[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
When i said circular logic makes more sense, I think i meant it seems more likely to me. [/quote]
As I understand it - no one is arguing against circular logic. As humans with a limited perspective, we’re pretty much stuck with that.
The thing is that you started with asking what anyone had to base their religious beliefs on. More or less making fun of faith itself because it didn’t have a basis in logic. But you had it backwards - it wouldn’t even make sense to have faith based on logic. It does make sense to have logic based on faith though.
So - what do you base your logic on, if not faith?
If I were to (lie and) tell you that I don’t believe in logic - and asked you to prove logic for me - what could you do?[/quote]
This is a fantastic post. Especially this:
I need to go back and read the dialog you and Tirib had around the time I left a few months back. It’s nice to have a Muslim on the board who is also a heavyweight philosopher. I like the balance we are starting to achieve recently. There were too damned many Catholics before. (^_^)V
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
this has gone for a few pages can i ask what the point of this thread is? There is no evidence or reasoning that supports the existence of the God you put forward. Catholics essentially have no basis for this rather grand and elaborate belief system [/quote]
Cereal?
I don’t think the limits of knowledge has to do with much at this point. Maybe I am confused, but I believe Epistemology is the science of knowing what we can know.
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
Logic, reasoning and scientific enquiry do not have anything to say on religon, other than it is not supported by any evidence to suggest it being real.[/quote]
What reasoning or evidence do you have to support your conclusions?
Catholics have as much basis as Protestants, Muslims, Mormons, scientists, atheists ,pastafarians or any other structure or foundation. If we stick to the original line of inquiry of this thread, the logic is irrefutable. We are either circularists or nihilists. After that starting point, all bets are off. But prior to that, any system that believes in a prime cause or unmoved mover has a right to its position. We cannot refute or confirm that belief or position.
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
When i said circular logic makes more sense, I think i meant it seems more likely to me. [/quote]
As I understand it - no one is arguing against circular logic. As humans with a limited perspective, we’re pretty much stuck with that.
The thing is that you started with asking what anyone had to base their religious beliefs on. More or less making fun of faith itself because it didn’t have a basis in logic. But you had it backwards - it wouldn’t even make sense to have faith based on logic. It does make sense to have logic based on faith though.
So - what do you base your logic on, if not faith?
If I were to (lie and) tell you that I don’t believe in logic - and asked you to prove logic for me - what could you do?[/quote]
Define faith.[/quote]
How about you define it for us. Every time someone defines something for you all we get is a dismissal telling us why our definition is wrong.
I gave mine already so I can ask, too.
Please, raj, define faith.
[/quote]
There isn’t one definition of faith that can encompass every way it is used. If we are talking about religious faith then it is belief in something without a good reason.
By the way I don’t think you or anyone else is an I’mbecile for having faith in a god. I do however think you either haven’t had the atheist position presented properly to you or you have a hang up in questioning your beliefs.
I mean I think if a god does exist he/she/it was responsible for the singularity and hasn’t intervened in our lives, at least not in any meaningful way. There are literally hundreds of habitable planets with a high probability of life in our galaxy alone. Why would be special in gods eyes when we are nothing but speck of dust in the universe?
Anything demonstrable. If you believe god intervenes in the physical world demonstrate that he does. If you think god answers prayers in a meaningful amount then demonstrate it.
Hebrews 11:1 (KJV) - “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” : “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”(NASB) : “Now faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not.” (DRB)
For those who take the bible seriously. Faith IS that. Trib’s extrapolation from the previous page:[quote]“Faith is the epistemological basis upon which we persist in living our lives in practical certainty (2+2=4 and all the vaaaast scientific implications that depend upon the fact that it does) despite the fact that IN OURSELVES we have utterly NO objectively certain reason to do so.”[/quote]
1st Epistle of the Apostle John 1:14 [quote]1-What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life? 2-and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us? 3-what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. 4-These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete.[/quote]
[quote]Tiribulus wrote: Hebrews 11:1 (KJV) - “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” : “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”(NASB) : “Now faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not.” (DRB)
For those who take the bible seriously. Faith IS that. Trib’s extrapolation from the previous page:[quote]“Faith is the epistemological basis upon which we persist in living our lives in practical certainty (2+2=4 and all the vaaaast scientific implications that depend upon the fact that it does) despite the fact that IN OURSELVES we have utterly NO objectively certain reason to do so.”[/quote]
[/quote]
And that is where you derail as far as any further discussion of epistemology goes, I’m afraid. It just becomes a proseletyzing platform for YOUR particular view of faith, what it entails, etc, etc. Even to the point where you lambaste and demonize supposedly ‘fellow’ Christians to such a degree that it’s frankly quite distasteful.Never mind room for any discussion with others on a philosophical level, which whether you like it or not , is still very possible (and enjoyable both to read and to participate in) with the Catholics and other religious people on this forum.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I mean I think if a god does exist he/she/it was responsible for the singularity and hasn’t intervened in our lives, at least not in any meaningful way. There are literally hundreds of habitable planets with a high probability of life in our galaxy alone. Why would be special in gods eyes when we are nothing but speck of dust in the universe?
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
When i said circular logic makes more sense, I think i meant it seems more likely to me. [/quote]
As I understand it - no one is arguing against circular logic. As humans with a limited perspective, we’re pretty much stuck with that.
The thing is that you started with asking what anyone had to base their religious beliefs on. More or less making fun of faith itself because it didn’t have a basis in logic. But you had it backwards - it wouldn’t even make sense to have faith based on logic. It does make sense to have logic based on faith though.
So - what do you base your logic on, if not faith?
If I were to (lie and) tell you that I don’t believe in logic - and asked you to prove logic for me - what could you do?[/quote]
Define faith.[/quote]
How about you define it for us. Every time someone defines something for you all we get is a dismissal telling us why our definition is wrong.
I gave mine already so I can ask, too.
Please, raj, define faith.
[/quote]
There isn’t one definition of faith that can encompass every way it is used. If we are talking about religious faith then it is belief in something without a good reason.
[/quote]
Right now we are talking about what can be known for certain. You, me, anybody. No, please define faith in this context.
[quote]
By the way I don’t think you or anyone else is an I’mbecile for having faith in a god. I do however think you either haven’t had the atheist position presented properly to you or you have a hang up in questioning your beliefs. [/quote]
And I often think you have a pretty confused view of the Christian position. So I guess that makes us even.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Trib’s posts do not bother me, I get enjoyment out of discussing and debating with people who hold completely opposing view points.
I do find it funny he offends more of his fellow Christians than any atheist however.[/quote]
They don’t bother me either,some of the wtf moments when reading them have been quite epic.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I mean I think if a god does exist he/she/it was responsible for the singularity and hasn’t intervened in our lives, at least not in any meaningful way. There are literally hundreds of habitable planets with a high probability of life in our galaxy alone. Why would be special in gods eyes when we are nothing but speck of dust in the universe?