Kay17:


I see these issues in terms of claims. God does not come down to inform us of his existence, rather humans like the clergyman stand up to speak for him. They say things like God exists. People actually put these God ideas out to the public. Our familiarity with the concept of God develops from what we are told about Him. Now if you consider these claims untenable by virtue of being metaphysical statements, it dawns that they are inventions despite their familiarity. So making it easy to dismiss as false.

If God could be dismissed as false then philosophers would have done so thousands of years ago! Likewise if he could be proven true.

It cannot be proven either way and so is a matter for personal choice.

As for the 'told about God by clergymen' point. Ancient writings and cultures ALL had some spiritual element. Even tribe with little/no contact with the modern world have some concept of a God(s). It seems inherent in humans. So your statement seems flawed as currently expressed.

The inherent and ingrained concept of a creator (personal or impersonal) has been used as an argument for the existence of God but again a little thought will easily invalidate this.


Be careful of ANYTHNG both here or on youtube etc. If it is NOT 'PEER REVIEWED' it is suspect. Take for example the youtube clip. It would never have reached publication as a serious work due to the fundamental error within the first 30 seconds! Yet it appears on youtube and all the armchair philosophers (the world over) watch it, fail to see the flaw and waste so much time over it.

Lets face it, most of the people here only want to argue as they have already made their minds up, so if you look at every youtube clip or internet article they post (90% of which are from non academic sources) you will just be falling into their trap and wasting your time.

KoloOyinbo:


If God could be dismissed as false then philosophers would have done so thousands of years ago! Likewise if he could be proven true.

It cannot be proven either way and so is a matter for personal choice.

...or faith as you said previously which I'm sure we can both agree is not a path to truth nor is it rational(by definition).

As for the 'told about God by clergymen' point. Ancient writings and cultures ALL had some spiritual element. Even tribe with little/no contact with the modern world have some concept of a God(s). It seems inherent in humans. So your statement seems flawed as currently expressed. The inherent and ingrained concept of a creator (personal or impersonal) has been used as an argument for the existence of God but again a little thought will easily invalidate this.

The only thing that is inherent in humans is curiosity. The supernatural was the best explanation for most phenomenon in the past. You're a scientist so I assume you consider the supernatural as simply phenomenon that science currently can't explain(at least to some degree). In addition, I do not think knowledge from ancient people who knew less about the world than we do today is really authentic.

Be careful of ANYTHNG both here or on youtube etc. If it is NOT 'PEER REVIEWED' it is suspect. Take for example the youtube clip. It would never have reached publication as a serious work due to the fundamental error within the first 30 seconds! Yet it appears on youtube and all the armchair philosophers (the world over) watch it, fail to see the flaw and waste so much time over it.

Lets face it, most of the people here only want to argue as they have already made their minds up, so if you look at every youtube clip or internet article they post (90% of which are from non academic sources) you will just be falling into their trap and wasting your time.

If you're referring to the clip I posted, no one is trying to pass it as fact. We all accept it as a simple opinion and no one regards it as infallible. Such topics like God's existence cannot be expected to be peer-reviewed. Then again, there was nothing wrong with his use of "if"...

DProDG:
...Basically, the argument assumes there is only one possible way/form the universe could exist while ironically, it could have infinite forms with distinct laws.

KoloOyinbo:


If God could be dismissed as false then philosophers would have done so thousands of years ago! Likewise if he could be proven true.

It cannot be proven either way and so is a matter for personal choice.

As for the 'told about God by clergymen' point. Ancient writings and cultures ALL had some spiritual element. Even tribe with little/no contact with the modern world have some concept of a God(s). It seems inherent in humans. So your statement seems flawed as currently expressed.

The inherent and ingrained concept of a creator (personal or impersonal) has been used as an argument for the existence of God but again a little thought will easily invalidate this.

The fact faith is needed to prop up one's needs for a God is not helpful either.

@the bolded, yes I think human belief in Gods is primarily psychological probably because we try to communicate with our environment and other entities outside ourselves

Kay17:


The fact faith is needed to prop up one's needs for a God is not helpful either.

@the bolded, yes I think human belief in Gods is primarily psychological probably because we try to communicate with our environment and other entities outside ourselves

Its not really a need as just a feeling that there must be something there.

Psychological or not it in no way impacts on the existence or non existence of a God.

By all means disbelieve if you must but do please realise that belief is ever bit as valid and intelligent as those who believe.

DProDG:


...or faith as you said previously which I'm sure we can both agree is not a path to truth nor is it rational(by definition).



The only thing that is inherent in humans is curiosity. The supernatural was the best explanation for most phenomenon in the past. You're a scientist so I assume you consider the supernatural as simply phenomenon that science currently can't explain(at least to some degree). In addition, I do not think knowledge from ancient people who knew less about the world than we do today is really authentic.



If you're referring to the clip I posted, no one is trying to pass it as fact. We all accept it as a simple opinion and no one regards it as infallible. Such topics like God's existence cannot be expected to be peer-reviewed. Then again, there was nothing wrong with his use of "if"...

No was not accepting the clip as fact. Merely pointing out that you will not find very much logic or intelligent debate on this matter outside academic circles.

Interesting use of the word 'currently'. I doubt we will even be able to prove Gods existence (this would negate Faith anyway). Of course we will never be able to disprove it either.

KoloOyinbo:


No was not accepting the clip as fact. Merely pointing out that you will not find very much logic or intelligent debate on this matter outside academic circles.

Interesting use of the word 'currently'. I doubt we will even be able to prove Gods existence (this would negate Faith anyway). Of course we will never be able to disprove it either.

I was referring to supernatural beliefs in general. I agree God's existence can't be proven objectively and for the most part, that's all that matters.

DProDG:

I was referring to supernatural beliefs in general. I agree God's existence can't be proven objectively and for the most part, that's all that matters.

Depends what you mean by all that matters.

It is merely an interesting fact to me that could hardly be otherwise.

I personally believe in a creator for reasons outlined previously and have heard nothing (despite many attempts by others, both here and elsewhere) to shake that belief in the slightest.

KoloOyinbo:


Its not really a need as just a feeling that there must be something there.

Psychological or not it in no way impacts on the existence or non existence of a God.

By all means disbelieve if you must but do please realise that belief is ever bit as valid and intelligent as those who believe.

Even an extremist view?!!

KoloOyinbo:


Depends what you mean by all that matters.

It is merely an interesting fact to me that could hardly be otherwise.

I personally believe in a creator for reasons outlined previously and have heard nothing (despite many attempts by others, both here and elsewhere) to shake that belief in the slightest.

What is the compelling force for you to accept the supernatural?

Kay17:


What is the compelling force for you to accept the supernatural?

Sorry I thought you read my earlier explanations.

The Existence of a creator I believe to be the second most illogical, irrational, moronic and stupid idea known to man.

HOWEVER:-

The NON Existence of a creator I believe to be the MOST illogical, irrational, moronic and stupid idea known to man!

You might accuse me of choosing the lesser of two evils!

(You would probably be correct).

As we are dealing with issues of BEFORE the Universe and WHY rather than HOW science is of no help.

That leaves only logic.

However something can be logical WITHOUT being TRUE to we cannot know the truth that way.

So we can NEVER decide this issue.

Kay17:


Even an extremist view?!!

Not sure what a view being extreme or not has to do with it being correct or otherwise?

Remarkable. Two different views anchored on the same basis.

Yet the basis of faith remains in doubt.

Kay17:
Remarkable. Two different views anchored on the same basis.

Yet the basis of faith remains in doubt.

If faith had a basis then it would not be FAITH!

Plus are we talking FAITH in the belief that there is a God OR FAITH in the belief that there is not?

BOTH points of view have no rational basis.

KoloOyinbo:


If faith had a basis then it would not be FAITH!

Plus are we talking FAITH in the belief that there is a God OR FAITH in the belief that there is not?

BOTH points of view have no rational basis.

But if Faith has no basis or it finds itself as the basis then it can be dispensed with.

What would an uninfluenced mind think about God? I think such a mind would naturally adopt a non-assuming position. He would not hold a belief in God since that would be a positive act. So it is simpler not to believe in Gods.

Kay17:
But if Faith has no basis or it finds itself as the basis then it can be dispensed with.

What would an uninfluenced mind think about God? I think such a mind would naturally adopt a non-assuming position. He would not hold a belief in God since that would be a positive act. So it is simpler not to believe in Gods.

Faith NEVER had or has a basis. That is WHY it is FAITH. As for being dispensed with ( ) I am sure a little thought would allow you to dispense with this idea! Faith has always been around and always will be (unless you dispense with humanity).

The point is that uninfluenced minds tend to drift towards the idea of a God. Always have! This seems innate in the human psyche. This in itself is not enough to prove the existence of a creator however some (myself included) take it an indication (nothing more).

If you are advocating agnosticism (the I don't know position - or NON ASSUMING as you mention above) that is fine but it is no more simple of complicate than adopting the Belief or Non belief idea.

From a purely personal point of view I see many more believers and non believers than agnostics. I am sure there is some interesting psychological point there.

Neither Atheism or Agnosticism is any more rational or logical than the belief in a creator.

As an ex scientist (with an IQ or 148) I like to be as rational as possible. That is why I reject Atheism - it appears even less logical or rational than a belief in a Creator. On occasion I have drifted towards agnosticism but find that too much of a cop out!
(Agnostics please don't be offended - that is just for me).

Probably the most amusing thing in all these threads is the total lack of understanding about the clear difference between FAITH and superstition. In all probability explained by the very understandable and commendable focus on practical rather than philosophical topic in the education system in most of the developing world. And yet the fact that these threads exist and are so popular illustrates that there is a desire for these subjects to be taught! Well that is a debate for the educationalists in each country to resolve for themselves.

KoloOyinbo:


Faith NEVER had or has a basis. That is WHY it is FAITH. As for being dispensed with ( ) I am sure a little thought would allow you to dispense with this idea! Faith has always been around and always will be (unless you dispense with humanity).

The point is that uninfluenced minds tend to drift towards the idea of a God. Always have! This seems innate in the human psyche. This in itself is not enough to prove the existence of a creator however some (myself included) take it an indication (nothing more).

If you are advocating agnosticism (the I don't know position - or NON ASSUMING as you mention above) that is fine but it is no more simple of complicate than adopting the Belief or Non belief idea.

From a purely personal point of view I see many more believers and non believers than agnostics. I am sure there is some interesting psychological point there.

Neither Atheism or Agnosticism is any more rational or logical than the belief in a creator.

As an ex scientist (with an IQ or 148) I like to be as rational as possible. That is why I reject Atheism - it appears even less logical or rational than a belief in a Creator. On occasion I have drifted towards agnosticism but find that too much of a cop out!
(Agnostics please don't be offended - that is just for me).

Probably the most amusing thing in all these threads is the total lack of understanding about the clear difference between FAITH and superstition. In all probability explained by the very understandable and commendable focus on practical rather than philosophical topic in the education system in most of the developing world. And yet the fact that these threads exist and are so popular illustrates that there is a desire for these subjects to be taught! Well that is a debate for the educationalists in each country to resolve for themselves.

Even if I agree with you that Faith is innate in man's psyche, it does not say anything about its usefulness or value. Fear is equally found in the human psyche but we often regard it the preserve of the coward. It rather explains why we have Faith. And in a logical frame of things, Faith as you have admitted has no basis. The lack of a basis incriminates it. Nonetheless, if we were to view the world with a clear len, Faith would not play a part.

KoloOyinbo:


(1) If faith had a basis then it would not be FAITH!
Agreed.

(2)Plus are we talking FAITH in the belief that there is a God OR FAITH in the belief that there is not?
You would be hard pressed to find anyone with "faith" in the "belief" that there is no God.

(3)BOTH points of view have no rational basis.
Sure, especially when you couch it that way. Its a strawman however (see two above)

Please note the above remarks.

Now everything depends on your definition of what atheism is and what agnostism is. I for one do not believe in a God/Gods. That is not the same thing as believing that there is no God. Even the people you consider agnostics ie the "I dont know" people, I consider atheists because they dont believe.

Ive found over the years that this is a very difficult concept for people to grasp so I would like to hear your take on it.

jayriginal:

(1) If faith had a basis then it would not be FAITH!
Agreed.

(2)Plus are we talking FAITH in the belief that there is a God OR FAITH in the belief that there is not?
You would be hard pressed to find anyone with "faith" in the "belief" that there is no God.

(3)BOTH points of view have no rational basis.
Sure, especially when you couch it that way. Its a strawman however (see two above)


Please note the above remarks.

Now everything depends on your definition of what atheism is and what agnostism is. I for one do not believe in a God/Gods. That is not the same thing as believing that there is no God. Even the people you consider agnostics ie the "I dont know" people, I consider atheists because they dont believe.

Ive found over the years that this is a very difficult concept for people to grasp so I would like to hear your take on it.

OK.. Look at point two. Apply some logic and thought rather than a knee jerk 'first thought into the head' reaction. To believe there is no God when there is (and cannot be) any evidence to support this is FAITH. Every bit as much as to believe this is a God when there is (and cannot be) any evidence to support this.

BOTH stances are based on FAITH.

The Agnostic simply says 'I do not know and there MAY be a God or there MAY NOT." Your definition above is very clearly wrong but understandable as agnostic are few and far between.

If we base this discussion (purely for the sake of the argument) on being rational alone then Agnosticism is the only defensible point of view. Most atheists try to base their beliefs on arguments and rational that in fact lead ONLY to Agnosticism. I this I have little respect for those atheists and reserve my respect for Agnostics and those atheists who realism that their stance is no more justifiable than any believer!

So in fact most atheists have FAITH in the belief of no God! But remember this is a non academic forum open to everybody so don't expect much in the way of analytical skills here. Some don't even follow the rational when it is clearly laid out for them (although I suspect this is NOT inability to do so but merely that they come here for the fun or a debate and with no real desire to learn).

Kay17:


Even if I agree with you that Faith is innate in man's psyche, it does not say anything about its usefulness or value. Fear is equally found in the human psyche but we often regard it the preserve of the coward. It rather explains why we have Faith. And in a logical frame of things, Faith as you have admitted has no basis. The lack of a basis incriminates it. Nonetheless, if we were to view the world with a clear len, Faith would not play a part.

Well the 'Fear' you mention is VERY useful! It is natures mechanism of self preservation and found in all the higher mammals and other animals.

We were not debating if FAITH had usefulness or value (although on a person basis it seems to bring great satisfaction to those who embrace it).

As for irrelevant words like incriminates it? Incriminates it of what? Please try and construct arguments logically rather than emotionally. You must be incriminated of 'something', explicit or implicit, but what?

Now what explains why we have faith? You have made a dubious assertion without substantiating it.

Really not sure what your point is. You asked me to explain my stance (which I have said is a personal stance) and I have done so. It is based (as all personal stances are) on a grand mixture of experience, personality and intellect in whatever degree the individual does or does not possess them.

Naturally if I thought another stance was more valid then I would adopt that. So far I have not encountered ANYTHING (especially here) which even comes close.

KoloOyinbo:


OK.. Look at point two. Apply some logic and thought rather than a knee jerk 'first thought into the head' reaction. To believe there is no God when there is (and cannot be) any evidence to support this is FAITH. Every bit as much as to believe this is a God when there is (and cannot be) any evidence to support this.

BOTH stances are based on FAITH.

You are the one with the knee jerk reaction and misapplication of logic. You need to be careful about what you say my friend. My views are very well considered. Like I mentioned earlier, I have found that most people find this concept very difficult to grasp. I'll give you another chance, since you have a self proclaimed IQ of over 140.

Now,

my definition of agnostism is not wrong. In its truest sense, it refers to those who say they lack knowledge. Note the knowledge rather than faith. Even if we use your word "may" can you say that someone who admits that there may be a God or there may not be believes in God? Can you answer that question with a yes? Because if you cant, then that person is an atheist.

An atheist is one who DOES NOT believe in God. Its really that simple, however these days, a lot of classification has been done and so you hear things like strong atheist (which is what you define as atheism), weak atheist (which is what you think of as Agnosticism), christian atheist, "evangelical atheist", and even here we have heard Folykaze refer to himself as a spiritual atheist. The list goes on.

When someone does not believe in God, that person is an atheist. It doesnt matter if he allows the possibility for Gods to exist or if he positively denies the existence of God, his non belief is the issue and try as you may, you cannot make a faith out of that.

Possibly you also believe that atheism is a religion.

Advice, try to be less condescending in your reply.

Most atheists try to base their beliefs stance on arguments and rational that in fact lead ONLY to Agnosticism. non belief in God.
Corrected

So in fact most atheists have FAITH in the belief of no God!

Unsubstantiated, hasty generalization. I repeat, you would be hard pressed to find an atheist that believes there is no God. On this forum, I know only of one who says so and that is Ooman. There might be others but they will be very few. Most atheists simply do not believe. In fact, its like this, "I do not believe in God. You do so, not out of knowledge but out of faith. Give me proof." This is the stance of most atheists.

KoloOyinbo:


Well the 'Fear' you mention is VERY useful! It is natures mechanism of self preservation and found in all the higher mammals and other animals.

We were not debating if FAITH had usefulness or value (although on a person basis it seems to bring great satisfaction to those who embrace it).

As for irrelevant words like incriminates it? Incriminates it of what? Please try and construct arguments logically rather than emotionally. You must be incriminated of 'something', explicit or implicit, but what?

Now what explains why we have faith? You have made a dubious assertion without substantiating it.

Really not sure what your point is. You asked me to explain my stance (which I have said is a personal stance) and I have done so. It is based (as all personal stances are) on a grand mixture of experience, personality and intellect in whatever degree the individual does or does not possess them.

Naturally if I thought another stance was more valid then I would adopt that. So far I have not encountered ANYTHING (especially here) which even comes close.

By incrimination, I did not obviously mean guilt or any association with crime. Rather I was saying the lack of a basis/foundation upon which Faith ought to rest on is absent. This very absent foundation which Faith prides itself for lacking is incriminating in the sense that it is patently faulty and illogical.

I could use another word -- unsubstantiated.

Kay17:


By incrimination, I did not obviously mean guilt or any association with crime. Rather I was saying the lack of a basis/foundation upon which Faith ought to rest on is absent. This very absent foundation which Faith prides itself for lacking is incriminating in the sense that it is patently faulty and illogical.

I could use another word -- unsubstantiated.

Unsubstantiated is better BUT both merely state the obvious and what I have said repeatedly and many posts ago!

Also a further error and logical contradiction is the assertion "upon which Faith OUGHT to rest". The definition precludes a basis or foundation.

So to reiterate my belief I prefer FAITH in Gods existence as it seems marginally less nonsensical than FAITH in Gods non existence.

A pure rationalist ignoring everything else can only arrive at Agnosticism.

KoloOyinbo:

Unsubstantiated is better BUT both merely state the obvious and what I have said repeatedly and many posts ago!
Also a further error and logical contradiction is the assertion "upon which Faith OUGHT to rest". The definition precludes a basis or foundation.
So to reiterate my belief I prefer FAITH in Gods existence as it seems marginally less nonsensical than FAITH in Gods non existence.
A pure rationalist ignoring everything else can only arrive at Agnosticism.

But agree with me that faith is illogical

If we all accept Faith is illogical, then any stand made with faith is likewise illogical.

Atheism and Agnosticism to me both rely on negative assertions. The nature of negative assertions rely on the contradicting positive assertions. The positive assertion is the one actually making the step forward. But negative assertions just stand on the same spot. So if someone says God (with the varying and contradicting definitions) exist, all the atheist and the agnostic need to do is destroy the claim with any internal inconsistency found in it OR use accepted truths between the atheist and the theist against the claim.

For you to find atheism illogical, you must be making an hidden assumption which you have not informed us on.

jayriginal:


You are the one with the knee jerk reaction and misapplication of logic. You need to be careful about what you say my friend. My views are very well considered. Like I mentioned earlier, I have found that most people find this concept very difficult to grasp. I'll give you another chance, since you have a self proclaimed IQ of over 140.

Now,

my definition of agnostism is not wrong. In its truest sense, it refers to those who say they lack knowledge. Note the knowledge rather than faith. Even if we use your word "may" can you say that someone who admits that there may be a God or there may not be believes in God? Can you answer that question with a yes? Because if you cant, then that person is an atheist.

An atheist is one who DOES NOT believe in God. Its really that simple, however these days, a lot of classification has been done and so you hear things like strong atheist (which is what you define as atheism), weak atheist (which is what you think of as Agnosticism), christian atheist, "evangelical atheist", and even here we have heard Folykaze refer to himself as a spiritual atheist. The list goes on.

When someone does not believe in God, that person is an atheist. It doesnt matter if he allows the possibility for Gods to exist or if he positively denies the existence of God, his non belief is the issue and try as you may, you cannot make a faith out of that.

Possibly you also believe that atheism is a religion.

Advice, try to be less condescending in your reply.

Unsubstantiated, hasty generalization. I repeat, you would be hard pressed to find an atheist that believes there is no God. On this forum, I know only of one who says so and that is Ooman. There might be others but they will be very few. Most atheists simply do not believe. In fact, its like this, "I do not believe in God. You do so, not out of knowledge but out of faith. Give me proof." This is the stance of most atheists.

Agnosticism is not well understood. But I stand by my definitions and what I said.

Definition by Websters of an Atheist - "a person who believes that God does not exist" i.e. They believe there is NO GOD.

PLEASE don't go by most people on this forum try some reputable academic source. Not just Nairaland but almost all open forums and blogs are a mix from the best to the most uneducated fools with the craziest ideas. Rather enjoy the ideas etc and when the mood strikes point those that genuinely want to learn in the direction they should be going or towards some proper source material.

Sorry if I appear condescending but I try to simplify matters as much as I can to assist.

Very interesting idea you have - "Is atheism a religion?"

I can see a strong argument for YES! Very similar in fact to Humanism. Humanism is accept in many quarters as a religion 'of sorts' (my quote marks).

There are counter arguments of course but it has the makings of an interesting debate. Perhaps you should open a thread about it. Although first we would have to define religion! To me 'Religion' is more than a belief in God. I know many people who accept God but reject religion. Yup a complex set of arguments await there.

As for the IQ (148) being self proclaimed. It is MENSA tested. My own tests gave 135 but I MAY have a negative bias.

We are getting rather far from the thread. I guess you also reject this argument? (It is after all merely a variation on all of the 'causality' arguments).

If you don't want to tie the thread up please feel free to PM me any of your questions and I will be happy to answer as best I can.

Kay17:


But agree with me that faith is illogical

Illogical is against logic. Logic is a reasoning mechanism and something can be logical AND ALSO FALSE!

Logic and truth are separate. I hope I am not saying what you already know as this is taught in day 1 or 2 of ANY basic logic course.

Premise 1: All cats can fly
Premise 2: 'Fluffy' is a cat
Therefore: Fluffy can fly!

This is LOGICAL but FALSE! (Sorry if you already know it but I have met people who talk about logic for years and don't even know this point.

For Faith I would simply say logic does not apply. Hmmm is there such a word as 'Alogical' i.e. without logic? Much better than illogical - against logic.

We are of course arguing semantics only. I am glad it is only a fun discussion as, in some ways, it is quite foolish to even attempt to apply logic to FAITH and indicates an even bigger misunderstanding of logic than of FAITH.

I am enjoying the discussion and happy to continue it on PM if you wish rather than clog up the thread but I am wondering what your own point actually is?

KoloOyinbo:


Illogical is against logic. Logic is a reasoning mechanism and something can be logical AND ALSO FALSE!

Logic and truth are separate. I hope I am not saying what you already know as this is taught in day 1 or 2 of ANY basic logic course.

Premise 1: All cats can fly
Premise 2: 'Fluffy' is a cat
Therefore: Fluffy can fly!

This is LOGICAL but FALSE! (Sorry if you already know it but I have met people who talk about logic for years and don't even know this point.

For Faith I would simply say logic does not apply. Hmmm is there such a word as 'Alogical' i.e. without logic? Much better than illogical - against logic.

We are of course arguing semantics only. I am glad it is only a fun discussion as, in some ways, it is quite foolish to even attempt to apply logic to FAITH and indicates an even bigger misunderstanding of logic than of FAITH.

I am enjoying the discussion and happy to continue it on PM if you wish rather than clog up the thread but I am wondering what your own point actually is?

Yes, a statement could be logical valid yet false. And logic is a reasoning mechanism albeit not isolated. We have in our minds basic criteria for truth and we almost subconsciously apply these criteria in our thinking. But you to say Faith is not deducible from any truths be it selfevident or otherwise, suggests not just its likely falsehood but irrationality.

Kay17:


Yes, a statement could be logical valid yet false. And logic is a reasoning mechanism albeit not isolated. We have in our minds basic criteria for truth and we almost subconsciously apply these criteria in our thinking. But you to say Faith is not deducible from any truths be it selfevident or otherwise, suggests not just its likely falsehood but irrationality.

You are correct in the first part of what you say but quite wrong in the second. We have already discussed AT LENGTH that if faith WAS deducible etc then IT WOULD NOT BE FAITH! (You seemed to agree and I thought you understood)

ALSO the use of the word FALSEHOOD implies that it can be DISPROVEN which of course it cannot! You need to reread all the previous posts. As after seeming to understand you return to the basic fundamental error.

KoloOyinbo:


You are correct in the first part of what you say but quite wrong in the second. We have already discussed AT LENGTH that if faith WAS deducible etc then IT WOULD NOT BE FAITH! (You seemed to agree and I thought you understood)

ALSO the use of the word FALSEHOOD implies that it can be DISPROVEN which of course it cannot! You need to reread all the previous posts. As after seeming to understand you return to the basic fundamental error.

If Faith cannot be deducible from prior truth, then it is inherently irrational. Note that I understand why you say Faith is independent from all other authorities while i on the other hand, use its lack of authorities to hang it. One can easily choose not to accept faith and neither can one use faith as a shield or sword against any position.

Kay17:


If Faith cannot be deducible from prior truth, then it is inherently irrational. Note that I understand why you say Faith is independent from all other authorities while i on the other hand, use its lack of authorities to hang it. One can easily choose not to accept faith and neither can one use faith as a shield or sword against any position.

In the context of something that cannot by its very nature be proven one way OR the other (The existence or non existence of a Creator/God) you are quite free to choose either position. Can you not see that this is independent of rationality? Neither stance can be supported by any rational nor indeed disproven by it.

You don't seem to follow at all or you would not use statements concerning Faith being deducible etc.

I am unaware of using it as a shield against any position? I merely state that the disbelief in a God seems to me to be even more ludicrous and lacking in rational than a belief IN God.

I think you would very much enjoy a course in basic philosophy. It would at the very least enhance your enjoyment of the foolish ideas put forward BOTH for the belief in and disbelief in a God. I just find the disbelief side even funnier.

I don't want to keep going round and round the same points but am happy to try and advise if you can pinpoint the exact point you don't understand.

KoloOyinbo:


In the context of something that cannot by its very nature be proven one way OR the other (The existence or non existence of a Creator/God) you are quite free to choose either position. Can you not see that this is independent of rationality? Neither stance can be supported by any rational nor indeed disproven by it.

You don't seem to follow at all or you would not use statements concerning Faith being deducible etc.

I am unaware of using it as a shield against any position? I merely state that the disbelief in a God seems to me to be even more ludicrous and lacking in rational than a belief IN God.

I think you would very much enjoy a course in basic philosophy. It would at the very least enhance your enjoyment of the foolish ideas put forward BOTH for the belief in and disbelief in a God. I just find the disbelief side even funnier.

I don't want to keep going round and round the same points but am happy to try and advise if you can pinpoint the exact point you don't understand.

Why do you find atheism ludicrous?

I forgot how interesting this section can be sometimes.