fits many of the things we see be it indirectly as much as any hypothesis put forward at the moment. So why not.

The problem here is that you don't treat the God hypothesis like you do other hypotheses. You demand that other hypotheses make testable predictions and that their proponents produce direct empirical evidence in support of those hypotheses. That's fine. But you don't place your own hypothesis under the same level of scrutiny. Moreover, it seems that even if some naturalistic hypothesis were to gain widespread empirical support you would reject it out of hand anyway, opting instead to continue believing the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. Or am I wrong about that?

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Atheists get criticized for taking the word "faith" to mean something along the lines of "belief without sufficient evidence," even though sometimes that's pretty much what we're given to work with when someone tries to describe their faith to us. But I want to give people a fair shake, so I'd like to hear what Christians and other religious people typically mean when they use the word.

Anticipating some areas where I see this heading, here are some follow-up questions for various definitions that might be given:

Faith = "hope"
But do you base any knowledge claims on faith(hope)? When you say something like "I have faith that Jesus resurrected," are you really just saying "I have hope that Jesus resurrected"?

Faith = "trust"
So, if someone says something like "I don't have enough faith to be an atheists" or "atheists have more faith than me," are they really saying "I don't have enough trust to be an atheist"? Trust in what?

Hebrews 11:1
Faith is "the substance of things hoped for" and "the evidence of things unseen." Can you unpack this for me at all? Is this at all different from saying "faith = hope"?

Thanks in advance to all who participate.

The verse rom Hebrew 11:1 says that faith is the substance of things that had been hoped for, and the evidence of invisible things.

I read there that Faith is an experience, a gift from God, personal proof of the Reality of God.


Belief is what a man thinks to be true, faith is what he knows to be true by direct experience. Living faith is acting on that knowledge.


But there is a third step, fruition. And this is Man and Truth as One as demonstrated by Jesus. This is the rebirth by God that conquers the universe, even our faith.

 

[stevevw]

The problem here is that you don't treat the God hypothesis like you do other hypotheses. You demand that other hypotheses make testable predictions and that their proponents produce direct empirical evidence in support of those hypotheses. That's fine. But you don't place your own hypothesis under the same level of scrutiny. Moreover, it seems that even if some naturalistic hypothesis were to gain widespread empirical support you would reject it out of hand anyway, opting instead to continue believing the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. Or am I wrong about that?

No I said that they present these hypothesis with the indirect evidence and many accept them. Some even go around almost saying that they are true. Out of the many ideas they have presented they believe one of them is the answer or close to it even though they are all pretty far fetched. But still they have no direct evidence or they can never test it completely because they are based in other realms and we cannot go there to find out. I am saying why can't we include the God hypothesis based on this same level of acceptance and evidence. I mean some are practically saying that there is something in another realm like its spiritual anyway. They have most of the hallmarks of what is attributed to God and they can still be put forward because they are being promoted by a "scientists". But when it comes to using God it becomes more personal and they reject it for some reason.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

Good for you. What do you think about Atheism?

I think that atheism is the most reasonable position to hold after examining evidence for the existence of a God.

Actually if naturalism is true you don't really think at all. Your "thoughts' are nothing more than the random firing of neurons which may have no correspondence to reality.

Naturalism and mind-body physicalism fit the evidence better and provide better explanations with fewer ad hoc hypothesis when compared to supernatural or dualist theories, so if this is your primary objection to naturalism, it's pretty weak. Characterizing the firing of neurons as "random" suggests that this isn't something you've looked into very deeply, so your incredulity is understandable and not surprising, but I'd avoid trying to base any arguments off of it.

 

[Tree of Life]

Naturalism and mind-body physicalism fit the evidence better and provide better explanations with fewer ad hoc hypothesis when compared to supernatural or dualist theories, so if this is your primary objection to naturalism, it's pretty weak. Characterizing the firing of neurons as "random" suggests that this isn't something you've looked into very deeply, so your incredulity is understandable and not surprising, but I'd avoid trying to base any arguments off of it.

Physicalism is widely recognized to have failed as a system for explaining consciousness. See mental causation. Here are a few articles:

Wikipedia: The problem of mental causation
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Mental Causation

If you want to maintain some sort of physicalism you'd need to drift into "neutral monism" or "panpsychism" which is equally as strange as theism.

 

[jax5434]

KnowtheSilence;66284597

I think that atheism is the most reasonable position to hold after examining evidence for the existence of a God.

And I thought you didn't believe in philosophys of denial.

Naturalism and mind-body physicalism fit the evidence better and provide better explanations with fewer ad hoc hypothesis when compared to supernatural or dualist theories, so if this is your primary objection to naturalism, it's pretty weak. Characterizing the firing of neurons as "random" suggests that this isn't something you've looked into very deeply, so your incredulity is understandable and not surprising, but I'd avoid trying to base any arguments off of it.

I suppose I should have ask you if you meant epistomological or meta-Physical naturalism? I have no problem with methodological-naturalism. Meta-physical naturalism can not logically defend itself. Naturalism is the belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes.(Oxford Dictionaries) So if your thoughts are not the random firing of neurons an chemical reactions then what other natural explanation for your thoughts can you offer?

God Bless
Jax

 

[variant]

For Christians faith means trust that is caused by the holy spirit, it can't be distilled to the secular term in any sense.

Belief without evidence is exactly what Christians do when they say they have faith though from an atheist perspective so the use of the term in this manner is entirely fair.

 

[variant]

Physicalism is widely recognized to have failed as a system for explaining consciousness. See mental causation. Here are a few articles:

Wikipedia: The problem of mental causation
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Mental Causation

If you want to maintain some sort of physicalism you'd need to drift into "neutral monism" or "panpsychism" which is equally as strange as theism.

Nothing actually explains mental causation as of yet as our understanding of consciousness is not at a point where we could answer such questions.

We certainly can't rule out physicalism based upon an unanswered question if the alternative doesn't answer the question either.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

For Christians faith means trust that is caused by the holy spirit, it can't be distilled to the secular term in any sense.

Belief without evidence is exactly what Christians do when they say they have faith though from an atheist perspective so the use of the term in this manner is entirely fair.

Seems in diametric opposition to: Heb 11:1 "Now Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

"Substance" and "evidence" is proof. "Hope for" is belief.

Once belief is proved (by God) it becomes faith. Living faith is acting on that knowledge of Truth.

No amount of personally mustered up belief will ever equal one iota of spiritually Authored faith. That's why it is said there is an Author, and it is not us.

 

[variant]

Seems in diametric opposition to: Heb 11:1 "Now Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

"Substance" and "evidence" is proof. "Hope for" is belief.

Once belief is proved (by God) it becomes faith. Living faith is acting on that knowledge of Truth.

No amount of personally mustered up belief will ever equal one iota of spiritually Authored faith. That's why it is said there is an Author, and it is not us.

We're in agreement on the lack of proper evidence though?

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

We're in agreement on the lack of proper evidence though?

The evidence is an individual experience of God. It cannot be given to another. Each receives their own individually.

 

[variant]

The evidence is an individual experience of God. It cannot be given to another. Each receives their own individually.

I'll take that as a yes. What's to stop God from just regular evidencing himself?

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

I'll take that as a yes. What's to stop God from just regular evidencing himself?

What happens to a seed exposed to the full sun before it is reborn by water?

How many people do you think are prepared to mentally and emotionally metabolize a direct revelation of The All-powerful, Omnipresent Infinite God whom they are completely transparent to? Most people think God looks in on them from the outside. It is quite another thing when God looks outwards from the center of your soul and you are a suspended reflection between the inescapable immensities of the Kingdom of Heaven within you and all around you.


What you might not be considering is the level of accountability a person would then be held to, knowing God is a reality. Erring our of ignorance is one thing, erring in knowing that you do so is quite another.


The "end times" are phrased as a harvest, Jesus and the saints as the first fruits. There is a growing season, a gathering season and a pruning season of the peoples on earth. Do you know what time it is?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What happens to a seed exposed to the full sun before it is reborn by water?

How many people do you think are prepared to mentally and emotionally metabolize a direct revelation of The All-powerful, Omnipresent Infinite God whom they are completely transparent to? Most people think God looks in on them from the outside. It is quite another thing when God looks outwards from the center of your soul and you are a suspended reflection between the inescapable immensities of the Kingdom of Heaven within you and all around you.

Given that he is all-powerful and omnipresent, he could prepare you for the encounter effortlessly, and then reveal himself to you.

 

[variant]

What happens to a seed exposed to the full sun before it is reborn by water?

How many people do you think are prepared to mentally and emotionally metabolize a direct revelation of The All-powerful, Omnipresent Infinite God whom they are completely transparent to? Most people think God looks in on them from the outside. It is quite another thing when God looks outwards from the center of your soul and you are a suspended reflection between the inescapable immensities of the Kingdom of Heaven within you and all around you.

What you might not be considering is the level of accountability a person would then be held to, knowing God is a reality. Erring our of ignorance is one thing, erring in knowing that you do so is quite another.

The "end times" are phrased as a harvest, Jesus and the saints as the first fruits. There is a growing season, a gathering season and a pruning season of the peoples on earth. Do you know what time it is?

Right, just too awesome to provide some basic evidence of himself.

Hope that kind of explanation keeps working for you.

I don't really have a problem being accountable for my actions, it's always come easily to me.

If you consider yourself properly ignorant of God's existence though you concede the point that faith is in your case belief without evidence though...

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Given that he is all-powerful and omnipresent, he could prepare you for the encounter effortlessly, and then reveal himself to you.

Yes, several of the prophets report having to be made able by God to bear the presence of God.

I'm sure He could do a great many things instantly for us. But then how will we ever know what we are capable of growing into?

Prov. 25:2 "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings."

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes, several of the prophets report having to be made able by God to bear the presence of God.

I'm sure He could do a great many things instantly for us. But then how will we ever know what we are capable of growing into?

Prov. 25:2 "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings."

Ummm... we'd be capable of growing into a relationship with him, for one. You know, that's supposedly what he wants?

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Right, just too awesome to provide some basic evidence of himself.

Hope that kind of explanation keeps working for you.

I don't really have a problem being accountable for my actions, it's always come easily to me.

If you consider yourself properly ignorant of God's existence though you concede the point that faith is in your case belief without evidence though...

My first experience of God eliminated all doubt and turned what I thought perhaps is true or "belief" (does God exist?) into Authored faith (yes absolutely without a doubt God does exist)

I have had many more experiences of the powers and principalities of the Kingdom of Heaven (universe). I have not been a "believer" for 17 years. I am a knower.


Where is the evidence of the sound that creates sono-luminescence, inside the bubble? It's a vacuum, no sound carries. Where is the evidence of white light in the rainbow? It is the cause of the colors and their specific order and distribution but is found no where inside.


To GOD the physical reality, we are like bacteria in the gut of a Man demanding that the Man prove himself to us!


Most people don't consider GOD a physical reality. Most people think in terms of subjective personality based on the projection of their own.