Let's define "faith"

[True Scotsman]

Not true for me.

Not going to answer I see. OK I'll prove it to you.

1. If the objects of consciousness do not conform to the subject of consciousness, then existence has metaphysical primacy over consciousness.

2. The objects of consciousness do not conform to the subject of consciousness.

3. Therefore existence has metaphysical primacy.

The POE is a fact.

Two:

1. If existence holds metaphysical primacy over consciousness, then the universe was not created by a god.

2. Existence holds metaphysical primacy.

3. Therefore the universe was not created by a god.

Three:

1. If the idea that a god created the universe contradicts the facts of reality, then to have faith in that idea is irrational.

2. The idea that a god created the universe contradicts the facts of reality.

3. Therefore the belief in God is irrational.

Now refute these arguments without using the principle of the primacy of existence.

 

[Chany]

I can't really write and go into my objections to both Objectivism and Neo-Platonism write now, but here's a brief summary.

Rand: She is taking logical axioms and drawing heavy (and often unjustified) metaphysical claims. Things exist. A=A. Okay. So? They're logical axioms. Logic is a distinct from both metaphysics and epistemology for a reason; you can't insert them into either catergory because they flip between the two.

She makes a weird fallacy with existence. She treats basic existence in axiom of existence as something, but then just blatantly asserts that primacy of existence (the universe) takes precedent over the primacy of consciousness (a position that, as she describes it, only has some New Age guys supporting). Apparently, consciousness isn't an existing thing; if it were, then consciousness wouldn't violate any axiom. She equivocates basal existence as a property with external reality and consciousness as both perception and the totality of mind and self-awareness.

Here's a hypothetical: let's assume that there exists a conscious mind. This mind exists and this mind is itself, so existence and identity are preserved. No problems there. This mind is aware of two things: its internal self and a plethora of concepts located within the mind. So, consciousness is preserved. The primacy of existence is okay because, in this hypothetical, the reality of this mind is absolute. The consciousness can't just change itself or anything like that just on its whim or pretend the hypothetical concepts don't exist. It is what it is.

Let's say this mind also possesses the ability to make those hypothetical concepts real. The mechanics of this power are unavailable to us because any such power is unprecedented in our experience, but, for the sake of the hypothetical, it is actually possible, but on an entirely different level of dimensions that human beings cannot currently fathom. This still does not violate any of the axioms. It is still really weird and seems to make massive assumptions, but it does not violate any of the axioms, so it is theoretically possible.

If this hypothetical is valid, which it appears it is, then God, in some cases, cannot be dismissed purely along axiomatic grounds. We can easily argue that this does not reflect reality and that it makes unjustified assumptions, but it is not necessarily contradictory with the axioms. In other words, Rand is absolutely wrong to state that God, by necessity, cannot exist.

 

[Colter]

Not going to answer I see. OK I'll prove it to you.

1. If the objects of consciousness do not conform to the subject of consciousness, then existence has metaphysical primacy over consciousness.

2. The objects of consciousness do not conform to the subject of consciousness.

3. Therefore existence has metaphysical primacy.

The POE is a fact.

Two:

1. If existence holds metaphysical primacy over consciousness, then the universe was not created by a god.

2. Existence holds metaphysical primacy.

3. Therefore the universe was not created by a god.

Three:

1. If the idea that a god created the universe contradicts the facts of reality, then to have faith in that idea is irrational.

2. The idea that a god created the universe contradicts the facts of reality.

3. Therefore the belief in God is irrational.

Now refute these arguments without using the principle of the primacy of existence.

You shot your wad to soon, the dangers of mental masturbation. I did answer your question.


you asked:

That does not answer my question. Let me rephrase it. Is any objective fact a fact because you want it to be (primacy of consciousness) or are facts true regardless of anyone's likes, dislikes, dreams, preferences, wishes,demands or beliefs (the primacy of existence)? Answer the question or I'm going to make it much harder for you to evade.

my answer:

"No, while spiritual truth is relative and revelation always time conditioned, what we call a "fact" is a fact apart from ones desires although reality is inextricably linked to it's origins. That seems like a silly point? Is that supposed to be a game changer? "

 

[lesliedellow]

It seems to me that trying to define what is meant by religious faith is like trying to define "red" to somebody born blind. The only way you can know what it is is to experience it.

You can define speed as distance per unit of time, which is fine so long as the person receiving the definition knows what distance and time are. If they don't, then you are stuck, because they are not definable in terms of anything more fundamental.

 

[True Scotsman]

You shot your wad to soon, the dangers of mental masturbation. I did answer your question.


you asked:




my answer:

"No, while spiritual truth is relative and revelation always time conditioned, what we call a "fact" is a fact apart from ones desires although reality is inextricably linked to it's origins. That seems like a silly point? Is that supposed to be a game changer? "

That does not answer my question. I have no idea what it even means. It's a simple question with a simple answer. Yes or no.

 

[True Scotsman]

I can't really write and go into my objections to both Objectivism and Neo-Platonism write now, but here's a brief summary.

Rand: She is taking logical axioms and drawing heavy (and often unjustified) metaphysical claims. Things exist. A=A. Okay. So? They're logical axioms. Logic is a distinct from both metaphysics and epistemology for a reason; you can't insert them into either catergory because they flip between the two.

She makes a weird fallacy with existence. She treats basic existence in axiom of existence as something, but then just blatantly asserts that primacy of existence (the universe) takes precedent over the primacy of consciousness (a position that, as she describes it, only has some New Age guys supporting). Apparently, consciousness isn't an existing thing; if it were, then consciousness wouldn't violate any axiom. She equivocates basal existence as a property with external reality and consciousness as both perception and the totality of mind and self-awareness.

Here's a hypothetical: let's assume that there exists a conscious mind. This mind exists and this mind is itself, so existence and identity are preserved. No problems there. This mind is aware of two things: its internal self and a plethora of concepts located within the mind. So, consciousness is preserved. The primacy of existence is okay because, in this hypothetical, the reality of this mind is absolute. The consciousness can't just change itself or anything like that just on its whim or pretend the hypothetical concepts don't exist. It is what it is.

Let's say this mind also possesses the ability to make those hypothetical concepts real. The mechanics of this power are unavailable to us because any such power is unprecedented in our experience, but, for the sake of the hypothetical, it is actually possible, but on an entirely different level of dimensions that human beings cannot currently fathom. This still does not violate any of the axioms. It is still really weird and seems to make massive assumptions, but it does not violate any of the axioms, so it is theoretically possible.

If this hypothetical is valid, which it appears it is, then God, in some cases, cannot be dismissed purely along axiomatic grounds. We can easily argue that this does not reflect reality and that it makes unjustified assumptions, but it is not necessarily contradictory with the axioms. In other words, Rand is absolutely wrong to state that God, by necessity, cannot exist.

Chany,

I'd love to discuss this with you but not here. You've got some things wrong and if you want to start a thread on Objectivism I'd gladly join in. The axioms of Objectivism are not assumptions.

 

[Colter]

That does not answer my question. I have no idea what it even means. It's a simple question with a simple answer. Yes or no.

No, facts aren't facts because we want them to be.

 

[Colter]

source Wiki:


Objectivism is a philosophical system that originated as the personal philosophy of Russian-born American writer Ayn Rand (1905–1982).[1] First developed in her novels and polemic essays,[2] it was later given more formal structure by her designated intellectual heir,[3] philosopher Leonard Peikoff, who characterizes it as a "closed system" that is not subject to change.[4]

Objectivism's central tenets are that reality exists independent of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic, that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (rational self-interest), that the only social system consistent with this morality is one that displays full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism, and that the role of art in human life is to transform humans' metaphysical ideas by selective reproduction of reality into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and to which one can respond emotionally.


From my philosophical foundations, the Urantia papers:

Relativity of Concept Frames​

"Partial, incomplete, and evolving intellects would be helpless in the master universe, would be unable to form the first rational thought pattern, were it not for the innate ability of all mind, high or low, to form a universe frame in which to think. If mind cannot fathom conclusions, if it cannot penetrate to true origins, then will such mind unfailingly postulate conclusions and invent origins that it may have a means of logical thought within the frame of these mind-created postulates. And while such universe frames for creature thought are indispensable to rational intellectual operations, they are, without exception, erroneous to a greater or lesser degree.

Conceptual frames of the universe are only relatively true; they are serviceable scaffolding which must eventually give way before the expansions of enlarging cosmic comprehension. The understandings of truth, beauty, and goodness, morality, ethics, duty, love, divinity, origin, existence, purpose, destiny, time, space, even Deity, are only relatively true. God is much, much more than a Father, but the Father is man’s highest concept of God; nonetheless, the Father-Son portrayal of Creator-creature relationship will be augmented by those supermortal conceptions of Deity which will be attained in Orvonton, in Havona, and on Paradise. Man must think in a mortal universe frame, but that does not mean that he cannot envision other and higher frames within which thought can take place.

In order to facilitate mortal comprehension of the universe of universes, the diverse levels of cosmic reality have been designated as finite, absonite, and absolute. Of these only the absolute is unqualifiedly eternal, truly existential. Absonites and finites are derivatives, modifications, qualifications, and attenuations of the original and primordial absolute reality of infinity.

The realms of the finite exist by virtue of the eternal purpose of God. Finite creatures, high and low, may propound theories, and have done so, as to the necessity of the finite in the cosmic economy, but in the last analysis it exists because God so willed. The universe cannot be explained, neither can a finite creature offer a rational reason for his own individual existence without appealing to the prior acts and pre-existent volition of ancestral beings, Creators or procreators."

 

[variant]

It seems to me that trying to define what is meant by religious faith is like trying to define "red" to somebody born blind. The only way you can know what it is is to experience it.[

You can define speed as distance per unit of time, which is fine so long as the person receiving the definition knows what distance and time are. If they don't, then you are stuck, because they are not definable in terms of anything more fundamental.

The former religious know exactly what you mean by faith.

It's easy to say to people "you just wouldn't understand" but it is generally a cop out.

 

[variant]

She makes a weird fallacy with existence. She treats basic existence in axiom of existence as something, but then just blatantly asserts that primacy of existence (the universe) takes precedent over the primacy of consciousness (a position that, as she describes it, only has some New Age guys supporting). Apparently, consciousness isn't an existing thing; if it were, then consciousness wouldn't violate any axiom. She equivocates basal existence as a property with external reality and consciousness as both perception and the totality of mind and self-awareness.

It just wouldn't take primacy, I don't think that Rand asserts consciousness doesn't exist.

 

[poolerboy0077]

Faith is what people use as an excuse to believe in things which there is no evidence to support or in opposition to evidence that goes against their belief.

In other words, pretending to know things you don't know.

Well, yeah, but I want to know what definition is in the mind of a believer.

 

[Chany]

It just wouldn't be primary, I don't think that Rand asserts consciousness doesn't exist.

Correct. I'm saying she is making a distinction that really doesn't need to be made between consciousness and existence because no serious philosopher would disagree

It isn't really the three base axioms I have issue with; it's not even the primacy of existence idea I have an issue with, as long as it refers the state or quality of existing. I have issue with what she does with it in the metaphysical realm. She takes different meanings of consciousness and applies them as if they were the same.

 

[True Scotsman]

No, facts aren't facts because we want them to be.

Great. Thanks for answering. So now that you agree with argument one of the three I presented how about argument two? Premise 1 must be true because there can't be a contradiction in reality, existence can not both have primacy and not have primacy, and you agree that premise two is true. Therefor the conclusion must be true.

 

[True Scotsman]

Correct. I'm saying she is making a distinction that really doesn't need to be made between consciousness and existence because no serious philosopher would disagree

It isn't really the three base axioms I have issue with; it's not even the primacy of existence idea I have an issue with, as long as it refers the state or quality of existing. I have issue with what she does with it in the metaphysical realm. She takes different meanings of consciousness and applies them as if they were the same.

So you're saying that Christianity is not a serious philosophy? Christianity definitely disagrees with the primacy of existence.

 

[True Scotsman]

source Wiki:


Objectivism is a philosophical system that originated as the personal philosophy of Russian-born American writer Ayn Rand (1905–1982).[1] First developed in her novels and polemic essays,[2] it was later given more formal structure by her designated intellectual heir,[3] philosopher Leonard Peikoff, who characterizes it as a "closed system" that is not subject to change.[4]

Objectivism's central tenets are that reality exists independent of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic, that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (rational self-interest), that the only social system consistent with this morality is one that displays full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism, and that the role of art in human life is to transform humans' metaphysical ideas by selective reproduction of reality into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and to which one can respond emotionally.


From my philosophical foundations, the Urantia papers:

Relativity of Concept Frames​

"Partial, incomplete, and evolving intellects would be helpless in the master universe, would be unable to form the first rational thought pattern, were it not for the innate ability of all mind, high or low, to form a universe frame in which to think. If mind cannot fathom conclusions, if it cannot penetrate to true origins, then will such mind unfailingly postulate conclusions and invent origins that it may have a means of logical thought within the frame of these mind-created postulates. And while such universe frames for creature thought are indispensable to rational intellectual operations, they are, without exception, erroneous to a greater or lesser degree.

Conceptual frames of the universe are only relatively true; they are serviceable scaffolding which must eventually give way before the expansions of enlarging cosmic comprehension. The understandings of truth, beauty, and goodness, morality, ethics, duty, love, divinity, origin, existence, purpose, destiny, time, space, even Deity, are only relatively true. God is much, much more than a Father, but the Father is man’s highest concept of God; nonetheless, the Father-Son portrayal of Creator-creature relationship will be augmented by those supermortal conceptions of Deity which will be attained in Orvonton, in Havona, and on Paradise. Man must think in a mortal universe frame, but that does not mean that he cannot envision other and higher frames within which thought can take place.

In order to facilitate mortal comprehension of the universe of universes, the diverse levels of cosmic reality have been designated as finite, absonite, and absolute. Of these only the absolute is unqualifiedly eternal, truly existential. Absonites and finites are derivatives, modifications, qualifications, and attenuations of the original and primordial absolute reality of infinity.

The realms of the finite exist by virtue of the eternal purpose of God. Finite creatures, high and low, may propound theories, and have done so, as to the necessity of the finite in the cosmic economy, but in the last analysis it exists because God so willed. The universe cannot be explained, neither can a finite creature offer a rational reason for his own individual existence without appealing to the prior acts and pre-existent volition of ancestral beings, Creators or procreators."

Are we to take the Urantia Papers on faith?

 

[Chany]

So you're saying that Christianity is not a serious philosophy? Christianity definitely disagrees with the primacy of existence.

Christianity believes that a conscious mind with hypothetical concepts in the mind and has the power to make those hypothetical concepts a real object made the universe. This mind exists as an actual, real thing. The mind is itself. The mind is conscious of itself, its powers, and the concepts within its mind. This mind is God. The primacy of existence is preserved, as the mind is still an existing object. The mind is the source of consciousness.

Unless by existence, she is referring to the external reality we currently experience. In that case, the primacy of existence is arguable as an axiom.

 

[True Scotsman]

Christianity believes that a conscious mind with hypothetical concepts in the mind and has the power to make those hypothetical concepts a real object made the universe. This mind exists as an actual, real thing. The mind is itself. The mind is conscious of itself, its powers, and the concepts within its mind. This mind is God. The primacy of existence is preserved, as the mind is still an existing object. The mind is the source of consciousness.

Unless by existence, she is referring to the external reality we currently experience. In that case, the primacy of existence is arguable as an axiom.

Existence, as Objectivism informs the concept, denotes everything that exists. Nothing is excluded from it except that which doesn't exist. It includes everything that exists now, in the past and in the future. All things which have a specific identity.

The Christian concept of a disembodied consciousness does violate the primacy of existence. Consciousness presupposes existence since consciousness is the faculty that perceives that which exists. Consciousness is not an entity itself but the action of an entity therefor it presupposes existence. If nothing exists then there is nothing to be conscious or to be conscious of. Besides being arbitrary, the concept of a consciousness conscious of itself and nothing else is a contradiction in terms. Since consciousness is an action it can only be perceived in the act of perceiving. That is it can be an object of consciousness but only a secondary one. It can observe itself in the act of perceiving some object.

The Christian concept of God as a disembodied consciousness leads to the problem of divine lonesomeness or a consciousness with no objects. This contradicts the axiom of existence since to be something is to be something. If there are no objects of consciousness there is no objective reality. If the objects of God's consciousness conform to it then the universe is subjective and things are not what they are independent of conscious action, violating the primacy of existence.

 

[Colter]

Are we to take the Urantia Papers on faith?

You are free to take them however you want. You can claim that they only exist in your perception of reality. Myself, I perceive the truth of the philosophic content of the Urantia papers because my mind has a spirit nucleus. a fish can't do that because it is devoid of spirit perception although it does have mind.

 

[True Scotsman]

You are free to take them however you want. You can claim that they only exist in your perception of reality. Myself, I perceive the truth of the philosophic content of the Urantia papers because my mind has a spirit nucleus. a fish can't do that because it is devoid of spirit perception although it does have mind.

Can this spirit nucleus refute the other two arguments that I have presented?

 

[RDKirk]

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"?.

Even a lot of Christians don't grasp what is being said in that passage.

"Substance" is the Greek hupostasis, which is not just plain ordinary solid pedestal or stanchion (Greek: stasis), but a hyper-stanchion (the Greek prefix huper...I think the writer made up that complex word).

"Evidence" is the Greek elegchos, which means "that by which something is proven." In other words, the evidence itself is not a matter of belief, the evidence is the palpable reality that proves the belief.

This was not an unknown construction to that audience. It was by this argument that the ancient Greeks had determined the existence of air. Most people believed that "wind" was an invisible force that came from somewhere and went somewhere. The ancient Greeks realized that there was actually an invisible substance constantly surrounding us, and that wind was "the evidence of the unseen air." Although unseen, the wind is still palpable, even measurable. The wind presses against you and that is the evidence of something unseen.

The writer of Hebrews is using solid words to convey that faith is not "belief." Faith is what proves belief.

A Christian should not believe he has faith, he should feel that something is moving him, stirring him, something he can't deny exists, something he did not have before, and that moving, stirring something is itself the palpable proof of a realm that he cannot see.