Let's define "faith"

[Chany]

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.

I said disembodied mind with consciousness and hypothetical concepts. There is a big difference.

If you're going to define existence in that way, then God, as a mind, counts as a part of existence. You can't define "existence" in such a way, then when someone argues that God can be a part of this, claim they are breaking logical axioms and dismiss it.

This mind would exist, this mind would be itself, and this mind would be conscious and aware of the contents of its mind. You made the fundamental error I pointed out earlier: you shift from consciousness as an action into a thing when talking about God. God is a consciousness, a mind. He is aware of himself, and within him, all possible and real concepts exists on the level of thought.

 

[Colter]

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

Up until this point in our discussions you haven't shown that you are intellectually honest enough to concede counterpoints from the spiritual perspective.

 

[True Scotsman]

I said disembodied mind with consciousness and hypothetical concepts. There is a big difference.

If you're going to define existence in that way, then God, as a mind, counts as a part of existence. You can't define "existence" in such a way, then when someone argues that God can be a part of this, claim they are breaking logical axioms and dismiss it.

This mind would exist, this mind would be itself, and this mind would be conscious and aware of the contents of its mind. You made the fundamental error I pointed out earlier: you shift from consciousness as an action into a thing when talking about God.

What is a mind besides a consciousness? This mind would exist in what form? Blank out. This mind would be conscious by what means? Blank out. Concepts? Concepts of what since there are no objects to be conscious of? Blank out. What means of awareness would this mind possess if it has no objects to be conscious of? Blank out. What content could this mind have if there is nothing to perceive and no senses to perceive it with? Blank out. And you still haven't overcome the problem of divine lonesomeness. You see this hypothetical mind is completely arbitrary. If one wants to perceive this mind, what alternative is there to imagining it? How could one reliably distinguish between this mind which exists without form and without content and something that is merely imaginary?

And if all these questions were satisfactorily answered there is still the problem that things being brought into existence by an act of conscious will violates the primacy of existence. Those things would not obtain independent of consciousness. The practical result is the destruction of objectivity and thus existence and identity.

There simply is no escape from this principle without a contradiction which is why faith is required.

 

[True Scotsman]

Up until this point in our discussions you haven't shown that you are intellectually honest enough to concede counterpoints from the spiritual perspective.

You have done nothing but make assertions and quote from the Urantia book.

If I don't concede your points that makes me intellectually dishonest?

I read the Urantia Book by the way cover to cover twice. very interesting. I particularly found the part about other races on other planets fun to read. I was quite into it in my early 20's. Then I realized there was no rational basis to believe any of it.

 

[Colter]

If anyone is interested in the debunking of Rands pile of primacy of existence this link systematically disembowels the philosophy and demonstrates the shell game played by Randites.


January 26, 2014

Rand's Primacy of Existence Argument Refuted



"Ayn Rand’s primacy argument is basically an illogical atheist rant dressed up in a cheap tuxedo. As I’ll show, Rand eschews the most basic logical principles, offers a specious and false dichotomy, and presupposes materialism in the definitions of her philosophical argument (I use the term “philosophical argument “very loosely in the case of Objectivism).

By age 13, Ayn Rand had declared herself to be an atheist, as noted in a New York Magazine article. The same article declares that, “she repeatedly withheld or distorted facts in order to feed her own mythology.” This quote is not surprising to me at all. I’ve come to see how Rand withholds critical information in her philosophical definitions in order to promote atheistic materialism. Rand’s primacy argument highlighting her specious definitions of consciousness and existence may be likened to a rigged election in which two fraudulent candidates are presented and both stand for basically the same agenda."

Rand's Primacy of Existence Argument Refuted

 

[True Scotsman]

If anyone is interested in the debunking of Rands pile of primacy of existence this link systematically disembowels the philosophy and demonstrates the shell game played by Randites.


January 26, 2014

Rand's Primacy of Existence Argument Refuted



"Ayn Rand’s primacy argument is basically an illogical atheist rant dressed up in a cheap tuxedo. As I’ll show, Rand eschews the most basic logical principles, offers a specious and false dichotomy, and presupposes materialism in the definitions of her philosophical argument (I use the term “philosophical argument “very loosely in the case of Objectivism).

By age 13, Ayn Rand had declared herself to be an atheist, as noted in a New York Magazine article. The same article declares that, “she repeatedly withheld or distorted facts in order to feed her own mythology.” This quote is not surprising to me at all. I’ve come to see how Rand withholds critical information in her philosophical definitions in order to promote atheistic materialism. Rand’s primacy argument highlighting her specious definitions of consciousness and existence may be likened to a rigged election in which two fraudulent candidates are presented and both stand for basically the same agenda."

Rand's Primacy of Existence Argument Refuted

I see you've been googling. I read the article several months back. The man misstates the principle so many times that he is not even arguing against the primacy of existence.

I'll be glad to go through it point by point and refute it but not tonight, its late. For starters though, the author accuses Rand of using an improper form for something which was not intended to be an argument but merely a description of the principle. That shows you how desperate he is to destroy something that he sees as a threat to his theism, but that he clearly does not understand. So his number one point is shot full of holes already. The rest of his piece is equally uninformed.

Meanwhile the argument I presented, in proper form, is still untouched by you. Here it is again:

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

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

3. Therefore existence holds metaphysical primacy over consciousness.

 

[Colter]

I see you've been googling. I read the article several months back. The man misstates the principle so many times that he is not even arguing against the primacy of existence.

I'll be glad to go through it point by point and refute it but not tonight, its late. For starters though, the author accuses Rand of using an improper form for something which was not intended to be an argument but merely a description of the principle. That shows you how desperate he is to destroy something that he sees as a threat to his theism, but that he clearly does not understand. So his number one point is shot full of holes already. The rest of his piece is equally uninformed.

Meanwhile the argument I presented, in proper form, is still untouched by you. Here it is again:

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

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

3. Therefore existence holds metaphysical primacy over consciousness.

Lol! Those still aren't "arguments" rather they are run on fragments baited with assumptions, more of an exorcize in affectation.

You say that you read the Urantia papers twice from cover to cover, yet you still remain dedicated to the doctrines of death? That's a remarkable illustration of the the Proverb, "There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death."

 

[KCfromNC]

If your thoughts are just a physical system at work then any other physical system responding to it is pointless.

And yet you just did.

Anyway, I appreciate the irony of using an unsupported assertion to respond to my statements that unsupported assertions aren't convincing. I didn't know you were going for satire against dualists rather than a serious discussion, but I get it now.

 

[lesliedellow]

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.

Do they? They might perhaps know what they mean by faith, but only I know what I mean by faith.

In any case, if they already know, why do they need to ask the question?

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

The problem with this approach is that since faith is a personal subjective experience, you can never verify through some external reference point that you're actually experiencing faith as other people are using the word. Kind of makes it useless to talk about.

 

[Colter]

The Urantia Book


Paper 102


The Foundations of Religious Faith​

"TO THE unbelieving materialist, man is simply an evolutionary accident. His hopes of survival are strung on a figment of mortal imagination; his fears, loves, longings, and beliefs are but the reaction of the incidental juxtaposition of certain lifeless atoms of matter. No display of energy nor expression of trust can carry him beyond the grave. The devotional labors and inspirational genius of the best of men are doomed to be extinguished by death, the long and lonely night of eternal oblivion and soul extinction. Nameless despair is man’s only reward for living and toiling under the temporal sun of mortal existence. Each day of life slowly and surely tightens the grasp of a pitiless doom which a hostile and relentless universe of matter has decreed shall be the crowning insult to everything in human desire which is beautiful, noble, lofty, and good.

But such is not man’s end and eternal destiny; such a vision is but the cry of despair uttered by some wandering soul who has become lost in spiritual darkness, and who bravely struggles on in the face of the mechanistic sophistries of a material philosophy, blinded by the confusion and distortion of a complex learning. And all this doom of darkness and all this destiny of despair are forever dispelled by one brave stretch of faith on the part of the most humble and unlearned of God’s children on earth.

This saving faith has its birth in the human heart when the moral consciousness of man realizes that human values may be translated in mortal experience from the material to the spiritual, from the human to the divine, from time to eternity.

1. Assurances of Faith​

The work of the Thought Adjuster constitutes the explanation of the translation of man’s primitive and evolutionary sense of duty into that higher and more certain faith in the eternal realities of revelation. There must be perfection hunger in man’s heart to insure capacity for comprehending the faith paths to supreme attainment. If any man chooses to do the divine will, he shall know the way of truth. It is literally true, “Human things must be known in order to be loved, but divine things must be loved in order to be known.” But honest doubts and sincere questionings are not sin; such attitudes merely spell delay in the progressive journey toward perfection attainment. Childlike trust secures man’s entrance into the kingdom of heavenly ascent, but progress is wholly dependent on the vigorous exercise of the robust and confident faith of the full-grown man.

The reason of science is based on the observable facts of time; the faith of religion argues from the spirit program of eternity. What knowledge and reason cannot do for us, true wisdom admonishes us to allow faith to accomplish through religious insight and spiritual transformation.

Owing to the isolation of rebellion, the revelation of truth on Urantia has all too often been mixed up with the statements of partial and transient cosmologies. Truth remains unchanged from generation to generation, but the associated teachings about the physical world vary from day to day and from year to year. Eternal truth should not be slighted because it chances to be found in company with obsolete ideas regarding the material world. The more of science you know, the less sure you can be; the more of religion you have, the more certain you are.

The certainties of science proceed entirely from the intellect; the certitudes of religion spring from the very foundations of the entire personality. Science appeals to the understanding of the mind; religion appeals to the loyalty and devotion of the body, mind, and spirit, even to the whole personality.

God is so all real and absolute that no material sign of proof or no demonstration of so-called miracle may be offered in testimony of his reality. Always will we know him because we trust him, and our belief in him is wholly based on our personal participation in the divine manifestations of his infinite reality.

The indwelling Thought Adjuster unfailingly arouses in man’s soul a true and searching hunger for perfection together with a far-reaching curiosity which can be adequately satisfied only by communion with God, the divine source of that Adjuster. The hungry soul of man refuses to be satisfied with anything less than the personal realization of the living God. Whatever more God may be than a high and perfect moral personality, he cannot, in our hungry and finite concept, be anything less."

 

[Chany]

What is a mind besides a consciousness? This mind would exist in what form? Blank out. This mind would be conscious by what means? Blank out. Concepts? Concepts of what since there are no objects to be conscious of? Blank out. What means of awareness would this mind possess if it has no objects to be conscious of? Blank out. What content could this mind have if there is nothing to perceive and no senses to perceive it with? Blank out. And you still haven't overcome the problem of divine lonesomeness. You see this hypothetical mind is completely arbitrary. If one wants to perceive this mind, what alternative is there to imagining it? How could one reliably distinguish between this mind which exists without form and without content and something that is merely imaginary?

And if all these questions were satisfactorily answered there is still the problem that things being brought into existence by an act of conscious will violates the primacy of existence. Those things would not obtain independent of consciousness. The practical result is the destruction of objectivity and thus existence and identity.

There simply is no escape from this principle without a contradiction which is why faith is required.

I think you don't understand what I am arguing.

I understand that the rationalist epistemology and neo-Platonic view upon concepts has problems when we try to compare it to facts of reality and that it makes assumptions about reality. I actually agree with that. I don't think minds can operate without brains.

My argument isn't that Christian epistemology and metaphysics are without problems when compared to what we know. My argument is that, from the standpoint of pure logical axioms, some definitions and conceptions of the Christian God cannot be dismissed. That is, some definitions of God cannot be dismissed by purely logical axioms alone.

 

[variant]

Do they? They might perhaps know what they mean by faith, but only I know what I mean by faith.

In any case, if they already know, why do they need to ask the question?

If you are using common words for experiences we would have to be you to understand then you aren't even making an attempt at communication.

 

[stevevw]

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.

Faith can mean all the above things but not any one them on their own.
So there is an element of trust. You have to have some trust in God to let go of your own will and give yourself to God. There is hope as this world and all the remedies and ways it tries to come up with to give life fail then God can offer salvation and a way out.

Hebrews 11.1 sums up faith. It is the substance of things hoped for. There is something that can be relied on and turned to with a belief that God will save you when all else fails. That there is something beyond this life and it can begin now in this world. This adds substance to your life which can be seen and felt. But it will only come by trusting and believing what God has said about Jesus and accepting Him into your life.

The evidence of things unseen. This is a big part of it. When Jesus rose from the dead He appeared to the disciples but Thomas didn't believe them. Jesus then stood in front of Thomas and when Thomas had seen and felt His wounds he then believed. Jesus then said you have seen and believed but greater are those who believe and have not seen.

When Jesus ascended into heaven He said He would send the holy spirit who would remind us of what Jesus had said and be a witness to Him. The Holy Spirit would intercede between us and God. So when we accept Christ the Holy Spirit will work in our lives. Its like if someone says to you behind this door is salvation but in the room you are in are all the visible things that you think will save you. You can see them and use them so its easier to turn to them before trusting that the answer is behind some door in which you can't see whats there. Its not until you let go of trying your own way and the ways of whats in the room which represents this world that you will find true salvation that is behind the door.

So when you do open the door you begin to see and know the things you didn't see before and your heart is open to Gods way. So you begin to see the invisible qualities of God more clearly. This is the evidence of things unseen. To the eye of this world it will not be seen and to the mind it is not understood. They will be swayed by mans ability to save himself and create a world that is self sufficient. Thats because Satan who is the great deceiver wants to be God and he thinks that he can copy and do everything that God can do and even better.

But the other thing is its not as if we didn't know that there was some substance to what was behind the door. The bible says in Romans 1:20, For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
So we search for the answer and many choose to deny God and go for the things of this world. Its easier to believe in the things we see. But its not until we let go of this world and put our trust and faith in the unseen things of God which will give us what we are looking for.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

Faith isn't like that though. People can go from having faith to not having faith, or vice versa.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The evidence of things unseen. This is a big part of it. When Jesus rose from the dead He appeared to the disciples but Thomas didn't believe them. Jesus then stood in front of Thomas and when Thomas had seen and felt His wounds he then believed. Jesus then said you have seen and believed but greater are those who believe and have not seen.

When Jesus ascended into heaven He said He would send the holy spirit who would remind us of what Jesus had said and be a witness to Him. The Holy Spirit would intercede between us and God. So when we accept Christ the Holy Spirit will work in our lives. Its like if someone says to you behind this door is salvation but in the room you are in are all the visible things that you think will save you. You can see them and use them so its easier to turn to them before trusting that the answer is behind some door in which you can't see whats there. Its not until you let go of trying your own way and the ways of whats in the room which represents this world that you will find true salvation that is behind the door.

So when you do open the door you begin to see and know the things you didn't see before and your heart is open to Gods way. So you begin to see the invisible qualities of God more clearly. This is the evidence of things unseen. To the eye of this world it will not be seen and to the mind it is not understood. They will be swayed by mans ability to save himself and create a world that is self sufficient. Thats because Satan who is the great deceiver wants to be God and he thinks that he can copy and do everything that God can do and even better.

But the other thing is its not as if we didn't know that there was some substance to what was behind the door. The bible says in Romans 1:20, For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
So we search for the answer and many choose to deny God and go for the things of this world. Its easier to believe in the things we see. But its not until we let go of this world and put our trust and faith in the unseen things of God which will give us what we are looking for.

There are passages in the Quran that express something similar: that you are without excuse for not accepting the tenets of Islam. Obviously, however, you do not accept that the promises of Islam, or the notion that it's really Allah behind that door you speak of.

 

[stevevw]

There are passages in the Quran that express something similar: that you are without excuse for not accepting the tenets of Islam. Obviously, however, you do not accept that the promises of Islam, or the notion that it's really Allah behind that door you speak of.

Yeah the Quran is a hard book to get your head around. They acknowledge Jesus but don't believe He rose from the dead or is the son of God. Yet they do give Him some status. They then believe a lot of the old testament great men like Moses and Abraham. I think their God Allah is very similar in many ways to the God of the old testament. He has some similar qualities and some of the same things are mentioned which are in the old testament.

Yet Mohammad gets his visions hundreds of years after the New testament and over 1000 to even 2000 years after the old testament. So I think they have tried to copy a lot of things and put their own slant on it. Either that or they are using the same God with the same sentiments for some parts of their book. I think that Mohammad is to have been the final prophet that came to fulfill the old testament God and therefore negates the new testament writings. It is said that Mohammad was sent to correct the mistakes of the new testament or something like this. So there are some similarities.

But there are also some other worldly things associated with Mohammad which put a question mark on his divinity. So I believe that this is a man made addition that had came much later and it can be seen in many of the writings.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yeah the Quran is a hard book to get your head around. They acknowledge Jesus but don't believe He rose from the dead or is the son of God. Yet they do give Him some status. They then believe a lot of the old testament great men like Moses and Abraham. I think their God Allah is very similar in many ways to the God of the old testament. He has some similar qualities and some of the same things are mentioned which are in the old testament.

Yet Mohammad gets his visions hundreds of years after the New testament and over 1000 to even 2000 years after the old testament. So I think they have tried to copy a lot of things and put their own slant on it. Either that or they are using the same God with the same sentiments for some parts of their book. I think that Mohammad is to have been the final prophet that came to fulfill the old testament God and therefore negates the new testament writings. It is said that Mohammad was sent to correct the mistakes of the new testament or something like this. So there are some similarities.

But there are also some other worldly things associated with Mohammad which put a question mark on his divinity. So I believe that this is a man made addition that had came much later and it can be seen in many of the writings.

The same could be said of Christianity: that it copied and extended various elements of other religious traditions with a view to correcting all the "mistakes" made by its antecedents.

By the way, Mohammad made no claim to divinity.

 

[RDKirk]

Yeah the Quran is a hard book to get your head around. They acknowledge Jesus but don't believe He rose from the dead or is the son of God. Yet they do give Him some status. They then believe a lot of the old testament great men like Moses and Abraham. I think their God Allah is very similar in many ways to the God of the old testament. He has some similar qualities and some of the same things are mentioned which are in the old testament.

Yet Mohammad gets his visions hundreds of years after the New testament and over 1000 to even 2000 years after the old testament. So I think they have tried to copy a lot of things and put their own slant on it. Either that or they are using the same God with the same sentiments for some parts of their book. I think that Mohammad is to have been the final prophet that came to fulfill the old testament God and therefore negates the new testament writings. It is said that Mohammad was sent to correct the mistakes of the new testament or something like this. So there are some similarities.

But there are also some other worldly things associated with Mohammad which put a question mark on his divinity. So I believe that this is a man made addition that had came much later and it can be seen in many of the writings.

A friend of mine who spent 12 years in a Muslim country rather successfully evangelizing Muslims points out that the Koran gives more credit to Jesus than we may think. They accept, for instance, the virgin birth. The Koran itself also presents Jesus as having been the greatest of prophets, actually surpassing Muhammad (Muhammad's place is as the "sealing" prophet--the final prophet).

So the Christian speaking to a Muslim is actually starting from a very good position. But the major stumbling block for Christians talking to Muslims about Jesus is that we tend to hammer "official doctrine" in front of scripture scripture, often instead of scripture. Much of what the Koran says about Jesus is "they [Christians] say about him..." instead of primary assertions about Jesus, so they are inoculated against "official doctrine"... but not against scripture itself.

His method: Sit down with a Muslim and simply read the gospels, then Acts, then Romans. Don't speak a word of "official doctrine," just read the scripture and discuss any questions that arise. If the Muslim stuck with him to the end of all this, he would simply ask, "Do you believe what we have read?" He reports that 100% of those who stayed with it that far were baptized.

 

[lesliedellow]

If you are using common words for experiences we would have to be you to understand then you aren't even making an attempt at communication.

I couldn't tell somebody what the aura preceding an epileptic fit is like, although I certainly know what it is like. That is just the limitation of language.