Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 3,143,328 members, 7,780,846 topics. Date: Friday, 29 March 2024 at 12:20 AM

Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth - Religion (4) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth (6402 Views)

Why Faith Is Delusional / See Why Faith Healers Can't Be Employed By Hospitals / Faith Is A Race, Run Your Own (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by DoctorAlien(m): 10:34pm On Jan 21, 2020
Bacteriologist:
Let's discuss this "Faith" thing. Faith is like the single most important thing in religion and theism in general.

It is safe to say that the basis of theism is faith.

I hear Christians for example, talk about faith a lot and they say that once you have Faith a lot of things especially in the Bible begins to make sense.

Same thing with Muslims. "Faith" in Allah makes you believe that Islam is the true religion.

But my main point is this why would faith be required to know the truth?

A lot of things we recognise as facts and truths today do not require any sort of faith whatsoever.

Does anyone need faith to know that 1 + 1 = 2?

Is faith required to make an airplane glide in the air? Or a ship remain buoyant?

Does anyone need faith to know that water + clay makes mud?

Do you need faith to accept that whatever is thrown up gets pulled back down (except held up by an external force/obstacle?)

It looks like faith is needed only when believing something that cannot be demonstrated or shown to actually be true or exist.

And that is the greatest downfall of this thing called "faith." ANYONE can believe whatever they want and CLAIM it as true based on "Faith."

Christians even call it "evidence of things not seen." Then I can claim to have a dragon in my basement/backyard. And believe it on "faith."

Faith is a good way to believe in anything but is not a reliable way of determining the truth. And it is not enough to believe claims: especially those with heavy weight as god claims based on faith alone.

If you care about the truth, Faith is not enough.

What are your thoughts?

My thoughts?

But, good sire, everything you "know" is based on pure faith - faith that the axioms of your logical system (the laws of logic as we know them) are "true". And you cannot prove that the laws of logic are true (neither can you prove that they're false). So on whose authority do you receive the laws of logic, to have and to base your thought processes upon, including the one which leads you reject the truth of the claim of God's existence?

You ask whether anyone needs faith to know that 1+1=2. Well, it may surprise you to know that you believe that 1=1 purely on faith. (Let's not even progress as yet to 1+1). 1=1 is essentially a statement of the law of logic which states that a thing is itself (called the law of identity). Otherwise, why is 1 not equal to 2?

So, essentially, the Bible is right when it says "By faith we understand..." (Heb. 11:3). By faith in the universal authority of the Lawgiver whose laws indisputably govern our thoughts, we understand that that same Lawgiver exists.

Note that it does not help to claim that the laws of logic are just a description of the way human beings think. That does not remove the question about the trueness of such way of thinking. Put in other words, should we accept that the laws of logic just describe the way human beings think, then a different set of laws of logic, (say e.g. "1 is not equal to 1" ), should it be encountered in human reasoning, cannot be said to be less true or more true than the laws of logic as we know them, since that different set of laws of logic would equally be describing the way (some) human beings think.

So, you see, faith is everything.
Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by Tamaratonye1(f): 6:14am On Jan 22, 2020
CaveAdullam:
My God is not responsible for the spaghetti I ate this afternoon but He is responsible enough to give me mouth with a nice sets of healthy teeth and tongue so that I can eat anything that pleases me.

Shikena!
Your dishonesty leaves a stench that makes vomit appear pleasant.

According to christian dogma, your god created the entire universe, is incredibly powerful and all-knowing. According to christian dogma there is no higher power than your god.

Understand this, if there is "evil" in this world, your god is responsible for it.

Daejoyoung:

If God is responsible for the evil in the world, then how come he wants to redeem the world? and why do we pray for the kingdom of God to come and his will to be done on earth as it is in heaven? Come on now, if God actually controlled this world, then everything would be different, but God is not really in charge of this world and there is a better world to come where there would be no more death and sorrow, and this l speak by faith. This faith shall save me if l continue therein, not by works of the law but only faith working through love.
Do you believe your deity has no choice but to allow evil and suffering? Why do people pray for it to intervene then? What are we to make of claims for miraculous interventions. The claim that a deity can intervene, and does so to create miracles, is directly contradicted by the fact it allows continuous and ubiquitous suffering. Not just allows it either, but designed and created such a world, with ubiquitous suffering in the form of disease and predation, and this existed for millions of years before humans evolved, thus exists independently of any human actions.

The insentient and therefore indifferent process of evolution, by comparison explains the existence of suffering thoroughly,a and it fits all the objective evidence. Faith is pretty meaningless next to this weight of evidence. Especially when that faith is directly at odds with many of the facts.

2 Likes

Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by BIBLESPEAKS(m): 7:50am On Jan 22, 2020
Bacteriologist:
Let's discuss this "Faith" thing. Faith is like the single most important thing in religion and theism in general.

It is safe to say that the basis of theism is faith.

I hear Christians for example, talk about faith a lot and they say that once you have Faith a lot of things especially in the Bible begins to make sense.

Same thing with Muslims. "Faith" in Allah makes you believe that Islam is the true religion.

But my main point is this why would faith be required to know the truth?

A lot of things we recognise as facts and truths today do not require any sort of faith whatsoever.

Does anyone need faith to know that 1 + 1 = 2?

Is faith required to make an airplane glide in the air? Or a ship remain buoyant?

Does anyone need faith to know that water + clay makes mud?

Do you need faith to accept that whatever is thrown up gets pulled back down (except held up by an external force/obstacle?)

It looks like faith is needed only when believing something that cannot be demonstrated or shown to actually be true or exist.

And that is the greatest downfall of this thing called "faith." ANYONE can believe whatever they want and CLAIM it as true based on "Faith."

Christians even call it "evidence of things not seen." Then I can claim to have a dragon in my basement/backyard. And believe it on "faith."

Faith is a good way to believe in anything but is not a reliable way of determining the truth. And it is not enough to believe claims: especially those with heavy weight as god claims based on faith alone.

If you care about the truth, Faith is not enough.

What are your thoughts?

Even scientists have faith in the laws of the Universe that's why they can carry out experiments and bring about theories. Having to count on gravity, sunshine, rainfall etc is all faith.

As often as these things don't fail us, our faith in them become stronger. That's a real description of a theist's faith in God.

1 Like 1 Share

Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by Daejoyoung: 9:18am On Jan 22, 2020
[quote author=Tamaratonye1 post=86004117]



Do you believe your deity has no choice but to allow evil and suffering? Why do people pray for it to intervene then? What are we to make of claims for miraculous interventions. The claim that a deity can intervene, and does so to create miracles, is directly contradicted by the fact it allows continuous and ubiquitous suffering. Not just allows it either, but designed and created such a world, with ubiquitous suffering in the form of disease and predation, and this existed for millions of years before humans evolved, thus exists independently of any human actions.
Well, from my understanding of the bible and from what l have observed, this world is not what God wants it to be yet. lt is a fallen world where God does not reign supreme and his will is not done on earth as it is in heaven.
Apart from the bible, my observation alone tells me that this world is the work of a programmer( not necessarily a magical creator). This programmer also probably operates by faith and calls things that are not as though they were.
There are bad designs in this program, but the programmer doesn't want to be involved in this world( his program) to directly fix it. The bad designs are inevitable and come as a result of the good, for instance earthquakes in a way are necessary for our balance and survival on earth, but they can also cause destruction and death.
So evil is inevitable in this world by design, if there is to be good in the first place.
So it seems the programmer doesn't want to necessarily remove evil, rather he has given his robots power to overcome all evil and to be completely in charge, but they have to discover this power and it takes a long time, so he grudgingly intervenes once in a while perhaps until the son of man becomes a true ruler of the worlds, having power over death, sicknesses and diseases, then that would be the kingdom of God on earth ruled by man.

The insentient and therefore indifferent process of evolution, by comparison explains the existence of suffering thoroughly,a and it fits all the objective evidence. Faith is pretty meaningless next to this weight of evidence. Especially when that faith is directly at odds with many of the facts.
Tamaratonye1, religion and science are not opposed to one another. They work together for the same purpose, which is the pursuit of happiness. They only do it in different ways.
From the parable of the talents by jesus, we know that God doesn't want us to waste our talents but to use them and even gain more, this would include practicing science. Science was actually born from faith. ln the past, science and religion were almost thesame thing, infact science was a religion and still is, because science comes from philosophy and philosophy is a twin sister of religion, it has always been.
Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by Nobody: 2:10pm On Jan 22, 2020
Bacteriologist:


Oh nice

So do you also accept only things that have evidence?

Then please provide evidence for the following : (you're a Christian so I'm assuming it follows that you accept these things)

1. God

I see evidence of God everywhere. Our human body itself is a miracle.

Most things made by science a copied from natural things. They mimic some animals for example to make certain things. Eg the amazing arm of the octopus.

If science mimic these,there must be a designer for this animals they mimic. I can't see a reason to believe that something that is much complex as my Android phone could pop out of nowhere unmade by anyone. I see no reason to accept that.

Again we are told that there was a bang before what we see today as universe and things came up. The bang itself happen in such a way that we exist today. What am I saying, the precision in the universe is proof of a supernatural cause to that big bang.


2. Talking snakes
3. Talking donkeys

These things are very possible with miracle. I believe that there is a supernatural beings out there. See above.


4. A global flood
5. All the animals in the world today existing in one floatable building called an ark and having all the STDs.

Yes, a global flood did happen. We even see these stories reoccur in mythologies of different tribes most of which lives quite far from each other.

The Bible didn't mention the animals that entered into the ark. But only stated that animals went in according to their kinds. What these kinds involve is what no one can say.



6. The dead able to rise after 4 days.
7. A man ascending to heaven without an aircraft or jetpack
8. An all-knowing God granting free will.

I will wait.

6 and 7 has to do with miracle. I do believe in it because there is a supernatural being up there.

8. I don't understand where you are getting at. Why can God grant free will?

2 Likes

Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by Bacteriologist(m): 3:07pm On Jan 22, 2020
JMAN05:


I see evidence of God everywhere. Our human body itself is a miracle.

Seeing the evidence of God every where is not an evidence in itself. That is just a statement you have made that YOU see the evidence of God everywhere. You still haven't presented your evidence. You only said you see it.


Human body being a miracle is an unsubstantiated claim born from ignorance. A miracle is an event/something that is deemed greater than the natural (i.e supernatural). A miracle would be a suspension of natural laws.

The human body has been proven to have formed as a result of completely natural processes and not supernatural processes. So your assertion that the human body is a miracle is indeed incredibly mistaken, false and demonstrably so.

JMAN05:

Most things made by science a copied from natural things. They mimic some animals for example to make certain things. Eg the amazing arm of the octopus.

That definitely is NOT proof for any god. Talk less of being a proof for the Christian God. The simple assertion that we observe living things and use that observation as hints and markers to invent artificial objects is not in any way an evidence for any god.

It is merely a statement that we can look at naturally existing things and subsequently, deduce artificial things from those natural things.



JMAN05:

If science mimic these,there must be a designer for this animals they mimic. I can't see a reason to believe that something that is much complex as my Android phone could pop out of nowhere unmade by anyone. I see no reason to accept that.

Wrong. You have made yet another fallacy here.
A non-sequitur fallacy.

That is like saying "Oh if Nairaland mimics Facebook by introducing a like button because Facebook has a like button, then Facebook must be designed by application-designing aliens."

Do you see your error?

Your conclusion is in no way relevant to the observation you made. The fact that we mimic natural things to act as models for designing artificial things does NOT mean that those natural things MUST or DID, in fact, have a creator.


Also the fact that YOU see no reason to accept that complex things may not have a creator does not AUTOMATICALLY mean that complex things do have a creator.

It only means that YOU cannot fathom the possibility that a creator is NOT needed for the things that exist.

For you to be justified in the belief that you hold, you will still have to DEMONSTRATE why anything that is complex must have a creator. Including God as well. Because you very well admit that God is complex. So if God is complex who created god? Since everything that is complex must have a creator. By your logic...



JMAN05:


Again we are told that there was a bang before what we see today as universe and things came up. The bang itself happen in such a way that we exist today. What am I saying, the precision in the universe is proof of a supernatural cause to that big bang.

There is no precision in the universe. Everything that happens is as a direct consequence of the implications of random physical interactions.
Although these interactions are governed by physical laws, they happen completely randomly.

Example: Water exists because 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen forms what we call water. It's not like the universe brings hydrogen and oxygen together to form water. It is just a consequence of having 2 atoms of hydrogen and 1 atom of oxygen. In a case where we have 2 atoms of hydrogen and also 2 atoms of oxygen you would get a different consequence: hydrogen peroxide.

If a different element happened to be more abundant(than carbon) on earth for example, it is entirely possible that a living species that was not carbon based could have formed.

We are here because of the series of reactions and interactions that have happened. If a slight change of events occurred, it is totally and entirely possible that the building blocks of life could have taken a completely different path.

And we would have life that was ..let's say.. silicone based(and probably they too would wrongly think the universe was fine tuned for the creation of silicon-based life like you're doing) or something like that.

There is no goal or order than the universe. As the famous Steve Hawkins quote says, "If the universe is fine-tuned for anything, it is for the creation of black holes." -Not life.




JMAN05:


These things are very possible with miracle. I believe that there is a supernatural beings out there. See above.

Miracles are again a suspension of natural processes. We have evidence that life formed as a result of completely natural processes they are not possible with a miracle.

You would have to substantiate your belief with evidence that supernatural beings did exist before I can accept your claim as justified or remotely and demonstrably true.





JMAN05:


Yes, a global flood did happen. We even see these stories reoccur in mythologies of different tribes most of which lives quite far from each other.

I appreciate the fact that you call them mythologies. Because a global flood has been proven to be false by Geologists for various reasons.

1. There is not enough volume of water needed to flood the whole landscape on earth and rise enough to kill all life including the ones present on trees and very tall mountains.

2. The atmosphere cannot sustain the amount of water vapour that would be enough to make rainfall for 40 days and 40 nights straight all over the planet.


There are more but for brevity, I won't list them here. If you need more, kindly let me know.





JMAN05:


The Bible didn't mention the animals that entered into the ark. But only stated that animals went in according to their kinds. What these kinds involve is what no one can say.

It is logical to conclude that all the animals that are present on earth today were present in the ark. Except if God created all these animals we see after the flood which the Bible clearly didn't state.

So as a continuation of the reasons mentioned above, I'm curious to how

3. Noah managed to get all the animals we have in the world today into the ark in PAIRS.

4. How he managed to keep those animals among them who only thrive under certain specific conditions. E.g Antarctica Penguins.

5.. How he fed the carnivores and herbivores. I'm more curious to how he fed the carnivores because you can say he cultivated plants to feed the herbivores. What did he feed lions leopards cheetahs with? Since he only took a pair of their food which will be mostly gazelles.

6. How he was able to control that size of a zoo with just himself and his family without the prior knowledge of keeping wildlife.



JMAN05:


6 and 7 has to do with miracle. I do believe in it because there is a supernatural being up there.


Again, you cannot appeal to the supernatural as an explanation of a natural. The supernatural is something that is greater than the natural. More accurately the suspension of a natural process or order.

And we have proven that a lot of things that happen are as a result of natural processes so appeals to supernatural explanation are not required anymore.

it's like saying thunder is caused by the god of thunder when we can totally explain how charges in the cloud produce sound energy. Is supernatural explanation is not needed because we can use a natural explanation and PROVE it.


JMAN05:


8. I don't understand where you are getting at. Why can God grant free will?


An all-knowing god granting freewill would be self-contradicting.

Omniscient = Knowing ALL what would happen BEFOREHAND. Including knowing ALL what your creation will do after you created them.

So the creation is only ACTING OUT what the creator had predetermined or known beforehand.

It looks to the creation like he has free-will but the creator knew what he was going to do anyway. It wasn't actually "free" will.

Therefore, a free will creation cannot coexist with an omniscient/all-knowing creator.

1 Like

Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by Bacteriologist(m): 3:55pm On Jan 22, 2020
DoctorAlien:


My thoughts?

But, good sire, everything you "know" is based on pure faith - faith that the axioms of your logical system (the laws of logic as we know them) are "true". And you cannot prove that the laws of logic are true (neither can you prove that they're false). So on whose authority do you receive the laws of logic, to have and to base your thought processes upon, including the one which leads you reject the truth of the claim of God's existence?


While I am willing to concede that the laws of logic cannot be proven true or false, I am able to put it to you that it is the single most honest way of explaining reality.

Everything that we can explain today and that we can claim with a certain degree of boldness to be correct have all been arrived at using the laws of logic.

Notice how I didn't say MOST. ALL of them.

Using the laws of logic, someone who is hundred of miles away over the sea can observe the same things I observe and come to the same conclusion that I have.

The laws of logic are the single most consistent ways of explaining reality.

DoctorAlien:

You ask whether anyone needs faith to know that 1+1=2. Well, it may surprise you to know that you believe that 1=1 purely on faith. (Let's not even progress as yet to 1+1). 1=1 is essentially a statement of the law of logic which states that a thing is itself (called the law of identity). Otherwise, why is 1 not equal to 2?


You are assuming that mathematics is actually real. The numbers are imaginary and are only used to explain reality. Like if I have 1 plate in my left hand and 1 plate in my right hand I can conclude that I have 2 plates.

So I know that 1 <insert object> + 1 <insert object> gives 2 of that object.

It is just another conclusion based on the laws of logic. And it is astronomically consistent. Anyone on another planet will use logic and arrive at the same conclusion: that for example having 1 atom plus another atom makes 2 atoms.

I don't just have faith that 1 + 1 = 2.
It is an explanation of reality. And it has been proven to be correct method of explaining reality. Or at least OUR reality.

I know that 1 ≠ 2 because I cannot, for example, give 2 people 1 WHOLE thing. I can only give 1 person 1 whole thing. If I'm going to give two people 1 thing, I have to divide that one thing into two and then I get ½.

And I can continue to derive all the other numbers based on the same logic as an explanation of reality.

So the numbers are basically like a language I can use to decode what I am perceiving and actually do not require faith to accept them as correct. Because it is CONSISTENT and it allows me to transact and interact with other people without cheating them or feeling cheated myself.



DoctorAlien:


So, essentially, the Bible is right when it says "By faith we understand..." (Heb. 11:3). By faith in the universal authority of the Lawgiver whose laws indisputably govern our thoughts, we understand that that same Lawgiver exists.

Lol no FAITH ON THE OTHER HAND is an incredibly ambiguous way of understanding or decoding reality.

Faith is the reason why a deist looks at the sky and say "Oh god must have made these things even though I have not seen him or have objective proof."

Faith is the reason why a Muslim also looks at the same sky and says "Oh Allah must have made this and he wants me to worship him and he wants me to kill those that will not worship him even though I have not seen him or have objective proof."

Which is also the reason why you as a Christian looks at the same sky and says "Oh Yahweh must have made this and he wants me to worship him and he wants me to kill homosexuals and possess slaves even though I have not seen him or have objective proof."

All of them would be right according to faith.

Logic would ask what is the evidence to describe what the sky is made up of and/or where it came from and/or who made it if there is indeed evidence to conclude that it was made.

Logic is careful in observing all the evidence before arriving at a conclusion. Faith is not.


Faith allows people to make different kinds of conclusions based on the same observation because it is flawed. When using faith you can leap above the evidence and make conclusions. Logic does not allow for that.





DoctorAlien:

Note that it does not help to claim that the laws of logic are just a description of the way human beings think. That does not remove the question about the trueness of such way of thinking. Put in other words, should we accept that the laws of logic just describe the way human beings think, then a different set of laws of logic, (say e.g. "1 is not equal to 1" ), should it be encountered in human reasoning, cannot be said to be less true or more true than the laws of logic as we know them, since that different set of laws of logic would equally be describing the way (some) human beings think.
So, you see, faith is everything.

Indeed we do accept that in certain situations 1 does not equal to 1. That is why we have different bases in mathematics (base 2, 8, 10 etc)

We have only chosen base 10 because it is a more accurately convenient way of explaining things. Science does not claim absolute truth. And neither does mathematics. But if there will be anything like the truth then it sure does sounds like logic is the best way to get there. And not Faith.

Your attempt to undermine rigorously tested, verified, widely accepted and demonstrably consistent logic and exonerate ambigous, unreliable, flexible, often inconsistent faith is defeated.

So try harder.

1 Like

Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by Bacteriologist(m): 4:08pm On Jan 22, 2020
BIBLESPEAKS:


Even scientists have faith in the laws of the Universe that's why they can carry out experiments and bring about theories. Having to count on gravity, sunshine, rainfall etc is all faith.

Do you have faith that whatever you throw up will come down? If your answer to that is NO then everything you wrote up there is complete nonsense.



BIBLESPEAKS:

As often as these things don't fail us, our faith in them become stronger. That's a real description of a theists faith in God.

No, quite the contrary. The more confidence we have in things. the less faith is required to believe in them.

I'm sure you do not have faith that when you put your leg on dry ground you're not going to sink. That is because every single time you put your leg on the ground it supports you.

You do not need faith to accept that when you put your hand in water your hand gets wet. Because EVERY SINGLE time you put your hand into water your hand gets soiled.

You do not need faith for things that are unassailably consistent. Because you have an incredible level of confidence in those things.

So we only need faith for things that cannot be demonstrated to warrant such levels of confidence as the above.

1 Like

Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by budaatum: 4:28pm On Jan 22, 2020
Tamaratonye1:


Understand this, if there is "evil" in this world, your god is responsible for it.
Seriously? So if you go and kill someone, "your god is responsible for it"?

Sounds very irresponsible of you to me that you refuse to take responsibility for your evil! I'm just glad the rest of us aren't so stupid or we'd be imprisoning "your god" and not you.
Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by BIBLESPEAKS(m): 4:47pm On Jan 22, 2020
Bacteriologist:


Do you have faith that whatever you throw up will come down? If your answer to that is NO then everything you wrote up there is complete nonsense.





No, quite the contrary. The more confidence we have in things. the less faith is required to believe in them.

I'm sure you do not have faith that when you put your leg on dry ground you're not going to sink. That is because every single time you put your leg on the ground it supports you.

You do not need faith to accept that when you put your hand in water your hand gets wet. Because EVERY SINGLE time you put your hand into water your hand gets soiled.

You do not need faith for things that are unassailably consistent. Because you have an incredible level of confidence in those things.

So we only need faith for things that cannot be demonstrated to warrant such levels of confidence as the above.

I do have faith that whatever I throw up will come down...i do have faith in the laws of the universe of which gravity is one of them.

AMONG the definitions that one dictionary gives for faith is “firm and unquestioning belief in something for which there is no proof.” But, really, that definition more accurately describes credulity, a readiness to believe regardless of evidence. Credulity is really not faith. The faith in God the Creator that the Bible calls for, and for which it also furnishes the basis, is a faith based on clear evidence and sound reasoning.

As the Bible uses the term “faith,” it might be said to relate to two kinds of things: First, to the certainty of things hoped for, things not seen because of their being in the future. And, secondly, to faith in the existence of spirit beings, who are not visible to the human sight because of their not having material bodies; in other words, faith in God and in his promises. Thus we read at Hebrews 11:1 ( New English Bible ): “What is faith? Faith gives substance to our hopes, and makes us certain of realities we do not see.” That is why we are told that Christians must walk by faith and not by sight.​— 2 Cor. 5:7 .

Faith that God exists can be firmly established by contemplating the power and wisdom manifest in visible creation, including its order and harmony. All reasonable persons will agree that every effect has a competent cause. A watch argues for the existence of a watchmaker. So, look where we may in the universe, from the complex eye of an insect to the mighty galaxies in outer space, we come to the conclusion that there simply must be a mighty and wise Maker, or Creator, of these things.

2 Likes 1 Share

Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by Bukky244: 5:19pm On Jan 22, 2020
What are your thoughts?

OP,

The Christian Faith is of two type- evidence based and non-evidence based. What most you guys know is the non-evidence based.

1 Like

Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by CaveAdullam: 5:58pm On Jan 22, 2020
Tamaratonye1:

Your dishonesty leaves a stench that makes vomit appear pleasant.

According to christian dogma, your god created the entire universe, is incredibly powerful and all-knowing. According to christian dogma there is no higher power than your god.

Understand this, if there is "evil" in this world, your god is responsible for it.


Thanks for trying to school me Tama, lol. Once again you are guilty of faith.

How come you quickly reached a conclusion that a god is responsible for evil when you don't believe in the existence of that god? You even want me to "understand"............lol

Anyways you are right but unfortunately for you that "god" is also your "god."

Now you can know the difference between "god" and "God."

Thank you.

1 Like 1 Share

Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by DoctorAlien(m): 5:58pm On Jan 22, 2020
Bacteriologist:


While I am willing to concede that the laws of logic cannot be proven true or false, I am able to put it to you that it is the single most honest way of explaining reality.
The first point to note is that this is just it: you putting it to me. It does not amount to proof. Next, anything you have to say about the laws of logic can equally be said by Christians about their own axioms. One of such Christian axioms is "The Bible is true". So with equal breadth we say "The veracity of the Bible is the single most honest way of explaining reality". And I really mean it. What makes sense in the world today apart from the revealed light of the Word of God? Life, death, suffering, happiness, beauty, logic, morality all make sense only in the light of the Word of God, which is the Bible.

Everything that we can explain today
Things that you can explain, starting with what as axiom(s)? Or has it not occurred to you that every single thought takes for granted (i.e. as given) some other thought(s), until you certainly arrive at the axioms which cannot be proven true?

and that we can claim with a certain degree of boldness to be correct
Correct with reference to what? Let me help you: it is still the laws of logic - the same things we're yet to determine on whose authority we are to receive it as true and thus totally binding on our thought processes.

have all been arrived at using the laws of logic.
This is the conclusion of an elaborate circular argument. You're essentially saying "all the statements we're able to formulate while today which are in agreement with the laws of logic, we formulated taking for granted (without proof) that the laws of logic are true". That amounts to saying nothing.

Notice how I didn't say MOST. ALL of them.
see above.

Using the laws of logic,
You mean taking them as true? But that is exactly what is in question. Why should they be accepted as true? Why should their negations not be accepted as true?

someone who is hundred of miles away over the sea can observe the same things I observe and come to the same conclusion that I have.
The person is able to do so building on the same laws of logic whose source of supreme authority over our thought processes as truisms we're trying to determine.

The laws of logic are the single most consistent ways of explaining reality.
see above.

You are assuming that mathematics is actually real.
whether mathematics is real or not has no bearing on this issue. It is not news that mathematics is analogous to logic, and logic is not tangible too.

The numbers are imaginary and are only used to explain reality. Like if I have 1 plate in my left hand and 1 plate in my right hand I can conclude that I have 2 plates.
On whose authority should we believe that 1=1 is true? Someone can as well believe that "1 = not 1". Such a person can conclude too that you have "not 2" plates. You have to prove him wrong then, and you can't do so by starting with the assumption that "1=1" is true.

So I know that 1 <insert object> + 1 <insert object> gives 2 of that object.
Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions. Someone can know too that 1+1 = not 2, based on another set of laws of "mathematics", say one which permits e.g. that N = not N. Why then must N = N govern our thought processes as true? On whose authority do we accept that law of identity as a truism on which to build our thoughts? Christians say that the laws of Logic are grounded in God, the supreme Lawgiver, Whose sanction certifies the veracity of those laws, and Who imprinted them in our minds.

It is just another conclusion based on the laws of logic.
You mean a conclusion starting with the assumption that the laws of logic are true? But why should we believe that they are true? Why are their opposites not true?

And it is astronomically consistent. Anyone on another planet will use logic and arrive at the same conclusion: that for example having 1 atom plus another atom makes 2 atoms.
see above

I don't just have faith that 1 + 1 = 2.
Oh yeah. I don't just have the faith that God exists. You say I should prove it? I say you should prove that 1+1 = 2.

It is an explanation of reality.
Same applies to God. God is the only meaningful explanation of reality. In fact, more than that, it is on the authority of God who sanctions them, that I receive the laws of logic as truisms on which to build my thought processes. Without such authority, the negations of the laws of logic stand on equal footing with the laws of logic themselves.

And it has been proven
proven, taking what statements as starting point? Still the laws of logic. You can't escape it grin

to be correct method of explaining reality.
correct/in agreement with what? Still the laws of logic, whose claims to truth we're calling into question apart from the authority of a universal Lawgiver (God).
Or at least OUR reality.
that comes a bit closer to the argument.

I know that 1 ≠ 2
Someone can know too that 1 = 2.
because I cannot, for example, give 2 people 1 WHOLE thing.
But you're assuming for example that 2 people = 2 people. That is essentially the law of identity. Prove the person wrong who says that you can give 1 whole thing to 2 people because 2 people = 1 person (negation of the law of identity). In fact prove the person wrong who says that it is true that "not whole = whole".

I can only give 1 person 1 whole thing. If I'm going to give two people 1 thing, I have to divide that one thing into two and then I get ½.
Elaboration of a circular argument, which avoids the main question. You've already landed at point where a division of 1 gives 1/2. But we're yet to agree on whose authority we should receive it as true that 1 is always equal to 1. You're yet to address the equal claims of a hypothetical different set of mathematical rules which permits for 1 to be divided and 50 gotten as the answer.

And I can continue to derive all the other numbers based on the same logic as an explanation of reality.
you can do so assuming that the laws of mathematics are true. But we're yet to agree on whose authority those laws stand to be compulsorily accepted universally as true, since they cannot be proven, and their negations stand on equal footing with them.

So the numbers are basically like a language I can use to decode what I am perceiving and actually do not require faith to accept them as correct. Because it is CONSISTENT and it allows me to transact and interact with other people without cheating them or feeling cheated myself.
The question here is not the consistency of a logical system. Rather, the question here is the veracity of the axioms of that logical system. Any logical system is as good as its axioms. Should it be found that there is no basis on which to receive the axioms of that system as true, then the whole system is on shaky grounds, no matter how internally consistent it is. Christians posit that it is on God's universal authority that we receive the laws of logic as truisms. It is God's special sanction that elevates the laws of logic above for e.g. their negations.

Lol no FAITH ON THE OTHER HAND is an incredibly ambiguous way of understanding or decoding reality.
when you're yet to prove that you do not receive it by faith that the laws of logic are true.

Faith is the reason why a deist looks at the sky and say "Oh god must have made these things even though I have not seen him or have objective proof."

Faith is the reason why a Muslim also looks at the same sky and says "Oh Allah must have made this and he wants me to worship him and he wants me to kill those that will not worship him even though I have not seen him or have objective proof."

Which is also the reason why you as a Christian looks at the same sky and says "Oh Yahweh must have made this and he wants me to worship him and he wants me to kill homosexuals and possess slaves even though I have not seen him or have objective proof."
Faith is also the reason why an atheist would look at the statement "A thing is itself" and say "Oh this statement is true, even though I cannot prove it."

All of them would be right according to faith.
Yeah. In fact the Bible says that the just shall live by faith. It appears that the starting point of our logical system is faith in the trueness of the axioms our logical system. In fact, the faith is this, that the laws of logic have the sanctions of a universal authority, which sanctions makes them true, and their negations false. Without that special sanction from the universal authority, both the laws of logic and their negations stand on equal footing on the scale of acceptance. That universal authority is God.

Logic would ask what is the evidence to describe what the sky is made up of and/or where it came from and/or who made it if there is indeed evidence to conclude that it was made.
But your logic has not asked you for the evidence that the axioms underlying your logic are true?

Logic is careful in observing all the evidence before arriving at a conclusion. Faith is not.
Lol. What are the evidences you examined before concluding, for example, that "a thing is itself"?


Faith allows people to make different kinds of conclusions based on the same observation because it is flawed. When using faith you can leap above the evidence and make conclusions. Logic does not allow for that.
Creationists and evolutionists observe the same things in the natural world, yet they come to different conclusions as to the origin of those things. Which of them uses faith and which of them uses logic?

Indeed we do accept that in certain situations 1 does not equal to 1. That is why we have different bases in mathematics (base 2, 8, 10 etc)
red herring. That is neatly and entirely out of the discussion.

We have only chosen base 10 because it is a more accurately convenient way of explaining things. Science does not claim absolute truth. And neither does mathematics. But if there will be anything like the truth then it sure does sounds like logic is the best way to get there. And not Faith.
Logic which begins with faith - faith that its axioms are true? It seems faith is everything.

Your attempt to undermine rigorously tested, verified, widely accepted and demonstrably consistent logic and exonerate ambigous, unreliable, flexible, often inconsistent faith is defeated.

So try harder.

grin Nah bro. You're yet to show how faith is not a good way to determine truth, especially when the way in which we determine truth (logic) is built on the faith that its axioms are true.
Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by Nobody: 6:00pm On Jan 22, 2020
Bacteriologist:
Let's discuss this "Faith" thing. Faith is like the single most important thing in religion and theism in general.

It is safe to say that the basis of theism is faith.

I hear Christians for example, talk about faith a lot and they say that once you have Faith a lot of things especially in the Bible begins to make sense.

Same thing with Muslims. "Faith" in Allah makes you believe that Islam is the true religion.

But my main point is this why would faith be required to know the truth?

A lot of things we recognise as facts and truths today do not require any sort of faith whatsoever.

Does anyone need faith to know that 1 + 1 = 2?

Is faith required to make an airplane glide in the air? Or a ship remain buoyant?

Does anyone need faith to know that water + clay makes mud?

Do you need faith to accept that whatever is thrown up gets pulled back down (except held up by an external force/obstacle?)

It looks like faith is needed only when believing something that cannot be demonstrated or shown to actually be true or exist.

And that is the greatest downfall of this thing called "faith." ANYONE can believe whatever they want and CLAIM it as true based on "Faith."

Christians even call it "evidence of things not seen." Then I can claim to have a dragon in my basement/backyard. And believe it on "faith."

Faith is a good way to believe in anything but is not a reliable way of determining the truth. And it is not enough to believe claims: especially those with heavy weight as god claims based on faith alone.

If you care about the truth, Faith is not enough.

What are your thoughts?

The fact is majority were MISINFORMED regarding what faith truly means. FAITH in itself is the TRUTH, not the evidence of TRUTH!
It's what you're sure of that put FAITH in you not the other way round! smiley

To illustrate what FAITH means, picture two hungry men walking along a path, they're both strangers to each other as they're going one began comforting the other saying "Don't worry, my father's house is just by the corner. When we get home we'll have more than enough to eat and drink"
Then suddenly they saw an accident involving a truck carrying loafs of bread, the hungry paupers in the area ignored the wounded driver who is crying for help, and each one is eating whatever his hands could reach. Then the guy who has been promising his newly found friend rushed to the site, his friend thought he was either going to rescue the wounded driver or perhaps driving away the hungry looking paupers. But to his greatest shock, he got there, joined the hungry paupers and started eating hopelessly! embarassed

Please, do you think his friend need anyone to tell him that he has been lying all along? undecided

Well that's what FAITH means!

If truthfully his father has what it takes to cater for him and his friend the way he said, surely he won't do that.

So all those people are FAITHLESS Sir.

They're saying heaven is their home, yet they strive desperately for material things. They're saying they love their neighbour but to them any mistake of those in their neighbourhood makes the one who makes the mistake an enemy that should DIE by fire!

You will see the ASSURANCE in the action of faithful people, and you'll be moved to feel that what they're saying is REAL! Hebrew 11:1

1 Like 1 Share

Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by Bacteriologist(m): 7:00pm On Jan 22, 2020
Maximus69:


The fact is majority were MISINFORMED regarding what faith truly means. FAITH in itself is the TRUTH, not the evidence of TRUTH!
It's what you're sure of that put FAITH in you not the other way round! smiley

To illustrate what FAITH means, picture two hungry men walking along a path, they're both strangers to each other as they're going one began comforting the other saying "Don't worry, my father's house is just by the corner. When we get home we'll have more than enough to eat and drink"
Then suddenly they saw an accident involving a truck carrying loafs of bread, the hungry paupers in the area ignored the wounded driver who is crying for help, and each one is eating whatever his hands could reach. Then the guy who has been promising his newly found friend rushed to the site, his friend thought he was either going to rescue the wounded driver or perhaps driving away the hungry looking paupers. But to his greatest shock, he got there, joined the hungry paupers and started eating hopelessly! embarassed

Please, do you think his friend need anyone to tell him that he has been lying all along? undecided

Well that's what FAITH means!

If truthfully his father has what it takes to cater for him and his friend the way he said, surely he won't do that.

Why the guy didn't behave in the best way possible, him eating from the truck that crashed does not automatically mean that he didn't have food at home OR that is father couldn't cater for him OR that he was lying. That is an assumption you choose to make.

We would still have to verify if he indeed had food at home before we make the conclusion that he was lying.

For all we know, the truck that crashed could be carrying his favourite food which he had not eaten in a long time and happened to be irresistible to him. So it wouldn't automatically show that he was lying to his friend about having food at home.

What I'm saying is he could still have had food at home and still ate from the truck that crashed so that is not enough justification to conclude that is lying.

So your analogy is flawed.

Maximus69:


So all those people are FAITHLESS Sir.

They're saying heaven is their home, yet they strive desperately for material things. They're saying they love their neighbour but to them any mistake of those in their neighbourhood makes the one who makes the mistake an enemy that should DIE by fire!

You will see the ASSURANCE in the action of faithful people, and you'll be moved to feel that what they're saying is REAL! Hebrew 11:1



No true Scotsman fallacy.

Read about it here

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

1 Like

Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by Bacteriologist(m): 7:04pm On Jan 22, 2020
DoctorAlien:



The first point to note is that this is just it: you putting it to me. It does not amount to proof. Next, anything you have to say about the laws of logic can equally be said by Christians about their own axioms. One of such Christian axioms is "The Bible is true". So with equal breadth we say "The veracity of the Bible is the single most honest way of explaining reality". And I really mean it. What makes sense in the world today apart from the revealed light of the Word of God? Life, death, suffering, happiness, beauty, logic, morality all make sense only in the light of the Word of God, which is the Bible.

Things that you can explain, starting with what as axiom(s)? Or has it not occurred to you that every single thought takes for granted (i.e. as given) some other thought(s), until you certainly arrive at the axioms which cannot be proven true?

Correct with reference to what? Let me help you: it is still the laws of logic - the same things we're yet to determine on whose authority we are to receive it as true and thus totally binding on our thought processes.

This is the conclusion of an elaborate circular argument. You're essentially saying "all the statements we're able to formulate while today which are in agreement with the laws of logic, we formulated taking for granted (without proof) that the laws of logic are true". That amounts to saying nothing.

see above.

You mean taking them as true? But that is exactly what is in question. Why should they be accepted as true? Why should their negations not be accepted as true?

The person is able to do so building on the same laws of logic whose source of supreme authority over our thought processes as truisms we're trying to determine.

see above.

whether mathematics is real or not has no bearing on this issue. It is not news that mathematics is analogous to logic, and logic is not tangible too.

On whose authority should we believe that 1=1 is true? Someone can as well believe that "1 = not 1". Such a person can conclude too that you have "not 2" plates. You have to prove him wrong then, and you can't do so by starting with the assumption that "1=1" is true.

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions. Someone can know too that 1+1 = not 2, based on another set of laws of "mathematics", say one which permits e.g. that N = not N. Why then must N = N govern our thought processes as true? On whose authority do we accept that law of identity as a truism on which to build our thoughts? Christians say that the laws of Logic are grounded in God, the supreme Lawgiver, Whose sanction certifies the veracity of those laws, and Who imprinted them in our minds.

You mean a conclusion starting with the assumption that the laws of logic are true? But why should we believe that they are true? Why are their opposites not true?

see above

Oh yeah. I don't just have the faith that God exists. You say I should prove it? I say you should prove that 1+1 = 2.

Same applies to God. God is the only meaningful explanation of reality. In fact, more than that, it is on the authority of God who sanctions them, that I receive the laws of logic as truisms on which to build my thought processes. Without such authority, the negations of the laws of logic stand on equal footing with the laws of logic themselves.

proven, taking what statements as starting point? Still the laws of logic. You can't escape it grin

correct/in agreement with what? Still the laws of logic, whose claims to truth we're calling into question apart from the authority of a universal Lawgiver (God). that comes a bit closer to the argument.

Someone can know too that 1 = 2. But you're assuming for example that 2 people = 2 people. That is essentially the law of identity. Prove the person wrong who says that you can give 1 whole thing to 2 people because 2 people = 1 person (negation of the law of identity). In fact prove the person wrong who says that it is true that "not whole = whole".

Elaboration of a circular argument, which avoids the main question. You've already landed at point where a division of 1 gives 1/2. But we're yet to agree on whose authority we should receive it as true that 1 is always equal to 1. You're yet to address the equal claims of a hypothetical different set of mathematical rules which permits for 1 to be divided and 50 gotten as the answer.

you can do so assuming that the laws of mathematics are true. But we're yet to agree on whose authority those laws stand to be compulsorily accepted universally as true, since they cannot be proven, and their negations stand on equal footing with them.

The question here is not the consistency of a logical system. Rather, the question here is the veracity of the axioms of that logical system. Any logical system is as good as its axioms. Should it be found that there is no basis on which to receive the axioms of that system as true, then the whole system is on shaky grounds, no matter how internally consistent it is. Christians posit that it is on God's universal authority that we receive the laws of logic as truisms. It is God's special sanction that elevates the laws of logic above for e.g. their negations.

when you're yet to prove that you do not receive it by faith that the laws of logic are true.

Faith is also the reason why an atheist would look at the statement "A thing is itself" and say "Oh this statement is true, even though I cannot prove it."

Yeah. In fact the Bible says that the just shall live by faith. It appears that the starting point of our logical system is faith in the trueness of the axioms our logical system. In fact, the faith is this, that the laws of logic have the sanctions of a universal authority, which sanctions makes them true, and their negations false. Without that special sanction from the universal authority, both the laws of logic and their negations stand on equal footing on the scale of acceptance. That universal authority is God.

But your logic has not asked you for the evidence that the axioms underlying your logic are true?

Lol. What are the evidences you examined before concluding, for example, that "a thing is itself"?


Creationists and evolutionists observe the same things in the natural world, yet they come to different conclusions as to the origin of those things. Which of them uses faith and which of them uses logic?

red herring. That is neatly and entirely out of the discussion.

Logic which begins with faith - faith that its axioms are true? It seems faith is everything.



grin Nah bro. You're yet to show how faith is not a good way to determine truth, especially when the way in which we determine truth (logic) is built on the faith that its axioms are true.


Ok so how does Faith lead us to the true god? If it is indeed a good way to determine truth which religious faith is the true one?

4000 religions claim they have the true god based on Faith...how do we determine which one is lying and which one is true?
Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by Nobody: 7:37pm On Jan 22, 2020
Bacteriologist:

Why the guy didn't behave in the best way possible, him eating from the truck that crashed does not automatically mean that he didn't have food at home OR that is father couldn't cater for him OR that he was lying. That is an assumption you choose to make.
We would still have to verify if he indeed had food at home before we make the conclusion that he was lying.
For all we know, the truck that crashed could be carrying his favourite food which he had not eaten in a long time and happened to be irresistible to him. So it wouldn't automatically show that he was lying to his friend about having food at home.
What I'm saying is he could still have had food at home and still ate from the truck that crashed so that is not enough justification to conclude that is lying.
So your analogy is flawed.
No true Scotsman fallacy.
Read about it here
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman


Hmmmmmmmmm,

You're a TRUE atheist! cheesy

A truck carrying bread had an accident, (unfortunate event) the loafs scattered on the road, paupers rushed to the site, started picking the loafs and eating, the driver is badly wounded and crying for help.

But all what the supposed rich man's son (who promised a total stranger the favour of quenching his hunger) could do is to join the hungry paupers in causing more harm to the owner of the bread.
What's the difference between the stranger he is taking home and the wounded truck driver?
If he truthfully had GOOD intentions for a hungry stranger, what stops him from helping the wounded driver?

Never mind Sir it's OK, I PERFECTLY understood you now much more than before! cheesy

1 Like 1 Share

Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by Bacteriologist(m): 7:42pm On Jan 22, 2020
BIBLESPEAKS:


I do have faith that whatever I throw up will come down...i do have faith in the laws of the universe of which gravity is one of them.


oh good...so why not bother to look up the evidence for these things so that you can have a more certain level of confidence in them than just faith?

BIBLESPEAKS:

AMONG the definitions that one dictionary gives for faith is “firm and unquestioning belief in something for which there is no proof.”

Haha look!! FINALLY SOMEONE gets the original definition of faith I was talking about while writing the OP. You're the first Christian who comes at me within this read and understands what I actually was talking about before they bothered to reply. I have to thank you for that.



BIBLESPEAKS:

But, really, that definition more accurately describes credulity, a readiness to believe regardless of evidence. Credulity is really not faith.

You just agreed that it is a dictionary definition of faith and you are now telling me again that it is not Faith.

So you sound like: " oh I know that is actually what the dictionary says but I am going to ignore that because is not what I like to believe it to be."

Well you can always ascribe your own definition to any word you like but when you're discussing with other people please stick to the dictionary or at least the colloquial definition.


BIBLESPEAKS:

The faith in God the Creator that the Bible calls for, and for which it also furnishes the basis, is a faith based on clear evidence and sound reasoning.

Okay so please provide evidence for this "Christian God" and evidence that he is indeed "the creator", and that the Bible which calls for it is actually true.

I'm waiting.

BIBLESPEAKS:

As the Bible uses the term “faith,” it might be said to relate to two kinds of things: First, to the certainty of things hoped for, things not seen because of their being in the future.

Okay so YOU interpret it to mean two kind of things. First, being the certainty of things not seen because YOU think those things are in the future.

Other sects of Christianity would argue that those things may not necessarily be in the future or even, in fact, be real at all. Just like you ascribe YOUR second interpretation of faith to things that are not detectable by the human senses at all.


BIBLESPEAKS:
[s]
And, secondly, to faith in the existence of spirit beings, who are not visible to the human sight because of their not having material bodies; in other words, faith in God and in his promises. Thus we read at Hebrews 11:1 ( New English Bible ): “What is faith? Faith gives substance to our hopes, and makes us certain of realities we do not see.” That is why we are told that Christians must walk by faith and not by sight.​— 2 Cor. 5:7 .
Faith that God exists can be firmly established by contemplating the power and wisdom manifest in visible creation, including its order and harmony. [/s]


Religious platitudes aka Preaching.

Kindly do not preach to me in future. I am not interested.



BIBLESPEAKS:

All reasonable persons will agree that every effect has a competent cause. A watch argues for the existence of a watchmaker. So, look where we may in the universe, from the complex eye of an insect to the mighty galaxies in outer space, we come to the conclusion that there simply must be a mighty and wise Maker, or Creator, of these things.


Yes! If everything that looks complex has a creator. Then where is the creator that created god? Because I assume that as a Christian, your idea of a god is a complex supernatural deity.

So definitely ALL reasonable people would agree that every effect has a competent cause and come to the conclusion that there simply must be a mighty and wise maker, or creator of God. Since God is complex...lol

Hmm can't think of the creator of God or scared of the infinite regress? Then maybe you made an error in your reasoning? Yes you did.

You committed a fallacy!

Your fallacy is called the watchmaker fallacy and here is why it is flawed

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy
Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by Bacteriologist(m): 7:55pm On Jan 22, 2020
Maximus69:



Hmmmmmmmmm,

You're a TRUE atheist! cheesy

A truck carrying bread had an accident, (unfortunate event) the loafs scattered on the road, paupers rushed to the site, started picking the loafs and eating, the driver is badly wounded and crying for help.

But all what the supposed rich man's son (who promised a total stranger the favour of quenching his hunger) could do is to join the hungry paupers in causing more harm to the owner of the bread.
What's the difference between the stranger he is taking home and the wounded truck driver?
If he truthfully had GOOD intentions for a hungry stranger, what stops him from helping the wounded driver?

Never mind Sir it's OK, I PERFECTLY understood you now much more than before! cheesy

Again another false equivocation fallacy.

First, I pointed out that the guy didn't act at his best behaviour. So your attempt to tag me as someone who doesn't have compassion is moot.

Also, does the fact that he has good intentions for the stranger he had been talking to automatically means he definitely must have good intentions for the wounded driver? Lol

No, it does not follow.

I am saying they are different scenarios that could have warranted the guy to actually ignore the wounded driver and go on to eat the spoils of the crashed vehicle.

The driver could very well be someone the dude previously knew, (you said he was on his way home so probably was in the vicinity). So the driver could have been someone who has had once tried to kill him or something like that.

Soo...Because he wants to help a stranger does not automatically means he should help the driver because there are circumstances where it would be possible he couldn't or didn't want to.

Your reasoning is flawed and that is why I called it a false equivocation fallacy. Your analogy contains a lot of loopholes and plot twists.

Also when you say I am a "true atheist."

I understand you're trying to paint a picture that atheists are people who don't have empathy. Very rich coming from a Christian whose Bible contains a lot of scenarios way worse than this and empathy was thrown out of the window.
Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by shadeyinka(m): 8:46pm On Jan 22, 2020
Bacteriologist:

Faith is a good way to believe in anything but is not a reliable way of determining the truth. And it is not enough to believe claims: especially those with heavy weight as god claims based on faith alone.

If you care about the truth, Faith is not enough.

What are your thoughts?
The basis of your argument is completely wrong hence your conclusion and deduction follow suit.

First a human being does not live by logical deductions alone but also by feelings, intuitions and choice.

Faith is different from believing.

Faith is Trusting in the integrity of a personality. Faith isnt blind, it is based on knowledge of the character of a personality.

Faith is like trusting your wife to be faithful even when there is no one to watch her on your behalf. It takes a knowing to have faith. It is stupidity to trust a stranger.

If Aliko Dangote gave you a check/"bank alert" of N70m, would you be excited? But the check/"bank alert" isnt money, its just an evidence of the money you are yet to see.

Heb 11:1:
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Faith is going to your parents house without an iota of fear that you'll be driven out

Faith is writing a computer code and trusting that the compiler will do a good job of translating your high level language into assembly language.

Faith is trusting your calculations and trainings to take you to the moon in this rocket that the government spent $30billion dollars to develop.

Faith is trusting that the pilot of your aeroplane know the way from Nigeria to New York.

Faith isn't a blind Believe: Faith is a Trust in an object's integrity. In the case of Christians, the object of our faith is God.

If you know God, faith makes sense
If you don't know God, faith is useless.


Finally, Faith isn't willing something to being!

1 Like

Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by Daejoyoung: 8:55pm On Jan 22, 2020
Bacteriologist, l think you just wanna keep dragging this issue, lol.
ok tell me, according to the gospel story where jesus says to the canaanite woman: " Your faith has made you whole" what type of faith was that? Did the woman just blindly believe that jesus could heal her? of course not.
Rather she heard of his fame in performing such miracles and perhaps even witnessed some of them herself, and so this helped her faith, making her strongly believe that jesus could heal her daughter. This is the faith l know, because the bible does not teach us blind faith at all. lt says things like:

..Test the spirits
..By their fruits ye shall know them
..Faith cometh by hearing

and so on and so forth.
Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by Nobody: 9:02pm On Jan 22, 2020
Bacteriologist:


Again another false equivocation fallacy.

First, I pointed out that the guy didn't act at his best behaviour. So your attempt to tag me as someone who doesn't have compassion is moot.

Also, does the fact that he has good intentions for the stranger he had been talking to automatically means he definitely must have good intentions for the wounded driver? Lol

No, it does not follow.

I am saying they are different scenarios that could have warranted the guy to actually ignore the wounded driver and go on to eat the spoils of the crashed vehicle.

The driver could very well be someone the dude previously knew, (you said he was on his way home so probably was in the vicinity). So the driver could have been someone who has had once tried to kill him or something like that.

Soo...Because he wants to help a stranger does not automatically means he should help the driver because there are circumstances where it would be possible he couldn't or didn't want to.

Your reasoning is flawed and that is why I called it a false equivocation fallacy. Your analogy contains a lot of loopholes and plot twists.

Also when you say I am a "true atheist."

I understand you're trying to paint a picture that atheists are people who don't have empathy. Very rich coming from a Christian whose Bible contains a lot of scenarios way worse than this and empathy was thrown out of the window.

When i said you're a true atheist, I mean you're perfectly OK Sir!

So there is no need trying to CONTROL people's mind and i hope you agree with me that it's no man's business if some choose to subject themselves to CONTROL, any attempt to change their mind will be tantamount to MIND CONTROLLING since they've made their CHOICE.

Whether one choose to be an atheist or theist it is good to live and let live, i think that's what atheists want to believe! wink
Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by DoctorAlien(m): 9:02pm On Jan 22, 2020
Bacteriologist:


Ok so how does Faith lead us to the true god? If it is indeed a good way to determine truth which religious faith is the true one?

4000 religions claim they have the true god based on Faith...how do we determine which one is lying and which one is true?

First, let me expose a potential fallacy which may rear its deceptive head up at this point. The fact that there are many different religions and perceptions of God is not proof that there is no true religion and perception of God, just like the fact that there are many versions of the story of how a dead person died is not proof that there is no true version of the story of how that person died. But just like it is natural for us to conclude, in the case of the dead man, that there must have been a true story of his death which has been distorted to produce many different versions of the story, even so it is natural for us to conclude that there must have been an original true revelation of God which became distorted with time to produce many different and often conflicting religions we see today.

That said, I think it's time to know what you think. What qualities would you expect the true religion to have? What criteria do you expect the true religion to fulfill?
Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by jamesid29(m): 2:37am On Jan 23, 2020
Tamaratonye1:

You took that statement from the US Declaration of Independence, which is "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." This has nothing to do with "belief", because it's a statement of intent. Namely, the intent to treat humans alike under the law, regardless of their circumstances. That you failed to understand this elementary concept speaks volumes.
Actually ma'am, it was a statement of belief which was deeply rooted in Christianity as the continuation of the statement makes evident
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

According to Jefferson and other prominent thinkers of his time, statements as “all Men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights’ are obviously true. Such statements do not require proof. The “truths” are held to be unquestionable and beyond debate, since their truth is said to be obvious. They can be stated without elaborating or defending them.

The Great Awakening religious revival movement of the 1730s helped spread the idea of universal moral human equality which has it's roots in Galatians 3:28 and the political equality ideas where developed by 17th century English republican thinkers like Algernon Sidney and John Locke. This political equality ideology spread to the new colonies from England and by the time of the writing of the declaration, these beliefs where so widely held that Jefferson stated that his writing of the Declaration was to express a shared understanding of “the American mind.”
Fun fact: Originally blacks were treated as indentured servants like everyone else and not slaves in America. But by the turn of the century things changed and the same people who drafted the declaration didn't extend the moral and political equality to Africans.


In the 1600's Oliver Cromwell took control of Britain, and waged a ruthless war on the Catholics. Included in this war were many horrors including mass murders of the Irish. That was never forgotten by the Irish (they still fight over Roman Catholic/Protestant issues). The early Irish immigrants to the US carried this history, one where non-protestants were not given full rights as humans.

The framers of the Constitution were very aware of the horrors inflicted by Cromwell (and the many failings of the British ruling system), and that clause was to make sure that no one was treated less than others just because of their religion.

This is also not historically correct. The revolution really had nothing to do with Catholic/Protestant issue. The colonies were predominantly Protestant and Actually Irish people were a minority in the colonies, mostly coming in as indentured servants.

Do you know anything.... anything at all... about American history?

Where do you find the largest community of Irish in the US? Boston. Where did the US Revolution begin? Boston, with the Boston Tea Party.

I think you are mixing up the dates ma'am. The mass immigration of the Irish to America began in the 19th century due to famine. During the tension between the colonies and England in the late 18th century and leading up to the American revolution, the Irish were a minority group in Boston, as Boston at the time was a Puritan stronghold. The few Irish people in Boston at this time were mostly indentured servants who either hid their Catholism as Catholism was against the law at the time or they became Protestants.
The Boston tea party was a political movement against taxation without representation and wasn't motivated by religion or ethnicity. It was specifically targeted at the Tea Act of 1773, hence the name tea party. This eventually led to the American revolution which was a long time coming. The Tea act and the British reaction to the backlash was what broke the camel's back .

Just to reiterate the point, the tea party started in December 16, 1773 and at this point Boston was predominantly Anglo- Saxon. Boston began to change drastically with the mass European immigration of the 19th century, with the first wave being Irish immigrants starting in 1820.
Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by Bacteriologist(m): 9:09am On Jan 23, 2020
DoctorAlien:


First, let me expose a potential fallacy which may rear its deceptive head up at this point. The fact that there are many different religions and perceptions of God is not proof that there is no true religion and perception of God, just like the fact that there are many versions of the story of how a dead person died is not proof that there is no true version of the story of how that person died. But just like it is natural for us to conclude, in the case of the dead man, that there must have been a true story of his death which has been distorted to produce many different versions of the story, even so it is natural for us to conclude that there must have been an original true revelation of God which became distorted with time to produce many different and often conflicting religions we see today.

You still haven't answered my question. 4000+ religions say that they are god is the true god and their message about god is the true message about god..

How do we determine which one is correct and which one is false? how do we determine which one is telling the truth or which one is lying?


Do we just go with the one we are born into (which I assume with a certain level of confidence is in your case and that of many others)?

If not, how did you come to a conclusion that Christianity is the true one and that the others are false?

Because you only sound like "Oh I'm going to point out a possible fallacy here while also committing another fallacy by saying that the messages of an eternal god who wants us to know the truth could have been manipulated and distorted by humans."

By saying that you're assuming that God only communicates once and goes into hiding afterwards thereby leaving humans to be able to twist and misinterpret his messages.

As a Christian that will be dishonest, because the average christian really believes that god still talks to us till today.


So if we have a dead man who is still able to communicate about how we actually died I don't see how his message can be twisted.

But your analogy to compare God to a dead man actually looks on point. God has a lot of properties that are similar to that of a dead man who no longer exists and can't do anything.


DoctorAlien:

That said, I think it's time to know what you think. What qualities would you expect the true religion to have? What criteria do you expect the true religion to fulfill?


I don't believe that there can be anything like a true religion because I don't accept that there's any God to have a religion for in the first place.
Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by Tamaratonye1(f): 12:53pm On Jan 23, 2020
budaatum:

Seriously? So if you go and kill someone, "your god is responsible for it"?

Sounds very irresponsible of you to me that you refuse to take responsibility for your evil! I'm just glad the rest of us aren't so stupid or we'd be imprisoning "your god" and not you.
Isaiah 45:7 KJV I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

So you don't read your bible either?

And yes, according to the bible your god does know everything and thus is responsible for all murders, rapes, abusers etc: viz:

[b]“Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please” (Isaiah 46:9-10).

“Who can fathom the Spirit of the LORD, or instruct the LORD as his counselor? Whom did the LORD consult to enlighten him, and who taught him the right way? Who was it that taught him knowledge, or showed him the path of understanding?” (Isaiah 40:13-14).

“Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD” (Psalm 139:4).

“O LORD, you have searched me and you know me. You know when I sit and when I rise; you perceive my thoughts from afar. You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my ways” (Psalm 139:1-3).

“My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. How precious to me are your thoughts, God! How vast is the sum of them! Were I to count them, they would outnumber the grains of sand—when I awake, I am still with you” (Psalm 139:15-16).

“Can anyone teach knowledge to God, since he judges even the highest?” (Job 21:22).

“He determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name. Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit” (Psalm 147:4-5).

“And you, my son Solomon, acknowledge the God of your father, and serve him with wholehearted devotion and with a willing mind, for the LORD searches every heart and understands every desire and every thought. If you seek him, he will be found by you; but if you forsake him, he will reject you forever” (1 Chronicles 28:9).

“Do you know how the clouds hang poised, those wonders of him who has perfect knowledge?” (Job 37:16).

“From heaven the LORD looks down and sees all mankind; from his dwelling place he watches all who live on earth—he who forms the hearts of all, who considers everything they do” (Psalm 33:13-15).

“Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!” (Romans 11:33).

“Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account” (Hebrews 4:13).

“Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows” (Luke 12:7).

“Whenever our hearts condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything” (1 John 3:20).

“Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered” (Matthew 10:29-30).[/b]

I wouldn't resort to ad hominem attacks like stupid if I were you, especially if you lack the intelligence to understand that culpability for an act need not be limited solely to the person committing that act. Even fallible human law recognises the act of aiding and abetting a crime, so how stupid would someone have to be to claim a perfectly benevolent being with limitless power and knowledge exists, but is not in any way culpable for doing nothing to prevent ubiquitous suffering? Worse still is the claim this being designed and created a planet where continuous ubiquitous suffering was an inevitable consequence, and long before the first humans evolved for this asinine idea that such a deity could shift the blame onto one species of evolved primate.

Yes indeed, you'd be wise to avoid throwing words like stupid around, if such a simple concept is beyond your rationale. Or the simple concept that claiming that same deity regularly intervenes through miracles, but cherry picks the result in the most arbitrary and callous fashion, and yet is not culpable for suffering it could therefore according to your religion's own rationale, have easily prevented.

Next time some rich televangelist is thanking your deity for his wealth or someone is gushing praise on that deity for the miracle of saving their life in a catastrophe that killed thousands, including children and babies, you may want to ponder what manner of cruel sadistic amoral being would wield such power in such a callous and indifferent way. Then thank your lucky stars there isn't a shred of objective evidence that it is real.

I know I do, every day....

So please now, fùck off until you have actually read your poisonous book.

CaveAdullam:
Thanks for trying to school me Tama, lol. Once again you are guilty of faith.

How come you quickly reached a conclusion that a god is responsible for evil when you don't believe in the existence of that god? You even want me to "understand"............lol

Anyways you are right but unfortunately for you that "god" is also your "god."

Now you can know the difference between "god" and "God."

Thank you.
I will repeat what I told you before, that I am arguing from a position of theism to uncover the fallacies, evil, and inconsistencies in religion. If I steadily maintained my position as an atheist, my response for almost every question would be "I do not believe in a god, please demonstrate such". I do not want to slam the door shut on conversation, so I maintain the argument AS IF there was a god and your religious dogma was valid.

In your feeble attempt to snatch an "ah hah, gotcha" moment, you are blatantly ignoring the position I have accepted in order to further a conversation. And since I did previously describe this manner of conversation (to you) by accepting the theist dogma for the sake of debate, you have displayed dishonesty by grasping at an imaginary gotcha moment..

Based on the theist theology, this god is responsible for everything, nothing happens that this god is not aware of, and capable of predicting and changing. And just for the record, if there was a god, free will would not exist. But that is a can of worms that would require a separate thread.

Based on my personal position as an atheist, murder is one of the most heinous of despicable acts, something I would be incredibly loath to do.

I do not capitalize the noun "god" because I do not accept it as being proven to exist, and it if did exist, it definitely is not worthy of any respect or owning a capitalized name.

I do not call a worm "Worm", and I do not call this unproven hypothetical god "God".

If you desire for me to change the capitalization you must [1] prove a god exists and [2] that this god is worthy of respect.

Daejoyoung:
Well, from my understanding of the bible and from what l have observed, this world is not what God wants it to be yet. lt is a fallen world where God does not reign supreme and his will is not done on earth as it is in heaven.
Apart from the bible, my observation alone tells me that this world is the work of a programmer( not necessarily a magical creator). This programmer also probably operates by faith and calls things that are not as though they were.
There are bad designs in this program, but the programmer doesn't want to be involved in this world( his program) to directly fix it. The bad designs are inevitable and come as a result of the good, for instance earthquakes in a way are necessary for our balance and survival on earth, but they can also cause destruction and death.
So evil is inevitable in this world by design, if there is to be good in the first place.
So it seems the programmer doesn't want to necessarily remove evil, rather he has given his robots power to overcome all evil and to be completely in charge, but they have to discover this power and it takes a long time, so he grudgingly intervenes once in a while perhaps until the son of man becomes a true ruler of the worlds, having power over death, sicknesses and diseases, then that would be the kingdom of God on earth ruled by man.
....And now you descend into pulling the most piss poor theist argument out of your rear end. The Programmer Analogy? Really?

For starters, your argument is dead before it even takes off because programmers can only do what the language allows them to do. They cannot do anything that the computer cannot perform. They only know as much about the language and the capacity of the computer as they do. They are neither all-powerful nor all-knowing.

That's not the characteristics that theists have assigned to their Gods.

[1] You said, "this world is not what God wants it to be yet."
Another unevidenced assertion, this long seemingly endless list of unevidenced assertions is very tedious. However the claim doesn't help, as it directly contradicts the claim that the christian deity has limitless power. This is precisely what I mean when I stated that many religious claims are directly at odds with the objective evidence. Epicurus summed up the contradiction nicely, and did it millennia before humans created tour religion and deity.

[2] You said, "Apart from the bible, my observation alone tells me that this world is the work of a programmer"
I have now run out of patience with your bare assertions, and all such assertions will be dismissed in the same manner they are asserted. quod grātīs asseritur, grātīs negātur is the original Latin of the newly popularised epistemooogical razor now renamed after the late author and polemecist, Christopher Hitchens.

[3] You also said, "the programmer doesn't want to be involved in this world( his program) to directly fix it."
Aaaaaand another unevidenced assertion, and again one that is directly contradicted by the core teachings of christianity in the claim for miracles, AS I ALREADY POINTED OUT, do you even read my responses?

[4] You then said, "The bad designs are inevitable "
Not from an omniscient omnipotent deity, that's an asinine assertion, and again unevidenced, and again already been refuted. This is starting to sound a lot like I'm being preached at, and I don't care for that than you.

[5] Your next statement was so ridiculous, if I didn't know better, I'd have called troll by now: "he grudgingly intervenes once in a while"
Another contradiction, and this designer is starting to sound like an incompetent bungling halfway, like the one Heller describes in Catch 22, lol. Do you know what omniscient and omnipotent even mean?

[6] You continued, "Religion and science are not opposed to one another. "
Of course they are, don't be absurd. However the statement is entirely moot, as science validates its assertion with objective evidence, and religion and theists can't demonstrate any for their claims. Nor is science the pursuit of happiness, again this is absurd rhetoric, science is a method, a tool box to help us understand how the physical world and universe works. How we use that knowledge is entirely subjective.

[7] Shamelessly, you went on saying, "we know that God doesn't want us to waste our talents"
Lol. Looooool. You can keep claiming this arrant nonsense, but knowledge requires objective evidence, and you can demonstrate none.

The nonsense at the end about the origins of science is as laughable as it is irrelevant. Science is a method, that gathers and tests data and models of the physical world and universe to expand our knowledge of them. Religion is not supported by any objective evidence, neither is the existence of any deity.

To claim science is a religion is imbecillic, a cursory Google of the definitions of both words destroys that forcible piece of rhetoric. So I'm at a loss as to what you hope to achieve by peddling such a dishonest claim?

Science may well have its origins in philosophy, so what. Modern hydraulic suspension and pneumatic tyres originated from solid wooden wheels on wooden axles, its beyond stupid to claim that means they're the same, again I'm baffled as to what you hope to gain from such obviously dishonest rhetoric.

WHAT OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE CAN YOU DEMONSTRATE FOR ANY DEITY?

If the answer is none, then comparing theism to science is farcical.

3 Likes

Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by budaatum: 2:50pm On Jan 23, 2020
Tamaratonye1:

So you don't read your bible either?

And yes, according to the bible your god does know everything and thus is responsible for all murders, rapes, abusers etc: viz:.
Do you understand your Bible, and do you reason at all? Or is it your claim that you are not even responsible for your own misunderstanding?

Please explain how I get thrown into hell (according to the Bible), for "murders, rapes, abusers" if "according to (your understanding of) the bible your god does know everything and thus is responsible for all murders, rapes, abusers etc"?
Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by budaatum: 3:03pm On Jan 23, 2020
Tamaratonye1:


So please now, fùck off until you have actually read your poisonous book.
Lol! You must think not using one's brain when reading the Bible applies to the instructions that you give too. I wonder how better to show you to rely on the evidence in front of you instead of thinking everyone is brain dead like your are.

Well, watch me not obey you. Its called using one's own brain and data.
Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by budaatum: 3:24pm On Jan 23, 2020
For those who enjoy pointing out the fallacies of others but are blind to their own, here is a list so you can see your's better.

Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by shadeyinka(m): 3:27pm On Jan 23, 2020
Bacteriologist:

Faith is a good way to believe in anything but is not a reliable way of determining the truth. And it is not enough to believe claims: especially those with heavy weight as god claims based on faith alone.

If you care about the truth, Faith is not enough.

What are your thoughts?
The basis of your argument is completely wrong hence your conclusion and deduction follow suit.

First a human being does not live by logical deductions alone but also by feelings, intuitions and choice.

Faith is different from believing.

Faith is Trusting in the integrity of a personality. Faith isnt blind, it is based on knowledge of the character of a personality.

Faith is like trusting your wife to be faithful even when there is no one to watch her on your behalf. It takes a knowing to have faith. It is stupidity to trust a stranger.

If Aliko Dangote gave you a check/"bank alert" of N70m, would you be excited? But the check/"bank alert" isnt money, its just an evidence of the money you are yet to see.

Heb 11:1:
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Faith is going to your parents house without an iota of fear that you'll be driven out

Faith is writing a computer code and trusting that the compiler will do a good job of translating your high level language into assembly language.

Faith is trusting your calculations and trainings to take you to the moon in this rocket that the government spent $30billion dollars to develop.

Faith is trusting that the pilot of your aeroplane know the way from Nigeria to New York.

Faith isn't a blind Believe: Faith is a Trust in an object's integrity. In the case of Christians, the object of our faith is God.

If you know God, faith makes sense
If you don't know God, faith is useless.


Finally, Faith isn't willing something to being!
Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by DoctorAlien(m): 5:05pm On Jan 23, 2020
Bacteriologist:


You still haven't answered my question. 4000+ religions say that they are god is the true god and their message about god is the true message about god..

How do we determine which one is correct and which one is false? how do we determine which one is telling the truth or which one is lying?


Do we just go with the one we are born into (which I assume with a certain level of confidence is in your case and that of many others)?

If not, how did you come to a conclusion that Christianity is the true one and that the others are false?
You are just asking me to state the criteria for judging the true religion. But I'm almost 100% sure that you will reject them if I proposed some criteria. So I asked you to enumerate what you think would be the criteria for deciding which one is the true religion. We will then examine those criteria, and agree that they're worthy to be used as yardstick for measuring the true religion. We will then proceed to determine which religion fits those criteria perfectly.

Because you only sound like "Oh I'm going to point out a possible fallacy here while also committing another fallacy by saying that the messages of an eternal god who wants us to know the truth could have been manipulated and distorted by humans."
Can you prove that it is fallacious to claim that the revelations and messages could have been manipulated?

By saying that you're assuming that God only communicates once and goes into hiding afterwards thereby leaving humans to be able to twist and misinterpret his messages.
But I did not imply that "God only communicated once and went into hiding". You're assuming it at best, and forcing it into my mouth at worst. To show how utterly wrong you are, the 66 books of the Bible alone, which were inspired by the Holy Spirit, were written over a space of about 1500 years or so. The book themselves also tell of God communicating to man since man was created. I wonder how that counts for "communicating once and going into hiding". God has continued to communicate with humans through holy men throughout history. But that in no way makes it impossible for fallen humans to distort the messages and revelations which God has given. Indeed that is what happened.

As a Christian that will be dishonest, because the average christian really believes that god still talks to us till today.
Yes. Through many means, but primarily His Word. God is talking to us and to all humanity through the Bible. And He will not hold guiltless those who having known refused to heed his warnings and entreaties in the Bible.


So if we have a dead man who is still able to communicate about how we actually died I don't see how his message can be twisted.
Well, what we have here is even better than the case of the dead man. God has been communicating to man over the span of time. Each new revelation agrees and is in harmony with the ones before. But never make the mistake of thinking that God will repeat what He has caused before to be recorded and preserved (in the Bible). They are there for our study.

But your analogy to compare God to a dead man actually looks on point. God has a lot of properties that are similar to that of a dead man who no longer exists and can't do anything.

But my analogy did not compare God to a dead man. My analogy drew parallels between the way stories (e.g. about how a man died, or about how any other thing came to be) have tendencies to be corrupted with time, and the tendency for fallen man to corrupt God's revelations. Think again.


I don't believe that there can be anything like a true religion because I don't accept that there's any God to have a religion for in the first place.
Then why are you asking after the true religion if you've already concluded that God does not exist? This is just like saying "I don't believe that God exists but show me the true way (religion) which leads to God."

Sort yourself out man.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (Reply)

Proof That Catholics Worship Mary / Good Friday: A Day Of Celebration Or Mourning / Atheists Should Work More, And Talk Less: We've Heard It All. (MUST READ!!!)

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 297
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.