God and the paradox of rational mind

[Bill3000]

I do not view faith as irrational. Faith comes after belief. Belief is what is on trial in this thread. You cannot have faith until you have belief. If you have belief, then faith is rational. As far as belief being rational, it depends on the person.

What? Faith is a property of a belief, not coming after belief. Yes, you cannot have faith until you have belief (Because faith is defined as belief without logic or reason), but that's irrelevant. Not all belief is rational. A belief can have logical fallacies and the like and still be a belief, just not a rational one. And belief being rational is not a propery of a person, but a property of the statement of belief itself.

What I said was that it is possible to derive rational consequences, using faith as premises. Faith would be the core beliefs of a religion. This is usually only done by the professionals, though.

As warpus said, he believes that people that have had direct revelations are something like borderline skitzo, misguided, and other such stuff. Anyone that believes without such a revelation is just a fool. So by his definition, I am going insane. Because I have had revelations. So you are damned if you do, damned if you don't to non-believers. There is no valid reason to believe in God because even if He makes a presence before you, well, your nuts.

Personal anecdotes are the worst indicator of whether a phenomenais real or not. What is needed is a scientific study to show if the phenomena is real. It's not a matter of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" - but a matter of extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence. It needs to be a repeatable and testable phenomena. Et cetera. As said before, the same skepticism is applied to people who have claimed to be aducted by UFOs and the like.

 

[King Flevance]

What? Faith is a property of a belief,

WHich means belief must come first.

not coming after belief. Yes, you cannot have faith until you have belief (Because faith is defined as belief without logic or reason) but not all belief is rational. A belief can have logical fallacies and the like and still be a belief, just not a rational one. And belief being rational is not a propery of a person, but a property of the statement of belief itself.

But rationality differs from person to person. Something can be rational to one person and not to another, thus rationality is entirely based upon the person. Or you can use averages within society's rationalities and claim something as ultimatley rational or not.

What I said was that it is possible to derive rational consequences, using faith as premises. Faith would be the core beliefs of a religion.

But I am not going off of what you said. Otherwise I would have faith in you for answers.

Personal anecdotes are the worst indicator of whether a phenomenais real or not. What is needed is a scientific study to show if the phenomena is real. It's not a matter of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" - but a matter of extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence.

This is you guys's department. I have all the proof I need. If you want to study it go for it. I used the damned if you do and damned if you don't to reflect the same attitude displayed towards christians by non-believers in society. I did not mean to sound like people should believe me because of what I have seen. I was just using it to display that right now people say I am crazy, and mobboss is a fool without directly saying it.

 

[StarWorms]

You know what? I have seen you post a lot and you do whatever you can to confuse the issue, to pretend that you don't understand, and simply be oppositional. When others you oppose say black, you say white. It seems like you do whatever you can to disagree with people on any issue when they disagree with you on any one issue, and all with this smug, smartass attitude. Anyone can BS their way into an argument. DON'T EVER RESPOND TO ANY OF MY POSTS AGAIN. I don't have time for your crap.

So it's ok for religious people to use the "god is all powerful, all knowing, all everything" argument and I'm not allowed to say anything against it? I speak my mind. I do not disagree with people for the sake of an argument. I should not be forced to believe what you believe. I am allowed to post my point of view. In life you have to learn to understand that other people have different points of view and opinions to your own. If you are christian then you believe god created everything. That means he is responsible for everything. My posts are there to make a point and so was that one.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Actually, if God created everything it does not automatically floow that He is responsible for everything - if free will truly exists. Then again, I don't think He "created" everything in the sense that most people understand the word.

 

[Bill3000]

WHich means belief must come first.

That's irrelevant to my point. Your argument went like this:

P1. Belief comes before faith.
P2. If you have belief, then faith is rational.
P3. The rationality of belief depends on the person.
C. Therefore, faith is rational.

It's an horribly weak argument. P2 and P3 being false nonwithstanding, P1 offers absolutely no support for P2 and P3. (Nor does P3 offer support for P3) Since P1 offers no support for the conclusion, it's pointless using it as a premise, and pointless talking about it.

As well, P3 offers incredibly weak support. A much better premise would be "Belief is rational", making your argument logically strong, but that belief is not necessarily rational, making your argument false if you did switch to this one anyway.

But rationality differs from person to person. Something can be rational to one person and not to another, thus rationality is entirely based upon the person. Or you can use averages within society's rationalities and claim something as ultimatley rational or not.

What? Rationality is not relative. Rationality exists outside of the mind of a human. What you are refering to "rationality" is a matter of a belief system, and the common fault of people thinking that rationality is inherintly superior, thus calling the person's beliefs rational to comfort him/her.

Beliefs can be considered relative, yes, but not rationality. There is no such thing as considering the scientific method to be irrational to one person. It's a matter of the claiment being incorrect because of a faulty argument. An argument's truth only depends on the premises it is based on, the tools of rationality used, and the actual truth or falsity of the premises.

As well, deductive reasoning is independent of the properties of the universe. Deductive reasoning simply explicitly states what is already implicitly known in the premises used. That's not a matter of relative rationality - that's a matter of absolute truth. Given the proper axioms used, 1 + 1 = 2 by definition.

And even in inductive reasoning, there still is the matter of consistency. While unlike deductive reasoning, there is no guarentee of truth, there still is the matter of practicality. A circular argument, for example, is still faulty logic, whether or not a person thinks that it is "rational." Appealing to Einstein as an authority for a religious belief is still a bad appeal to authority. An ad hominem attack is still a logical fallacy. A person may think that he can still use these irrational arguments, but that doesn't mean that irrational arguments are rational just because he thinks it is.

This is you guys's department. I have all the proof I need. If you want to study it go for it. I used the damned if you do and damned if you don't to reflect the same attitude displayed towards christians by non-believers in society. I did not mean to sound like people should believe me because of what I have seen. I was just using it to display that right now people say I am crazy, and mobboss is a fool without directly saying it.

*shrug* Your conclusions from your experience, whether you like it or not, is an irrational one. Skeptics just think that rationality is superior to irrationality. After all, without rationality you would not have the modern day world.

So it's ok for religious people to use the "god is all powerful, all knowing, all everything" argument and I'm not allowed to say anything against it? I speak my mind. I do not disagree with people for the sake of an argument. I should not be forced to believe what you believe. I am allowed to post my point of view.

That's useless in a theological debate. Saying that heaven doesn't exist, or that god is a myth, is irrelevant when discussing issues about who goes to heaven when debating Christain theology. It's leading to trolling.

In life you have to learn to understand that other people have different points of view and opinions to your own. If you are christian then you believe god created everything. That means he is responsible for everything. My posts are there to make a point and so was that one.

And my point is that you don't actually understand what the views of the other people are. It's annoying to theists, because quite simply, when debating about religious matters, you should be knowledgable about religion. Sure, religion as a whole has the entire relativism thing going, but not a certain umbrella of religious beliefs that is called a "religion". This is the extension of a more common principle: If you are going to debate about something, study the subject before you debate. Ignorance is the worst thing possible in any debate.

For example, you assume that god created everything just because you are a christian. That is a false premise, and if you were informed of the vast diversity of Christian beliefs, you would know better.

 

[El_Machinae]

As warpus said, he believes that people that have had direct revelations are something like borderline skitzo, misguided, and other such stuff. Anyone that believes without such a revelation is just a fool. So by his definition, I am going insane. Because I have had revelations. So you are damned if you do, damned if you don't to non-believers. There is no valid reason to believe in God because even if He makes a presence before you, well, your nuts.

So at this point you have to ask yourself what makes it ok to believe in the christian God? How can he prove himself if that means you think you are crazy? Or hide himself when that means he is abandoning you?

Well, the horse has already fled, is the problem. The problem with 'divine revelation' is that it can be coerced with a proper jolt of electricity. It's tough to deem an experience as significant if it can be mimicked with a conducting probe.

Why should I seek a condition that mimicks brain damage? That makes as much sense as taking mind-altering drugs. It might make you feel good; but people have a distaste for artificial stimulation; especially as a life-style.

Again, I'm not saying religious folk are crazy; it's just obvious to me that to become faithful, I would need something rather unwanted to happen to my brain. I have distaste for religious experience that then encourages people to hurt me, or others, of course.

 

[King Flevance]

That's irrelevant to my point. Your argument went like this:

P1. Belief comes before faith.
P2. If you have belief, then faith is rational.
P3. The rationality of belief depends on the person.
C. Therefore, faith is rational.

Yep. And it is right.

It's an horribly weak argument. P2 and P3 being false nonwithstanding, P1 offers absolutely no support for P2 and P3. (Nor does P3 offer support for P3) Since P1 offers no support for the conclusion, it's pointless using it as a premise, and pointless talking about it.

How is P2 and P3 notwithstanding again? You kinda blew right past that. P1 is me realizing I have to point it out to people. It isn't there to support anything. Lets use mom coming to pick us up again.
If you don't believe your mother exists you surely can't have faith that she will be there to pick you up. It is just a fact, you need belief in the source before you can have faith in it.

As well, P3 offers incredibly weak support. A much better premise would be "Belief is rational", making your argument logically strong, but that belief is not necessarily rational, making your argument false if you did switch to this one anyway.

P3 goes into just the christian belief. Because I just noticed you are pulling stuff up from my post to HannibalBarka. People love reading my replies to him/her for some reason. Anyways, my exact quote you're pulling from is:
"As far as belief being rational, it depends on the person."
This is believing there is a God even though you do not have proof. And trying to invite him into your life by opening you mind and turning to Him. Now rationally, there is no reason to do this (start believing) because you have no backing to support this move. Thus belief starts out as irrational.

What? Rationality is not relative. Rationality exists outside of the mind of a human. What you are refering to "rationality" is a matter of a belief system, and the common fault of people thinking that rationality is inherintly superior, thus calling the person's beliefs rational to comfort him/her.

Yes rationality is and this thread has proved it. I say I saw a sign from God. You call me insane. I see myself as rational, you do not because it is not rational to claim such things. There is relative rationality. Truth exists outside the human mind. Rationality is how the human mind deciphers truth. It is based on perspective.

Beliefs can be considered relative, yes, but not rationality. There is no such thing as considering the scientific method to be irrational to one person. It's a matter of the claiment being incorrect because of a faulty argument. An argument's truth only depends on the premises it is based on, the tools of rationality used, and the actual truth or falsity of the premises.

You are grouping rationality to encompass all of humanity. Whereas I am looking at rationality to the individual person. It works on both levels. Your way just claims me as wrong because I am not in the majority.

Rationality
1. the state or quality of being rational.
2. the possession of reason.
3. agreeableness to reason; reasonableness.
4. the exercise of reason.
5. a reasonable view, practice, etc.

The blue are the definitions of rationilty I am using. The black are yours.

As well, deductive reasoning is independent of the properties of the universe. Deductive reasoning simply explicitly states what is already implicitly known in the premises used. That's not a matter of relative rationality - that's a matter of absolute truth. Given the proper axioms used, 1 + 1 = 2 by definition.

And even in inductive reasoning, there still is the matter of consistency. While unlike deductive reasoning, there is no guarentee of truth, there still is the matter of practicality. A circular argument, for example, is still faulty logic, whether or not a person thinks that it is "rational." Appealing to Einstein as an authority for a religious belief is still a bad appeal to authority. An ad hominem attack is still a logical fallacy. A person may think that he can still use these irrational arguments, but that doesn't mean that irrational arguments are rational just because he thinks it is.

That is nice and all, but I fail to see how it pertains to the subject. I know on the last part your saying I am using a circular arguement but so is everyone in this thread. Heck, that started when someone tried to describe the view of God without being God.

 

[Bill3000]

If you don't believe your mother exists you surely can't have faith that she will be there to pick you up. It is just a fact, you need belief in the source before you can have faith in it.

Except I defined faith to be: "a belief, trust, or confidence not based on logic or reason."

If you believe your mother exists, you can back it up with empirical evidence. You could have seen her before. You could have known her to pick you up in the past. You could look at your birth certificate and various govenrment information relating to your parents. The "faith" in your mother picking you up is a matter of trust based on empirical evidene and inductive reasoning backing up the trust. Therefore, it's not faith as defined by me in my argument, as well as the most reasonable interpretation of the term "faith" when applying it to rigorous religious matters when talking about the rationality of religion.

You replied to my argument - you said that faith is not irrational. But I said by definition it is, in the strict case that is being used, the most appropriate definition for religious purposes. Thus you must apply by my definition, since you are using a counterargument. Understand your opponent before you try to counterattack.

How is P2 and P3 notwithstanding again? You kinda blew right past that

P3 was debunked later in that post. P2, oops. I forgot to talk about that.

"If you have belief, then faith is rational."

This is false simply because, other than faith being irrational by definition, it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense because quite simply, a belief that is based on faith comes before other beliefs that are based on the beliefs. As I said earlier, faith is a status that a belief has. It would be the core premsies of a belief system. The rest of the belief system would come from either rational premises or derived from the belief-that-has-the-property-of-faith. You may indeed make a logically consistent belief system from the premsies given, but that doesn't mean that it is rational to belief in the core premises. (faith)

This is believing there is a God even though you do not have proof. And trying to invite him into your life by opening you mind and turning to Him. Now rationally, there is no reason to do this (start believing) because you have no backing to support this move. Thus belief starts out as irrational.

Right. That is irrational. When do you think it becomes rational, using the proper definition of "rational", not meaning "reasonable" or "optimal", but "having a high probability of being logically valid"?

Yes rationality is and this thread has proved it. I say I saw a sign from God. You call me insane. I see myself as rational, you do not because it is not rational to claim such things. There is relative rationality. Truth exists outside the human mind. Rationality is how the human mind deciphers truth. It is based on perspective.

First of all, I didn't call you insane. Someone else did. I just said that it was irrational. More importantly, how does this thread prove that rationality is relevant? You claimed that rationality is reletive, and you used as proof that you believe that you are rational when you are being irrational? What? You have no evidence supporting your claim that you are being rational.

It's possible for a schitzophrenic to claim that he isn't schizophrenic. That doesn't mean that he isn't, indeed, schizophrenic, due to the evidence that is available to give a proper diagnosis. As well, just because someone claims that the cup he sees to be red, doesn't mean that the cup is not actually blue, which you could obtain through empirical evidence outside of the eyes, like for example, wavelength. It's in these cases where there is a matter of definition. The color of blue is defined to be light that has certain properties - red to be different. It's not a matter of relativism.

You are grouping rationality to encompass all of humanity. Whereas I am looking at rationality to the individual person. It works on both levels. Your way just claims me as wrong because I am not in the majority.

No, I'm not. First of all, I said that rationality is independent of humanity. Yes, individual humans can be rational, because they are individual and are capable of rational thought.

The blue are the definitions of rationilty I am using. The black are yours.

You are commiting the fallacy of equivication here. When talking about matters of logic and rationality, you use definitions that pertain to them! You don't say "That's logical" just because it sounds "reasonable", nor would you say something similar to rationality. It may be "reasonable" for someone to believe in god because he says it is, but that doesn't make it rational.

That is nice and all, but I fail to see how it pertains to the subject. I know on the last part your saying I am using a circular arguement but so is everyone in this thread. Heck, that started when someone tried to describe the view of God without being God.

I did not say that you used a ciricular argument. I was giving that as an example that a failure of logic is still a failure of logic, whether or not someone who is uninformed in logic thinks differently. You missed the entire context of those paragraphs: That rationality is independent of humanity.

 

[warpus]

As warpus said, he believes that people that have had direct revelations are something like borderline skitzo, misguided, and other such stuff.

Yeah, and that's why a lot of them are in 'special' hospitals seeking treatment.

Anyone that believes without such a revelation is just a fool.

No, they just have faith.

Faith - Belief that is not based on proof.

So by his definition, I am going insane. Because I have had revelations.

Maybe you are. No offense, though, schizophrenia is a very real problem and touches a lot of people. How real was this revelation though? Was it "in your face" type stuff? Cuz if not, it could have just been your mind playing tricks on you.

People witness all sorts of stuff that isn't real. Your mind is a very powerful organ, it can play tricks on you.

So you are damned if you do, damned if you don't to non-believers. There is no valid reason to believe in God because even if He makes a presence before you, well, your nuts.

Not really. Most people who believe have faith that God exists, and don't claim to have any sort of direct evidence. That's what faith is supposed to be all about. It's the sort of faith I had when I was a kid.

If you're really seeing magical stuff happening from time to time, yes, you might very well be insane.

Yes rationality is and this thread has proved it. I say I saw a sign from God. You call me insane. I see myself as rational, you do not because it is not rational to claim such things. There is relative rationality. Truth exists outside the human mind. Rationality is how the human mind deciphers truth. It is based on perspective.

How do you know this was a sign from God? We can analyze your experience and determine whether your conclusion was rational or not.

 

[Bluemofia]

Are we talking about Theravada Bhuddism or what? Be specific. If we are talking about the religious brand, then why not? Why does it have to be that one dogma or another is right? Why can't it be that we are all interpreting the presence of God in our own way or that God has communicated himself to his people in different ways, according to that which suits that particular group best?

So what you are saying, is that the commandment that tells you not to worship false gods is wrong? If someone interprets Buddhism to be the correct one, they are exempt from that commandment?

And Buddhism has reincarnation beliefs, and the Christian one does not. So... Which one is right? The reincarnation afterlife, or the Heaven and Hell afterlife?

And would you say the same for any extremist religions? That they practice it some way, and they get into Heaven/not reincarnated badly?

Or to answer on interpretations, what makes you so certain that Christianity is the right one? What about the interpretations of the Ancient Greeks? Or the God of Gaps arguments?

 

[Greek Stud]

Logic is not evidence and facts. One of the first philosophers Zeno of Elea (Greek philosopher) proved this using the paradigm of a philosophical puzzle. In his paradox he wrote of Achilles and the Tortoise, an impeccably logical argument that leads to a false conclusion. So can this be true of what we find to be truth in science; is science a false conclusion to truth? If you cannot question the principles of science as we know it, then you are not a strong enough thinker to go into the realm of imaginary numbers and illusional truths. For it is the imagination that leads to discovery not things we already know.

Two thousand years after Empedocles (Greek philosopher) first formulated the idea that the world of the four elements of earth, water, air, and fire the notion still persisted. Empedocles states, "Each man believes only his experience."

 

[sirtommygunn]

people can believe in something and still have rational thoughts and STOP THESE GAY GOD DOESENT EXHIST THREADS LEAVE PEOPLE TO THEIR OWN RELIGEON!!!!!!!!

Moderator Action: Warned for trolling. - The Yankee
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

What, and miss out on all the fun?

 

[Greek Stud]

Religious thought is a logical argument and it is rational as well.

 

[warpus]

Logic is not evidence and facts. One of the first philosophers Zeno of Elea (Greek philosopher) proved this using the paradigm of a philosophical puzzle. In his paradox he wrote of Achilles and the Tortoise, an impeccably logical argument that leads to a false conclusion.

Then obviously one of the premises he used was false or one of the axioms he used to arrive at the conclusion was false.

One of the things I excelled at @ University was logic theory, so I couldn't let this slide

EDIT: Bill3000 found the flawed premise

 

[Bill3000]

Logic is not evidence and facts. One of the first philosophers Zeno of Elea (Greek philosopher) proved this using the paradigm of a philosophical puzzle. In his paradox he wrote of Achilles and the Tortoise, an impeccably logical argument that leads to a false conclusion.

Not exactly. Zeno's paradoxes made a logical error by assuming that it is impossible for an infinite series to have a finite sum - this is in fact possible. (The particular series used for the paradoxes are geometric series.) The conclusion was false because his premise was false. And while deductive reasoning is not evidence and facts, inductive reasoning can be.

So can this be true of what we find to be truth in science; is science a false conclusion to truth? If you cannot question the principles of science as we know it, then you are not a strong enough thinker to go into the realm of imaginary numbers and illusional truths. For it is the imagination that leads to discovery not things we already know.

Questioning science itself? There's no need. It's worked for us, and when we've gone wrong, we've corrected ouselves. And imaginary numbers are completely good numbers, by the way, far more solid in foundation than empirical science. The natural sciences are based on a consistent form of reasoning that has worked for us because it is so flexible. If we are wrong on one thing, it's possible to get back on track using the scientific method. Being wrong with, say, classical physics being the Truth (tm) doesn't mean that we should abandon science. It means that we didn't have all the details, and we correct the theory.

Even if the scientific method was faulty, all it means is that we would have to correct it, not abandon it. But it's highly doubtful that the method is faulty, given that it has worked so well when it has been used correctly.

Two thousand years after Empedocles (Greek philosopher) first formulated the idea that the world of the four elements of earth, water, air, and fire the notion still persisted. Empedocles states, "Each man believes only his experience."

In those two thousand years, the scientific method had not been developed yet.

Religious thought is a logical argument and it is rational as well.

Yes, theology is rational, because it has premises. The validity of those premises, however, cannot be proven true, because those premises are based on faith. As well, this says nothing about the individual, which need not find out his or her theological beliefs as a result of reasoning, but instead through dogma.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Then obviously one of the premises he used was false or one of the axioms he used to arrive at the conclusion was false.

No, his conclusion was only half complete is all. Or something like that.

 

[Greek Stud]

The premise of religion extends into the 4th dimension. I would not conclude that all those who believe in the 4th dimension do it out of faith but out of reason. We exist in time and space, our thought leads us towards perfection out of time and space. Religion is our guidance to discover that realm.

 

[GenMarshall]

The premise of religion extends into the 4th dimension. I would not conclude that all those who believe in the 4th dimension do it out of faith but out of reason. We exist in time and space, our thought leads us towards perfection out of time and space. Religion is our guidance to discover that realm.

Wait, I thought the 4th demension was time?

 

[Bill3000]

The premise of religion extends into the 4th dimension. I would not conclude that all those who believe in the 4th dimension do it out of faith but out of reason. We exist in time and space, our thought leads us towards perfection out of time and space. Religion is our guidance to discover that realm.

What does the existence of time have to do with faith at all?