Becoming the Right Person vs. Doing Right for Right Reasons

[Charles]

There you go again. As far as any other religion or cult goes worship what you like. But I gave you one of the reasons why I was a Christian and why I believe in God. But you will gainsay - it is in your nature.

Thank you for giving your reason. But I do not see much reason to it. But it is your nature to believe it. Fair enough.

[seer]

I am making you aware of the logical consequences of your statements. 1 is contradictory (it is not a fact if you need to have faith in it). 2 is not contradictory but contradicts the idea that we are dependent on faith in all cases. This is what follows from what you said, I do not agree with your initial statement that leads to either 1 or 2.

What? I asked you to prove that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality, without begging the question. You won't be able to - yet you have faith that reality is a fact. BTW - how are you defining faith?

[Charles]

What? I asked you to prove that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality, without begging the question. You won't be able to - yet you have faith that reality is a fact. BTW - how are you defining faith?

I am only pointing to what follows from your statement. I am not playing your "define this" or "prove that" game. I am not talking about what I believe but what follows from your original statement.

[Tassman]

No I'm stating a fact, that we all rely on "faith." That we all believe things that can not be "proven." Heck Charles, offer a non-arbitrary definition of evidence.

No YOU

[Tassman]

Of course you can know: "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the skies proclaim His handiwork." In other words a rational universe points to a rational Creator. And you would naturally intuit that fact except sin has clouded your cognitive faculties.

The heavens and skies are part of the natural universe, which is governed by the fixed laws and constants of nature. Why would you think that a supernatural explanation is the way to go. There nothing "rational" about an arbitrary deity who can capriciously intervene in in the natural universe, quite the reverse.

[seer]

Thank you for giving your reason. But I do not see much reason to it. But it is your nature to believe it. Fair enough.

No Charles, that is not it, this is not my first rodeo. There are any number of good, rational arguments for the existence of God, I linked one of my favorite authors below. But no reasons or reason will be sufficient for you. You will hand wave. You will not seriously take into consideration the possibility that sin has clouded your judgement on this issue. You implied that you were open to the possibility of a god, but definitely not "seer's God." But why not? Your disinclinations boil down to moral objections, yet you have no firm ethical foundations from where to voice that displeasure.

Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God

The Argument from Change
The Argument from Efficient Causality
The Argument from Time and Contingency
The Argument from Degrees of Perfection
The Design Argument
The Kalam Argument
The Argument from Contingency
The Argument from the World as an Interacting Whole
The Argument from Miracles
The Argument from Consciousness
The Argument from Truth
The Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God
The Ontological Argument
The Moral Argument
The Argument from Conscience
The Argument from Desire
The Argument from Aesthetic Experience
The Argument from Religious Experience
The Common Consent Argument
Pascal's Wager

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-mo...-existence.htm

[seer]

I am only pointing to what follows from your statement. I am not playing your "define this" or "prove that" game. I am not talking about what I believe but what follows from your original statement.

Yet you keep asking me to prove this and that! But your reasoning does not follow. Faith is defined as trust, confidence. You can have faith (trust) that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality without the ability to justify it logically or even empirically without question begging. Yet we have confidence that reality as we understand it is a fact.

[Charles]

Yet you keep asking me to prove this and that! But your reasoning does not follow. Faith is defined as trust, confidence. You can have faith (trust) that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality without the ability to justify it logically or even empirically without question begging. Yet we have confidence that reality as we understand it is a fact.

So you wanted to establish a fact that is dependent on faith?

[seer]

So you wanted to establish a fact that is dependent on faith?

Of course, it can be. Like your faith (or trust) that your mental states corresponds with reality.

[Charles]

Of course, it can be. Like your faith (or trust) that your mental states corresponds with reality.

But what you seem to claim, if I understand you correct, is that we do not really know if what goes on in our head corresponds to reality. And then you claim it is a fact that we need to have faith that what goes on in our head corresponds to reality. And then you claim that is a fact.

If you are right about the first part about reality, that is, we do not know if what goes on in our head corresponds to reality, then how can you establish any fact at all? And if you want to apeal to the need for faith, how can you say anything apart from "I need faith" in that what goes on in my head corresponds to reality. You don't know whether I or anyone else exist according to your initial claim, and, if you need to have faith in it, you still don't know. So how can you establish any fact about stuff about which it follows logically that you have no knowledge?

[seer]

But what you seem to claim, if I understand you correct, is that we do not really know if what goes on in our head corresponds to reality. And then you claim it is a fact that we need to have faith that what goes on in our head corresponds to reality. And then you claim that is a fact.

I'm not sure what you are saying. I'm saying that we have faith that what goes on in our mind corresponds to reality. That reality is a fact.

If you are right about the first part about reality, that is, we do not know if what goes on in our head corresponds to reality, then how can you establish any fact at all? And if you want to apeal to the need for faith, how can you say anything apart from "I need faith" in that what goes on in my head corresponds to reality. You don't know whether I or anyone else exist according to your initial claim, and, if you need to have faith in it, you still don't know. So how can you establish any fact about stuff about which it follows logically that you have no knowledge?

Yet, logically this is what we have to live with, and why solipsism is logically unassailable. But why do we need logical justification to know all facts? Yes, logic plays a roll, but first, to even start, we have to make unprovable assumptions

[Tassman]

No Charles, that is not it, this is not my first rodeo. There are any number of good, rational arguments for the existence of God, I linked one of my favorite authors below. But no reasons or reason will be sufficient for you. You will hand wave. You will not seriously take into consideration the possibility that sin has clouded your judgement on this issue. You implied that you were open to the possibility of a god, but definitely not "seer's God." But why not? Your disinclinations boil down to moral objections, yet you have no firm ethical foundations from where to voice that displeasure.

None of your long list of "arguments for god" can be tested and verified. They're all talk. Meaningless straws for the faithful to hang on to.

[Tassman]

Of course, it can be. Like your faith (or trust) that your mental states corresponds with reality.

[seer]

Tass, you don't understand the argument. And how does one test and verify God? Any ideas?

[seer]

None of your long list of "arguments for god" can be tested and verified. They're all talk. Meaningless straws for the faithful to hang on to.

No Tass, they are reasonable arguments. And again, how can God be tested and verified? You you have a particular experiment in mind?