God Is Dead

i don't know which god you are talking about, but the god i know loves it that i believe in fairy tales and happiness...even if it all is in my head!

 

"'The reason for having no belief, is that faith is not reasonable.'

This pretty much sums it up."

Could you please demonstrate (either deductively or inductively) how faith is contrary to reason and logic? It is true that faith does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, but it also cannot contradict it either.

For example, I am married. Now, you can believe that to be true or you can believe it to be false or you can withhold judgement until you get more evidence. If you believe in spite of lacking any logical (save maybe some weak inductive argument) or empirical proof are you being irrational? Of course not. Now, if I say that I have been married for 50 years and you know that I am only 25, then to believe me would be irrational. It runs directly contrary to logic and experience.

Having faith is not at all irrational, unreasonable, or illogical. If you are going to make such a strong statement, you will need to back it up. Faith may extend beyond reason, but you cannot dismiss faith for that reason alone. You may be 99% sure that your car will start today, but when you turn the key without even considering the idea that your car will not start, you are having faith. It cannot be deductively or empirically proven, but still you go to start your car without the slightest hesitation. You believe that the car will start because you do have experience that it has started in the past and no reason to think that it won't start today. Unfortunately, your past experience cannot prove that it will start today and inductive arguments can only show that it is possible (maybe even likely) that the car will start. However, it takes faith that extends beyond logic and empiricism to get in your car and *expect* it to start. But still people do this every day. Faith is a part of life. We could not survive without it.

Again, to sum up, faith may extend beyond reason, but it should not contradict it. Only when faith contradicts reason is it irrational or "not reasonable."

Also, you said that the reason for having "no belief" is that faith is unreasonable. You seem to be holding fast to the idea that "lacking belief" is a logically and intellectually defensible position. It is not. In fact, it is no position at all. So, what position do you take? There is a God. Do you agree, disagree, or do you withhold your opinion until there is more evidence?

 

all is well, but ya say all this,.. god is not real,,, jesus is not the son of god..,, like as if it were FACT. the truth is,,. you DONT KNOW. you cant possibly know! ya can think. by you saying...there is no god, is just as plausible as me saying, there definatly IS a god. we're both just saying wat we think. but neither of us KNOW. so my moral is.. by you judging others, and implying all this stuff, that aint actually fact.. your just as bad as all this religious folk that ya diss so much..

personally, i believe in a God.

and i do believe Jesus existed, just like Plato, Socretes, The Dali Lama, and millions o other peops!

and i believe, that poor Jesus was tortured and fucking killed for something he believed in, and all he preached was love. which is terrible. Jesus can be the son of God , if he wants to be.

 

I dont remember judging anyone... i think people are just trying to defend their faith in an atheist forum...i never said i thought jesus wasnt real... there probably was a guy called jesus that was loved by ppl an tought love and was killed... but i dont think he is the son of god... thats all i said

I only go by what I perceive in life... and as of now, there is not a spec of evidence that I have seen in my life, that would point toward a god.... or anything higher than me... and thats wh y i believe in what i believe...

Im not trying to convert you.

 

If an article of faith is rationally demonstrated, it becomes an article of faith no longer.

Reason and faith cannot co-exist in the same individual at the same time with respect to the same object of knowledge. The presence of rational demonstration negates the possibility of faith. Because non-rational demonstration is the cornerstone of faith, we conclude that reason and faith are irreconcilable.

The existence of faith as a means of acquiring knowledge, relies on the limits of reason. As the sphere of reason expands, the boundaries of faith diminish. Here we see the critical role of the 'unknowable' in perpetuating faith. Faith depends for its survival, on the unknowable and incomprehensible. Faith cannot live in a natural, knowable universe.

Premise for analogy: I know you exist (in some form or another).

Topic of discussion: lack of knowledge concerning the existence or non-existence of god.

If an article of faith is demonstrated to be rational, reasonable, or logical; it is no longer an article of faith. The inverse also becomes true.

The type of faith presented with the car analogy, is in the laws of physics and mechanical components that operate on these laws. We know that everything needed to start that car exists.

We do not know that god exists. Knowledge of the existence of god is the entire dilemma, and you have presupposed this in formulating your analogy for faith.


The term ‘faith’ we are using in the context of this discussion refers to a supposedly reliable method of acquiring knowledge. Any other notion of faith is irrelevant with regard to the existence of god.

I disagree.

Think of the colors black and white. These colors are opposites, completely different, or contrary to one another. Now imagine the color blue in relation to black. Blue is not the opposite of (or contrary to) black, but it certainly is not black.

Faith does not contradict rationality (because they cannot co-exist in the same individual at the same time with respect to the same object of knowledge), but it does not follow that faith is rational anymore than blue not contradicting black makes it black. Remember the expanding sphere of reason.

As stated above, the existence of faith as a means of acquiring knowledge relies on the limits of reason. As the sphere of reason expands, the boundaries of faith diminish. Here we see the critical role of the 'unknowable' in perpetuating faith. Faith depends for its survival, on the unknowable and incomprehensible. Faith cannot live in a natural, knowable universe.

Lacking belief is a logically and intellectually defensible position on a subject for which there is not enough evidence to draw a conclusion except with faith. As it is, this is that subject. The position is that which exists apart from the position of faith.

In any case, I assumed it was implied that lacking belief is the same as withholding opinion until there is more evidence.

To believe in the existence or non-existence of god, one would have to commit their consciousness to beliefs for which one has no sensory evidence or rational proof. This I simply cannot do.

 

But doesn't that contradict human experience? Hume showed that no matter how many times something was demonstrated you could never empirically prove that something will happen again. However, you could know that something is probable. I can have reason to believe that it is probably going to rain today. There is an 95% chance. That means that I have very strong inductive proof that it is going to rain. However, if I believe that it will rain, I have neither deductively or empirically proven that it is going to rain. You talk as though all there is to logic is deductive proofs and all there is to the world is empirical information. Neither is true. One can make strong inductive arguments which show things to be probable, but to accept the probability, to go ahead and expect that which is probable, requires faith which exists with reason at the same time regarding the same subject. So I guess my question to you is "What constitutes "rational demonstration"?"

I disagree with parts of that statement. Faith depends for its survival on the unknown, not the unknowable and definitely not the incomprehensible. I do not need to have faith that a square circle exists. I know it does not. I would agree that faith cannot live in a known universe, but just making it knowable does not rule out faith. For example, I can believe that Timbuktoo exists even without any empirical evidence or deductive proof. It is definitely a knowable fact, but I still have only inductive reasoning to back up my believing. Once I have a strong deductive argument or (more likely) empirical evidence, only then does faith go away. Faith exists in varying degrees until the facts are known, but just because the universe is knowable doesn't mean that faith has no place in it.

Again, you seem to deny that abstract reasoning and inductive reasoning are aspects of logic. This is simply not true. If I can show that something is very likely through inductive reasoning then it is rational and reasonable to accept that it is true. If you deny that it is true, you must be able to show why you accept the unlikely. Note that just because the unlikely is possible does not stand as evidence for its truth. You must have other evidence or be able to show an error in my inductive reasoning.

No, you don't. You have no reason to expect it to be otherwise, but it is entirely possible that someone stole your distributor cap while you were asleep or your spark plugs (this actually happens too). Perhaps an animal got into your engine and pulled some wires loose or broke them. Perhaps someone tapped your gas tank and your vehicle has no fuel. These are all things that you do not know and yet you just expect them to be there. You expect that nothing has changed while you slept.

The previous poster said that "faith is not reasonable." The analogy showed that faith is reasonable and that you can use reason to support faith. The analogy regarded the nature of faith and was not analagous to the existence of God.

No wonder you see it as nonsense that people say "I know God exists because I have faith." Faith is not a method of aquiring knowledge. I don't know any scholars who hold this to be true. You have said that there is only notion of faith that is relevant with regard to God's existence and then you promptly dismiss it as not being a reliable source for gathering knowledge. So your position is that only things reliable for gathering knowledge are relevant with regard to God's existence? I am assuming that you mean that they are relevant with regard to discussions concerning evidence for or against the existence of God.

A good observation. Allow me to clarify. When I say that faith is rational, I mean that faith can be supported by reason and evidence. Faith alone should not be used as evidence in when rational or empirical evidence is needed, but there should always rational or empirical evidence to support faith. As our confidence level grows regarding a certain subject, the necessary faith diminishes (though it will never be extinguished as there will most likely always be things that are unknown in the universe).

And we come to the big question. What would you consider as reliable evidence? I leave the answer to you (though please do not make unreasonable demands of Science by demanding empirical "scientific" evidence for something that is entirely non-empirical).

Also, by what reasoning do you draw the conclusion that there is not enough evidence? Refuting evidences for God’s existence does not prove atheism true anymore than refuting an eyewitness testimony of a marriage denies the reality of the marriage. Since atheism cannot be proven (you cannot prove a negative) and since disproving evidences for God does not prove there is no God, you have a position that is intellectually indefensible. At best, you can only say that there are no convincing evidences for God so far presented. You cannot say there are absolutely no evidences for God because you cannot know all evidences that possibly exist in the world (or universe). At best, you can only say that the evidence so far presented has been insufficient. This logically means that there could be evidences presented in the future that will suffice. You must acknowledge that there may indeed be a proof that has so far been undiscovered and that the existence of God is possible. This would make you more of an agnostic since at best you can only be skeptical of God’s existence.

If it is implied that lacking knowledge is the same as witholding judgement, it is the first time that I have heard someone claim it. The reason is this:
To suspend belief on a subject is to hold off judgment until more information is acquired. This is agnosticism, not atheism. It is an admission that not all information is acquired thus logically requiring the possibility of the existence of the thing being considered. This is something atheists do not do by definition, but agnostics do. Agnosticism is the position, in part, that "suspension of belief" is maintained until further information is acquired. You admit that it is possible that God exists and that it is possible that God does not exist and you are abstaining from choosing due to a lack of knowledge. That is straight up agnosticism, not atheism.

Before I answer this, I would like you to tell me what you would accept as proof? Would you accept a rational proof?

 

I am Christian and i wanna set some things straight.
1. There is a God
2. I have felt this God and i know someone who was healed from terminal disease by prayer and prayer alone
3. I have the authority to say this as i used to be an aethiest and then realised i was sooooooo wrong
4. There is NO logic or reason to believe apart from reading the Bible and my personal experiences...but HEllo?! it's called FAITH you norberts! thasts the point...you embrace the unknown and what you do know about God. ALthough he is the living God and is evident in my life.

God Bless.xxxxx

 

1. There is a God

Agreed.

2. I have felt this God and i know someone who was healed from terminal disease by prayer and prayer alone

I believe that you believe that they were healed by prayer alone. Whether miraculous healing still occurs could be vigorously debated as an in-house debate. You will need to give more details in order for your story to be given any weight as an evidence for God.

3. I have the authority to say this as i used to be an aethiest and then realised i was sooooooo wrong

Good for you! Few atheists I have met have been so open minded. Still, I am not sure that gives you the authority you claim, but it does seem to give weight to your position. However, if we turn it around and say that I was a Christian and then I realized I was sooooo wrong... well... I am not sure that I want simply switching sides to be the grounds for authority. Still, I am glad that you have finally understood.

4. There is NO logic or reason to believe apart from reading the Bible and my personal experiences...but HEllo?! it's called FAITH you norberts! thasts the point...you embrace the unknown and what you do know about God. ALthough he is the living God and is evident in my life.

Here I must disagree. Granted, that is what the topic seems to have turned to, but God is the God of logic and reason too. It seems unlikely that he would make himself knowable through all other means (experience, observation, etc.) and yet hide himself from reason and logic. No, my brother, logic and reason play a definite role in understanding God and strengthening our faith. That is what apologetics is all about.

 

thats quite right...i was rather hasty in my post i feel......

 

Of course, it all comes down to Godel's law. Ya can't know about a system in it's entirety until you are completely removed from that system. We won't know even a miniscule part of the universe, until we are wholey removed from the universe, which is impossible.

 

Excuse the length of time it took for my reply. I am finishing up high school at the moment
------------------

-I will restate my claim.
'The reason for having no belief, is that faith is not reasonable.’

This claim is very simple. Faith is not reasonable. Faith is not governed by reason. Faith alone is not capable of warranting acceptance according to the epistemological standards of human knowledge.

You may argue that reasoning can be applied to a belief that already exists upon faith, or that faith can contribute to the assurance of an already rational belief; but these things do not warrant the title of 'reasonable' for faith.

(Note the inverse- Reasoning cannot be applied to all articles of faith, and, faith needn't contribute assurance to all (any?) rational beliefs.)

If evidence brings us to believe that there is a 95% chance it will rain today, then the belief that it is going to rain today has been justified. It is a rational belief.

To rationally demonstrate or justify a belief is not synonymous with claiming certainty for that belief. Depending on various factors, such as nature and the amount of available evidence, a belief may be categorized as probable to some degree. Reason demands that the degree of certitude assigned to a belief must be in accordance with the available evidence. Reason does not demand that every bit of human knowledge must be accepted as certain or closed to further investigation.

Ultimately, faith depends for it’s survival on the unknowable and incomprehensible.

You seem to suggest that in order for a belief to be 'rational', 100% assurance of it must exist, and if it does not, that faith must be involved. This is not true. If there is enough evidence to show that the existence of Timbuktoo is a knowable fact, then faith is not needed to accept that Timbuktoo exists.

I do not feel that your analogies demonstrate the nature of faith. I think you have done more to demonstrate the nature of rational beliefs, with your analogies of a 95% chance of rain and a car starting.

In order to demonstrate the nature of FAITH, trying working with a scenario that is not already a rational belief. How about the existence of god?

A religious man wishes to claim as knowledge, beliefs that have not been (and often cannot be) rationally demonstrated, so he posits faith as an alternative method of acquiring knowledge. Faith permits the religious man to claim the status of truth for a belief even though it cannot meet the rational test of truth. When a religion claims the ‘truth’, faith as a means of acquiring knowledge has been employed.

To rationally demonstrate a belief is to show that it warrants acceptance according to the epistemological standards of human knowledge. Knowledge applies to rationality. If a man is to acquire knowledge, he must have a may of distinguishing truth from falsity, beliefs which correspond to reality from beliefs which do not. To qualify as knowledge, a belief must be justified; it must warrant acceptance by rational standards. A belief not meeting these standards, that is adopted nonetheless, is an irrational belief.

Your idea of what ‘rational’ is, seems to be a bit skewed.

If a belief is supported by a probable amount of reason and evidence, then this belief is not of faith. It is a rational belief. Where rationality ends, faith begins. Saying faith is rational is indeed like saying ‘blue is black’.
An article of faith can have reason applied to it or some small bit of evidence found for it, but this does not make faith rational.

Your last sentence reads as if it is a rule that all subjects of faith ultimately become rational beliefs. Because this is not a rule, stating that the nature of faith is reasonable or rational does not make sense.

Sensory evidence.

I have acknowledge this with my statement ‘Lacking belief is a logically and intellectually defensible position on a subject for which there is not enough evidence to draw a conclusion except with faith. As it is, this is that subject.’

The literal definition of ‘atheism’, as held by many self-proclaimed atheists, is ‘Without belief in god’. A- without. Theism- belief in god.

 

MotherNaturesSon

Really well thought out...
Occam will start his comments on this thread with your post.


"-I will restate my claim.
'The reason for having no belief, is that faith is not reasonable.’
This claim is very simple. Faith is not reasonable. Faith is not governed by reason. Faith alone is not capable of warranting acceptance according to the epistemological standards of human knowledge. "

Very true...
Occam would state that the nature of All arguements on this topic are
epistemological..
Rational process demands certain standards.
A thing cannot be a fact without a standard.
Reason demands standard => A [set by rational/methodological epistemology]
Religion seems to offer NO standard..
ANYTHING can be a 'fact' according to the standards of religion.
OCCAM WILL NOT accept such stupid, loose and sloppy standards in his thinking..
Are we fools?
To believe anything we wish to believe?
---------
from Alsharad
"One can make strong inductive arguments which show things to be probable, but to accept the probability, to go ahead and expect that which is probable, requires faith which exists with reason at the same time regarding the same subject. So I guess my question to you is "What constitutes "rational demonstration"?"

One bases ones actions on what reason and probabillity says is probable.
[and the killer..logic]
Reality WORKS BY LOGIC. as we have observed it.
If it 'does not in fact rain today' as probabillity says it may [95%]
Then so what?
If we are rational we have taken this into account...
Logic is POWERFULL
Common sense is more so.
Common sense says that what is probable is not fact...
only probable.
it is LOGIC AND REASON AND PROBABILLITY AND PRECEDENT all in one.

Occam requires NO FAITH in the understanding that there is a 95% probabillity that it will rain today.
Faith. IS belief in a thing with NO method.
Faith is believing it WILL rain today...
No rational being will say such without prescience.
Occam will never say it will rain tomorrow
Occam will NEVER SAY that there will be even an existent sun to shine on us tomorrow.
Such a belief is an act of faith.
Faith is a pointless waste of time.
A thing either IS or IS NOT...
Our believing it is or is not will not change it's status.
Understanding is defining what is probable. What is accurate to reality.
Wisdom is knowing what to do about it.
Faith is used by neither.

MotherNaturesSon
"If evidncence brings us to believe that there is a 95% chance it will rain today, then the belief that it is going to rain today has been justified. It is a rational belief. "

Will it rain today.. That is indeterminate. That is probabillity
It may well rain today...
It is likely to rain today...
NONE can say it will rain today..or not.
---------
from Alsharad
"Faith exists in varying degrees until the facts are known, but just because the universe is knowable doesn't mean that faith has no place in it."

Very astute.
BUT
YOU CALL INSUFFICIENT DATA
'Faith'
WHY is it required to believe a thing is fact without sufficient data?

Occam has never worked this out.
Why is it required that we MUST know if a thing is or is not.
Why is 'insufficient data' not acceptable to any rational being?
It is the inabillity of many humans to accept that human understanding of just about everything is inderterminate at this time.
That has resulted in the word called faith.

IE:Hydrogen wepons exist.
Occam has never seen one.
Does he have faith they exist? No
Then how does he know they exist.
because if they did not.
A huge chunk of related understanding is rendered false. Thus rendering the bulk of human understanding contradictory.
That related understanding and the total lack of contradiction of their existence shifts the existence of hydrogen weapons into
the 99.9% range of probabillity.

Now, if the christian god as described by the bible actually did not exist.
What existent related understanding would be rendered contradictory?

None

And thus faith is born

---------
MotherNaturesSon
"Ultimately, faith depends for it’s survival on the unknowable and incomprehensible."

Occam does not take such an impersonal line...
We are all us.

"Faith is the belief that something is true because one wants it to be true.
It is the antithesis of rational method. It is ego..
It's survival is dependent only on the emotive attachment by human beings of the label FACT, to that which cannot be shown by humans as fact."

------
Yousay
"To rationally demonstrate a belief is to show that it warrants acceptance according to the epistemological standards of human knowledge. Knowledge applies to rationality. If a man is to acquire knowledge, he must have a may of distinguishing truth from falsity, beliefs which correspond to reality from beliefs which do not. To qualify as knowledge, a belief must be justified; it must warrant acceptance by rational standards. A belief not meeting these standards, that is adopted nonetheless, is an irrational belief."

And occam agrees..
Faith is the 'irrational adoption of a proposition as FACT'
It is irational because it adopts based on no standard or rational method.
One must have a rational method that works..
otherwise. One believes a thing based on what......
generally...from experience.
Occam thinks most humans believewhat they believe not through rational method .
But experience first. [forced by reality]
Acceptance second [others believe so i better]
BUT MOSTLY desire.

Many humans occam knows believed the TV show that the moon landings were fake.
When occam asked what understanding they had of space flight, NASA, the moon, newtonian motion, the sytems of tracking and controlling space flight.
the empirical evidence for the landing of apollo 11 exct ext..
They knew ZERO.
How can one decide if man landed on the moon.
IF they do not know where and what the moon is.
What a saturn5 is. or a LEM is or a command module.
What NASA means.
What an 'orbit' means. What orbital velocity is and how we get it.
How far the moon is from earth.
Infact ANYTHING related to leaving the planet and how to do it..

And THEN occam asked " so were the other apollo landings fake?
and the answer has always been so far what other landings.....?

Desire to believe a thing did not happen cause to parrot the
TV show makes them seem knowledgable on the subject..
And controversial
And the reverse is also true. Desire to believe.
egoegoegoegoegoego

[for the contentious.occam SAW the LEM/commandmodule orbiting the moon through an 8 inch relector in 1969]
------
By alsharad
"When I say that faith is rational, I mean that faith can be supported by reason and evidence."

Really?
How?

There is a high probabillity that there will be a tomorrow for humanity.
[the sun wont explode]
But it still may.
Thus faith that it will not is irrational.

It either will or it wont.
Just as it will either rain or not.
you try to confuse faith into the lexicon of reason.
When it literally means belief without evidence.
A non-rational state, an emotional one

Thus the church calls its followers the faithfull.
For it well knows what faith is.

A method to understanding has replaced faith.
It has now begun to really look at the question of higher direction
Without holy books and holy men
but withonly reason, curiousity and method.
Religion itself is now turning to science.
For as our rational method begins to really SEE reallity.
It sees evidence of direction.

But so far..,That is all.

No white bearded gods. no messiahs on earth, no etherial hindu dieties.
Nothing.
THEY are 'human words'
And none so far have shown them to be anything more.

Very much like finding out that santa is a story...

Occam

 

When we say there is no God, from somewhere somebody drops in saying we are all God. So difficult it is to get rid of this God-word!

Love..........Kumar.

 

The error in your thinking is that something must be governed by reason in order to be reasonable or rational. Something is rational if it is governed by *or* is in accordance with reasoning or sound thinking. If faith is in accordance with or conforms to a rational thought process then it *is* reasonable. Faith (or anything for that matter) is irrational only if it contradicts logic and reasoning (meaning that the nature of faith is such that it violates the law of the excluded middle or the law of non-contradiction). Now one might say that faith is "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence" so faith is by definition *not* logical. This is a narrow definition of faith. It is what I call Blind Faith. There are other definitions of faith though. Other definitions of faith that can and do rest on logic and reasoning. Here are three:

"Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing."
"Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance"
"The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will."

All of these definitions I got from Dictionary.com. Miriam-webster has similar definitions. For you to say that any faith in God at all is the narrow definition of faith seems to speak of your presuppositions. This is only my opinion and please do not be offended, but it seems that you presume that there is no evidence at all so therefore faith in God must be faith without reason or evidence. More on this in a bit... let's move on.

"Rational belief" is a term that communicates to me, but it seems that you are saying that one can have a rational belief but not a rational faith. The english language seems to disagree with you. Here are the definitions for faith from Miriam-Webster and from Dictionary.com:

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
synonym see BELIEF

And the remaining relevant definiton from Dictionary.com (the others wer mentioned above):

"Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust."

Note that they both say that a synonym for faith is belief. So I checked out those definitions:

Meriam-Webster:
1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
synonyms BELIEF, FAITH, CREDENCE, CREDIT mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. BELIEF may or may not imply certitude in the believer <my belief that I had caught all the errors>. FAITH almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof <an unshakable faith in God>. CREDENCE suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent <a theory now given credence by scientists>. CREDIT may imply assent on grounds other than direct proof <gave full credit to the statement of a reputable witness>. synonym see in addition OPINION

Note that "BELIEF may or may not imply certitude in the believer. FAITH almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof." That, I think is the key to our little debate. Faith and belief diverge on their degree of certitude, not the amount of evidence. Note that faith implies certitude "even when there is no evidence or proof." "Even when" does not mean that faith cannot be based upon reason. It definitely does NOT mean that faith *cannot* have rational foundations; it simply says that faith is certain even when there is no evidence. So faith, by its own nature can very well be rational and reasonable. Also note that belief CAN imply certitude. So if you have a belief that is 99% certain and you state it as fact (i.e. "it is going to rain today, there is a 95% chance of rain and it smells like rain") then your belief is identical in nature and definition to faith (so long as you allow other defintions for faith).

See the above for how certainty relates to faith and belief. Note that I did not invent new terms or even work out some new concept for a definition. These are definitions and concepts that are accepted as true by literary and linguistic scholars.

Given that we now have common definitions of faith and belief to work from, can you please demonstrate how this is true?

I am not trying to imply that. If something is 100% assured then it is most definitely fact (actually, some things we accept as fact historically have MUCH less that 100% assurance). However, if it is not 100% assured then yes, somewhere along the line faith must enter the picture. It might not be at the first point (Timbuktoo exists), but it might be further along the line (do you trust your sources? do you trust that you got the information correct? do you trust your own senses? do you trust your reasoning?) At some point, faith / belief will enter the picture.

See the above regarding the nature of "rational beliefs."

We are getting there... just working on the groundwork so that we can start from the same point.

Or he has given strong rational proofs for his position and therefore makes the leap to certainty. You presume that belief in God cannot meet the "rational test of truth." Could you please elaborate on this? What is the "rational test of truth"? Also, regarding that last sentence, I think you are reaching. Suppose that God shows Himself to a human and interacts with him empirically (the human touches, hears, sees, etc.). God also sets a few things down and corrects some incorrect beliefs about him. Let's say the experience is so overwhelming that it removes the human's free will and he cannot disbelieve God's existence. If he then goes about talking about his experience with God and how God is real and how he has the truth about God, has he used faith to aquire knowledge? Just because someone says they have the truth about God doesn't mean that they have used faith to substitute for knowledge. It is entirely possible that they are basing it on factual encounters with God. Just because God hasn't shown himself to *you* doesn't mean he hasn't shown himself to anyone. You cannot just dismiss someone else's testimony because you haven't experienced what they have. You must determine if they are trustworthy. Then you weigh the evidences (including their credibility). Anyway, I just think that your last sentence does not follow sound reasoning.

Continued below...

 

I think I agreed with this earlier. Faith that contradicts reason is irrational. Faith that is in accordance with reason is rational. Faith that exists beyond the bounds of logic non-rational.

The above is only true if one accepts your definition of faith. Also, note that extending beyond logic doesn't make it irrational or contradictory. It simply makes it non-rational. Logic cannot be applied at all. Logic can neither disprove nor prove this kind of non-rational faith beyond the shadow of a doubt. Still, I think it is moot. The difference between a belief and faith (when there is a difference) is a matter of certainty, not of proof or evidence.

So you *are* demanding sensory evidence of a being that is wholly non-empirical (cannot be sensed with the five senses)? Also, would you trust it if you saw it? Can you fool the senses? Try this:

Put your hand in ice water for about 2 minutes... then turn on the tap and stick your "iced" hand in the water. Is the tap water cold or hot or lukewarm? Now take your "non-iced" hand and stick it in the same tap water. Does it feel the same temperature as it did when you first put your "iced" hand in it? If not, then your senses can be decieved (pretty easily too). Even if God appeared in front of you, would you try to then rationally explain it away (maybe a hallucination or an LSD flashback or some strange latent trauma over this conversation...)? Why do you trust sensory evidence more than a rational proof? Why do you consider sensory evidence reliable?

How is it defensible? You cannot prove it true either through sensory evidence nor can you support it through a logical argument. All you can do is disprove contradictory arguments. Unfortunately, that does not strengthen your "position." So how do you defend it intellectually? Simply saying that it is defensible doesn't make it so. Also, your position is non-falsifiable. I cannot prove that you do NOT have a lack of belief. You have no belief whatsoever. All I can do is agree that you have a lack of belief. Do you understand what I mean? Your lack of belief cannot be challenged because I cannot address something that is not there (i.e. your belief). I can only address the object of your belief or disbelief. So you have a position that cannot be defended and a position that cannot be attacked. That sounds more like a non-position (making the sentence "I lack belief in..." a non-statement from the point of an argument).
I hate posting from other sites but this argument is very well put.

From www.carm.org:
"If "lack of belief" means that a person chooses to not make an intellectual commitment to a position, but to remain intellectually neutral regarding belief or disbelief, that would be more logical. However, complete neutrality about a concept is impossible since all concepts have an effect upon the hearer and illicit a response. Once you have been exposed to a concept, you categorize it as True, False, Ridiculous, Unsure, etc., but you do not return to a complete mental neutrality or state of ignorance. We do not "lack belief" in invisible pink unicorns. That is, we do not hold a mentally neutral position of the concept. We make a decision to categorize them as True, False, Ridiculous, Unsure, etc. based upon our scope of knowledge and experience. To the extent that this categorization occurs, belief or disbelief is associated with it.
If True, then positive belief is applied.
If False, then disbelief (the positive belief that it is false) is applied.
If Ridiculous, then disbelief (the positive belief that it is false) is applied.
If Unsure, then belief and disbelief are pending with either as the outcome. This is because we realize that belief in the concept (acceptance) is possible as also is disbelief (rejection) depending on further information.
Being unsure about something is as close to "lack of belief" as one can logically get but even this is a categorization with pending commitment to belief or disbelief."

Furthermore, our actions are the results of our beliefs, not our non-beliefs. If I am completely unaware that there is no fuel in my car, I will take no action to refuel it. If I believe there is no fuel in my car, I will fuel it up. That is action based on positive belief in a negative position. If I "lack belief" that there is fuel in my car and remain completely neutral, still I will take no action.
This might not seem relevant, but if our actions reflect our beliefs (though not always our convictions), then we can see what a person believes based upon their actions. If you commit to a position of neutrality when you say that you lack belief and then actively attempt to disprove or discredit theistic proofs and promote atheistic ideals, are you really intellectually neutral? It seems more likely that you have the positive belief that there is no God. Otherwise, attacking theistic proofs while defending atheistic and agnostic ideals would definitely be inconsistent with the idea of withholding judgement. Most atheists I have met side with those who assert there is no God. That belies not a "lack of belief" or a neutral attitude but a positive belief that there is no God.

Here is the definition as given by Miriam-Webster and Dictionary.com:

Miriam-Webster:
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Dictionary.com
1. a.Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b.The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.

Before you start dismantling the idea of disbelief, please note what it means: "mental rejection of something as untrue." Disbelief is actively believing the idea is false, not simply having no opinion on it at all. So Miriam-Webster and Dictionary.com do not agree with your literal definition. I understand that they are not the end-all be-all of the english language however, and I do think that they have missed the mark just a tad (though the above is what is recognized as atheism in the public eye). I prefer the following definition:

"active disbelief in the existence of God and/or lacking belief in the existence of God"

I agree that atheists lack belief. What I am trying to point out is that simply "lacking belief" leads to either inconsistent action or to an impossible or non-existent position. At best, it leads to the view that God is unknown and probably unknowable or, more broadly, to not committing to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God (which is textbook agnosticism).

 

This is something related to the above. I wanted to know what you guys thought.

The most common argument that I have heard is "there is no reliable evidence for God." Now, for this to be an actual argument it must have at least one premise and a conclusion. Here is how it seems to break down:

1. (Implied Premise) If there is a God, then there will be reliable evidence for His existence.
2. (Stated Premise) There is no reliable evidence for the existence of God.
3. (Conclusion) Therefore, I lack belief in God.

This is not a valid argument because the conclusion does not follow from the premises. The form of the above argument is

If P, then Q
~Q
Therefore R

The conclusion is only remotely related to the premises in that they both contain references to God. That is where the similarities end. The premises deal with the existence of God. The actuality of God's existence is the subject matter of the premises. The conclusion is concerned not with the actuality of God's existence, but with the beliefs of the one posing the argument. The subject matter of the conclusion is the arguer's opinion. The premises and the conclusion are not related (except that they both mention God).

It is possible that the argument might be more complex. In fact, it would have to be if it wanted to be sound. Let's try this:

1. If there is a God, then there will be reliable evidence for His existence.
2. There is no evidence for the existence of God.
3. Therefore, God does not exist.
4. If a thing does not exist, then a person may either lack belief in it or deny its existence.
5. God not existing is equivalent to God being a thing that does not exist.
6. Therefore God is a thing that does not exist.
7. Therefore, a person may either lack belief in God or deny His existence.

The above is a valid argument following this form:
1 If P, then Q
2 ~Q
3 Therefore ~P (from 1 & 2, by modus tollens)
4 If R, then S or T
5 ~P = R (from 3)
6 Therefore R (from 5, by repetition)
7 Therefore S or T (from 4 & 6, by modus ponens)

The above form is valid, but if lacking a belief is a defensible position you must be able to support the premises. Now, even if you can support premises one and two, you must still show how lacking belief is *not* superfluous. Once you reach the conclusion that there is no God, why go about claiming a "lack of belief" when you can show deductively that God does not exist? Either your reasoning is not sound or your position includes by default the conclusion that God does not exist. Why not then simply take the posistion that there is no God?

Again, the first argument is invalid and therefore unsound, the second argument is valid but has some weak premises. It is up to the atheist to support his stated and implied premises.

Of course, I might be completely off the mark. If so, I would appreciate it if someone would please demonstrate the deductive or inductive arguments used to arrive at the conclusion that one may "lack belief."

 

Alsharad

And your following arguments appear reasonable.
the

"1. (Implied Premise) If there is a God, then there will be reliable evidence for His existence.
2. (Stated Premise) There is no reliable evidence for the existence of God.
3. (Conclusion) Therefore, I lack belief in God."

sequence is invalid in occams eyes. [also]

It falls down because no human knows what 'reliable evidence' really means in relation to a god.. And humans have only a keyhole perspective on reality anyway so we CANT see ALL the evidence that may be available.
This alone rules out a valid conclusion to the above sequence.
[ie: step 2 is invalid]

Occam has before stated that in his perspective/opinion. There IS evidence of direction in reality.The very ballance and organisation of it implies direction.
[especially anti-entropic systems such as life. Using entropic mater/energy to build anti-entropic organised systems.]

But few of us think at such a conceptual level.
Athiesm/theism is on earth. A thing of human religions.
Humans accept a religion...And are theists by that brand of belief.
OR NOT.. and become atiests to human religious concepts of god.
All revolve about human religious descriptions.
Both choose to believe or not to believe.
Based in no evidence of those religious descriptions.

The mistake IS.
That religious descriptions of god are taken by default as reasonable.

Occam accepts very few such descriptions as reasonable...
Just about all are rendered as invalid by massive contradiction.

The god of the monotheism is one..[christianity, islam, judeaism]
and all it's offshoots.

Occam, in his path. has decided that the simple observations of our reason.
Science and rational method...
Has revealed far more evidence of direction in reality...
Than any religion has ever done.

Religion talks of a god...
Science/reason..actually sees evidence of one..

Not conclusive evidence...but hey..were still learning to see properly.


Occam

PS
Age has taught occam one thing.
In human understanding.
Everything is grey
except ..cogito ergo...

Aristotle corrupted the western mind.

 

I did some more research and it turns out that the argument might be valid. Any conclusion that ends in a logical truth is valid. For example, take this argument:

1. If the sun is round, then it is yellow.
2. Therefore all trees are trees.

The argument is valid. However, it is still unsound because it fails to be relevant. If it is a logical truth that "I lack belief in God", then the conclusion is always true. An argument is only invalid if it can have true premises and a false conclusion. If the conclusion is always true, then, even if the premises are false (as in the argument above), the argument is valid (remember that premises are true or false; only arguements are valid or invalid). Now, I do not think that the statement "I lack belief in God" is a logical truth, because if I say it, it is not true. So I still think that it is invalid, but it is entirely possible that I am mistaken (just ask my wife). Still, even if the argument is valid, the conclusion fails to be relevant to the premises.

Your assessent is correct though. We cannot claim that there is no evidence, only that we haven't found any yet (and even THAT is debatable). (In terms of logic, step 2 is false, therefore the argument is unsound).

I would disagree here. If there is a God, then everyone who thinks that there is a God (of any type) is at least partially correct. Anyone who denies the existence of any God at all is completely wrong. Theism (in terms of belief in a higher power) is either true or false. Whether humanity exists or not, either there is a God or there isn't one. As such, theism was not necessarily originated by humanity, but is simply the recognition that either God exists or He doesn't and the concious decision to believe the former.

Could you please list these contradictions? Perhaps the issue isn't God, but the understanding or misunderstanding of His attributes.

Actually reason doesn't "see" evidence of anything.

Seriously though, reason deals with the abstract and the non-empirical. Science deals wholly with the empirical. But I would agree, both seem to point towards at the minimum some sort of intelligent design.

Experience and art and optics has taught me one thing. That grey is nothing but a mixture of black and white. Take a gray issue and break it down far enough and eventually you will get to black and white. Life is like newsprint. The big picture is gray, but look close enought and you'll see that the gray is made up of nothing more than pinpoints of black and white.

 

Alsharad

"Could you please list these contradictions? Perhaps the issue isn't God, but the understanding or misunderstanding of His attributes."

Oh hell !!

There you go ...... hell.

The god of love does 'what' to those that do not believe in him.?
[as he cant seem to be able to convince them..even if omnipotent]

He tortures them forever.

Occam

[need occam say more?]

 

This is not an uncommon question.

Let's begin with the groundwork. For the explanation, I am going to assume God exists because I really don't feel like typing "God (given that he exists)" every time. Since you mentioned Hell, I am going to go with Christianity (because I do not know how Muslims would answer this question).

Okay, God is love but He is also just and holy. This puts God in a unique position in regards to us. His Holiness prevents him from abiding the presence of evil. More importantly than this, evil is an offense to his holiness. To commit any evil in spite of God is an offense against a being of infinite holiness. Enter God's justness. Justice demands that the price for such an offense be equal in measure to the crime commited. Any offense against infinite holiness is infinite in nature, and therefore merits an infinite amount of punishment. God, by His infinite justice alone, MUST punish us.

Now, enter God's love.

God abstained (and still abstains) from punishing us because of his love for us. He withholds judgement even though we, as beings who have commited evil, rightly deserve it. However, God saw that we were in a hopeless situation and decided to act. Please forgive this rather crude example of God's thought process on the matter.

"Well, I love them, but I cannot be unjust. If I refuse to punish them I will be unjust. If but if I love them, how can I let them be separated from Me for all eternity? I know... I will pay their debt FOR them. I am an infinite being and can therefore satisfy the requirements of justice. Then if anyone wants to be with Me, they just have to ask. Of course, I will not be able to force them into accepting My payment because that would be unjust, but if they choose, they can choose to count My sacrifice as their own."

Before God created mankind, He knew that we would fall short of the mark. He knew the sacrifice He would be *required* to make. He is required to make the sacrifice for us because He is love and love sacrifices itself for the good of the beloved.

God doesn't want anyone to go to Hell. However, if one chooses to not accept His grace, then you are choosing to submit to His justice. Justice demands that the punishment be equal in measure to the crime. Since one offence is infinite in nature and we have all comitted at least one offense, none are innocent, and anyone who stands outside of His grace will be subject to a punishment that is by nature infinite.

So you see, there is no contradiction. God is love. We don't go to Hell because He sends us there, we go to Hell because we choose to.

PS: It is His justness that prevents Him from proving Himself beyond the shadow of a doubt. To do so would be to strip us of our free will, which would be unjust.