You can always tell when someone believes something based on their emotions/will rather than their reason: They resort to name-calling, yelling, violence, shame, intimidation. They want to silence the opposition rather than respond to them. I heard it said that you know someone doesn’t have a good argument when they resort to hitting people with blunt objects to make their case.
Many Christians would disavow such things, but they have another way of responding to challenges to their ill-founded beliefs. When they don’t have good reasons to support their claims or to challenge your arguments, they trump you with spirituality. They will say the Holy Spirit told them that X is true, or that the only reason you believe X is because you are not spiritual. Don’t fall for the bait by shifting the focus to your own spirituality. Shift the focus back to the argument by responding, “Ok, so I’m carnal. Can you tell this carnal brother of yours why I should believe you are right (or conversely, why I should believe I am wrong)?”
Thinking to Believe 
November 25, 2020 at 11:35 am
For the Believer, “faith” is a valid path to truth. It matters little whether, or how much, “faith” conflicts with “reason” (however you define that word), faith always wins. If you don’t accept a belief — let’s say, to pick an example, “the virgin conception of Jesus” — then it is not faith that is wrong, but that your reason is not directed by faith and is therefore wrong.
In most cases, it isn’t worth the argument. But if the Believer tries to entrain their faith in secular law, then give a full-throated roar.
Amen.
LikeLike
November 25, 2020 at 11:42 am
That’s not the Christian understanding of faith, but a caricature. Faith is not an epistemology. It is not a means of knowing. Faith means trust, and trust is based on knowledge. We trust (have faith) in what we have reason to think is true. So it also follows that faith is not opposed to reason.
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 25, 2020 at 7:59 pm
More and more we are having to deal with a generation of people who listen with their eyes and think with their feelings.
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 26, 2020 at 10:14 am
years ago I would have agreed —– if you start name calling you don’t have an argument but now you have to be careful. you have to be careful because person A may be doing this to person B because person B uses condescending language/gaslights/doesn’t address your argument. so in reality person A isn’t name calling they are stating a fact by calling person B an idiot.
LikeLike
November 26, 2020 at 10:31 am
and a probable response to your question would be —- we are right because we are the church Jesus founded. so even though you are politely asking them to use logic and reason they won’t because they can’t.
LikeLike
November 26, 2020 at 11:29 am
Dear TR… The OED says (and I’m paraphrasing a bit) that “faith” is “belief without evidence”; in most cases, “faith” is a belief “based on a trust in authority.” “Faith” and “trust” aren’t the same thing.
If you have “knowledge” (direct experience) then neither “faith” nor “trust” are applicable: you “know” this to be true, “Faith” and “trust” pop up as proxies for direct experience.
You’re right: “faith” is not a means of knowing. It is, however, a means of “accepting” in the absence of that “knowing.” Acceptance on “faith” is based on one’s trust in the sources of the info,
This “trust” can be particularly iffy in the case of, say, accepting a Triune Godhead, less so in accepting that Mt. Everest is 29,035 feet above sea level — i.e., no direct experience in one case (and, not to put too fine a point on this, no possibility of direct experience, at least in this life), a whole gaggle of indirect experience in the other. “Faith” certainly applies in the former case; the latter is closer to direct experience.
“Faith” and “reason” (an explanation based on “logic”) are two ways of getting at “what is.” Neither is infallible; they are often enough in conflict.
One last question: You said “That’s not the Christian understanding of faith, but a caricature.” What, exactly, were you referring to with the “That”?
Thanks for the opportunity to talk with you.
Amen.
LikeLike
November 27, 2020 at 12:40 pm
Joe, let me just add from Got Questions …..
“Question: “What is the definition of faith?”
Answer: Thankfully, the Bible contains a clear definition of faith in Hebrews 11:1: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Simply put, the biblical definition of faith is “trusting in something you cannot explicitly prove.””
so hopefully it’s okay to you use a brief example here —– I cannot “explicitly” prove God exists or that my God is the one true God but based on indisputable facts (accepted laws of physics) my theist worldview is logical and reasonable. I’m not blindly believing in God, I have faith that my worldview backed up with logic and reason is correct and the atheist/new atheist/agnostic plus other theists cannot disprove the logic and reason I base my belief on. so what many do is ignore my arguments, use strawman arguments, name call/rant and rave.
but I believe this post is about a disagreement between people that accept the bible as authoritative. there is much we ALL agree on but because of the way the bible is written there is some key things we disagree on. usually this plays out as bible verse vs. bible verse with one party ignoring the others main point.
the problem is people want to prove they are correct and not get the truth so they argue from authority.
so again a brief example using something you’ve already brought up —- “a Triune Godhead,” or as I’d state “the Godhead.” the basic argument is over “God is one.” but the problem is the Hebrew word used here (echad) does not explicitly mean one as in —– “yachid: only, only one, solitary” God. it can mean one as in unity. so what happens is those professing one (echad) means one (yachid) often go bananas and start name calling because I can’t see one=one. yrs ago this used to upset me now it just makes me lol and i call them names right back. my intention is to snap them out of their delusion, because in this case one can=one in unity, or drive them deeper into it. and what’s hilarious is there is other biblical evidence pointing to my position being correct which just makes it all the funnier to me.
LikeLike
November 27, 2020 at 5:03 pm
Paul V… OK. I am generally a bit dense, but I’m afraid I don’t know just what you are getting at in your comment. Of course, it could just be a “comment,” in which case, may I make my own points about it?
Your def of “faith” is basically the same as the one I used in my previous response to “Theosophical Ruminator” (love that name). You’ve restated my “secular” definition in “biblical” terms. Good for you.
You say your theism is based on reason and logic (but reason and logic are essentially two sides of the same coin — logic is the process one uses to think reasonably), and that the atheist/agnostic cannot disprove your logical conclusions. And my basic response is “So what?” Neither can you disprove the reasoning of the agnostic. Indeed, such an effort would be futile, since the propositions used by theists and atheist/agnostics aren’t the same. Of course the two will get different answers.
I think you have missed the point of the argument about the “authority” of the Bible. The True Believer accepts that authority; the atheist/agnostic does not. End of discussion; that twain never meets. From all that I’ve seen, both the atheist and theist make their arguments by the same principle: start with the accepted conclusion, then organize the evidence to support the conclusion. Not a good idea. (There are reasons why we should approach the Bible with caution, but there’s more than enough literature out there on the subject. This probably isn’t the right venue for summarizing learned bible scholars.)
In your last graf, I think you’ve set up a straw man: my “Triune God” comment made no mention of, nor is it dependent on, the Hebrew “Sh’ma” (“Sh’ma O Yisrael… Adonai echad.”) My reference to the Triune Godhead had to do with the acceptance of that idea on the basis of “faith” rather than on “evidence.” An interpretation of “echad” (“is one”) is not relevant to that point.
Amen.
LikeLike
November 27, 2020 at 5:28 pm
Joe, I don’t think you are dense nor did I imply you are dense. but if you agree on the biblical definition of faith perhaps you need to sharpen your point.
as per my example of the Godhead — i thought my point was clear but I’ll clarify. if you accept the bible as authoritative, the Godhead is not only possible but probable. therefore, to deny it is even possible as do “rabbinical Jews” and some “Christian denominations” with the only argument being one of authority ie. the Holy Spirit/pope/rabbi/pastor/etc… is the point of the original post is it not ? and if you agree with that again, you need to sharpen your point.
LikeLike
November 27, 2020 at 6:27 pm
Paul V. — Well, I agree with the “secular” definition of “faith.” Your restatement using words from the Epistle to the Hebrews is a bit more problematic for me. It assumes a Christian context and would make sense only to someone who already has that “faith.” Doubters, skeptics, and agnostics need not apply. A sound definition would leave no one in the lurch.
Though I am a Christian (I am reluctant to extend the definition of “faith” as far the writer of Hebrews takes it (read the rest of Hebrews 11); my “faith” doesn’t go that far. I prefer to keep my faith within the “secular” limits, which allows me the freedom to preclude OT legends from my “acceptance.”
In your “clarification,” you start with a conditional: “If you accept the Bible as authoritative…” That certainly clarifies the context of your remarks. On the other hand, I DON’T accept the Bible as authoritative, so the conclusions you offer are not relevant (though they may or may not be true).
From a theist point of view, there are certainly solid arguments for a “Godhead.” But there are equally solid arguments from an atheist/agnostic view. Neither are dispositive. Neither accepts the other’s conclusions. We are still searchers for the truth.
Pax vobiscum.
LikeLike
November 27, 2020 at 7:57 pm
Joe, but TR’s post is a Christian context/pov so that’s the one to use. and I don’t want to talk for TR but I haven’t seen where he’d disagree with that definition.
now if you want to argue from a secular point of view go ahead but you are mixing up apples and oranges. the problem sounds like you are using a false definition of “faith.” it sounds like you are referring to “blind faith.”
see there’s no need to have faith in your statement “that Mt. Everest is 29,035 feet above sea level.” now I don’t know from memory that figure so i googled it and it is stated as such. therefore, why would I disagree unless there’s an argument that number is false ? see this is different from the topic at hand —
people disagree and the answer can’t be explicitly determined. now is there someone that would disagree with that figure ? LOL ….. may be because there’s people that believe the earth is flat even though we have satellites/planes circling the earth.
again, of course because if you reject the bible as authoritative it’s a different argument. if somebody says the bible is not authoritative I can’t argue the bible proves God exists because they’d say —– sorry, that’s circular reasoning based on an authority I don’t accept and you can’t prove explicitly is true.
again, even though you reject the bible as authoritative it still uses — “God is echad.” and whether the bible is made up or not echad has a definition, and it’s not the same word as yachid. so I can state as a fact if God is yachid the Godhead is false but if God is echad I can’t say that.
again, the atheist argument is hardly solid because you’d have to have absolute knowledge and no person does. basically their argument boils down to —- a literal interpretation of the genesis creation account doesn’t make any sense therefore there’s no God. they take all the negatives of theism and ignore all of their negatives. our Laws of physics prove the material world can not have a beginning —- “matter is neither created nor destroyed.” there had to be matter before the big bang. which proves something outside the natural world (ie. supernatural) had to create the natural world. because otherwise the natural world always existed and always will be. therefore, God could have always existed and always will be.
the agnostic argument is also hardly solid but better than the atheist one. basically they are just saying we don’t know —– it’s really a cop out, they just ignore the facts. it’s mathematically impossible we are the product of chance.
actually i wish I had the “faith” of atheists/agnostics
LikeLike
November 28, 2020 at 12:42 pm
Mr Paul….
YOUR COMMENT #1: “now if you want to argue from a secular point of view go ahead but you are mixing up apples and oranges. the problem sounds like you are using a false definition of “faith.” it sounds like you are referring to “blind faith.””
ME: Well, no. The definition of “faith” is what it is. You can express that in a “secular” context (acceptance based on trust in some authority [science, ideology, religion…. ANY authority]) or in a “biblical” context (acceptance based on a narrowly construed biblical authority). These aren’t “apples and oranges.” Either way, we are talking about “faith.” A faith based on NO authority is where I’d invoke the “blind faith” bogeyman; I am certainly NOT talking about that here — I consider such “blind” faith to be dangerous in a variety of ways.
YOUR COMMENT #2: “see there’s no need to have faith in your statement “that Mt. Everest is 29,035 feet above sea level.”… why would I disagree unless there’s an argument that number is false ?”
ME: Sigh. If you’ve gone to Nepal and actually measured the height of Everest, then I’m with you: you don’t need “faith”; you’ve had direct experience and you can say you KNOW this. But if you haven’t, then you have to accept it (or not) based on some authority. And isn’t that how we’ve just defined “faith”? Granted, there’s sufficient “Everest authority” out there that you can be pretty sure about the published numbers. But, still…
It’s a bit more iffy having faith that the “pandemic” will be under control by next summer; iffy-er still that the Philly Eagles wiil make the Super Bowl (they won’t, but I’m talking “faith” here); and by the time we get out to transcendent ideas like a “Triune God,” we’re drifting perilously close to “blind faith” territory.
YOUR COMMENT #3: “whether the bible is made up or not echad has a definition, and it’s not the same word as yachid”
ME: I thought I had made it pretty clear that an interpretation of “echad” was irrelevant to any point I was making. I haven’t been talking about the reliability of the “Triune God” doctrine, I’m still not going there.
YOUR COMMENT #4: “again, the atheist argument is hardly solid because you’d have to have absolute knowledge and no person does. basically their argument boils down to —- a literal interpretation of the genesis creation account doesn’t make any sense therefore there’s no God.”
ME: You could sub “Christian” for “atheist” and I think your first sentence would still hold. (Nobody has a “solid” argument for a religion: if they did, we’d all practice the same faith.)
Your second sentence “Their argument boils down to…”) is a wildly dramatic oversimplification of the “atheist argument.” I’m no atheist, but even I know better than this. And quite frankly, I know of only a handful of Christians who accept a “literal” interpretation of the creation account(s) in Genesis. I feel bad for them, but I also know that arguing with them is without point.
YOUR COMMENT #5: “our Laws of physics prove the material world can not have a beginning —- “matter is neither created nor destroyed.”
ME: Well… We’re getting ‘way off-topic here. The “laws” of physics don’t “prove” anything: they are general, quantifiable statements that describe how the observable universe functions. “Matter is neither created nor destroyed” is a description of the observed stability of matter (and energy) in the universe; it is not a “law” unto itself. But then quantum physicists are now toying with the idea of some particles popping in and out of existence,,,, So, now what?
I don’t think either of us knows enough about physics to go wandering down this road.
YOUR COMMMENT #6: “there had to be matter before the big bang. which proves something outside the natural world (ie. supernatural) had to create the natural world. because otherwise the natural world always existed and always will be. therefore, God could have always existed and always will be.”
ME: If “laws of physics” was off-topic, then we are now well off the reservation. The “Big Bang” (it was neither big nor did it go bang) should be a no-fly zone for us. It is as grounded in the physical universe as it can be, and using it as a stepping stone to the transcendent idea of “God” is extraordinarily risky. Physicists (and their brother cosmologists) don’t today understand what the universe’s initiating event was (they know what it caused — the universe!); or why it happened; or what it happened with or to; or where it’s going (an important part of the “why” question).
No competent physicist or cosmologist would venture a “scientific” opinion of what was “before” the Big Bang; there is zero evidence from which to draw an opinion. And even the word “before” may not fit, since most physicists would suggest that both time and space, as we currently experience them, came into existence with the Big Bang. There was no measurable “before” (in our terms) before the Big Bang.(That idea gives me a headache.)
And if I may ask, why would you say that the “natural world” had to be created? If we can imagine that a being of such extraordinary complexity as “God” could be “uncreated,” why would it be impossible for the less complex “natural world” to be “uncreated”? Nah. Don’t answer that. This is an intellectual web too tangled for my simple brain.
In thinking about this stuff, Mr Paul, don’t let the God-of-the-gaps grab hold of you. There are lots of gaps in our knowledge. We shouldn’t invoke “God” to cover our deficits
Much, much too long. My sincere apologies..
Amen.
LikeLike
November 29, 2020 at 1:18 pm
Joe, LOL …… yes it is too long and yes it looks like we’ve strayed off topic. I accept some responsibility as I was pretty sure this would happen when I used what you had already mentioned in my examples —– that’s why TR used …. “that X is true.”
but you accepted my definition of faith did you not ? but you aren’t applying it as I do. so in the secular world —- my definition clearly shows it is based on facts but the conclusion can’t be explicitly proven. as my example of a secular argument proves — based on scientific laws, accepted by everyone I know, it’s logical and reasonable to believe the material world was created by a Being out side of the natural world aka a supernatural Being/God. you stating and I’ll quote —– “The “laws” of physics don’t “prove” anything” proves you are not using the accepted meaning of those “Laws.”
now in a religious context where the bible is agreed to be authoritative a different argument occurs. the argument is your interpretation is correct and mine is not. so similar rules apply but again the conclusions can not be explicitly proven like 2+2=4 or mt everest “is 29,035 feet above sea level.”
however, you have to be able to explain apparent contradictions or your argument crashes and burns.
“faith” is not required in measuring mt everest’s height because the mountain is there and mathematic/scientific evidence is available to prove it’s height. it can be proven explicitly, I can’t prove God exists explicitly. now could someone say it’s not “29,035 feet above sea level ?” sure but what’s their evidence it is not ? and they’d most likely make fools of themselves instead of proving that fact incorrect as the flat earth people do. now when the earth revolved around the sun was first proposed that was rejected too until the evidence given and explained.
you are disagreeing with the post are you not ? if you disagree and you aren’t talking about “blind faith” your position in disagreeing with the post is flawed.
now if you are arguing faith just means “trust, confidence” you are missing the context of the post. because that’s the point of the post —– person A says person B is wrong about X but person A’s only argument is B is wrong because the Holy Spirit (or whatever authority they are citing) says B is wrong. A’s not presenting facts he’s making an argument from authority.
LikeLike
November 29, 2020 at 6:14 pm
A little shorter (maybe) than before, but perhaps a tad more definitive —
YOU: “my definition [of faith] clearly shows it is based on facts but the conclusion can’t be explicitly proven.”
ME: I think that definition is generally right. Which, I have to say, makes my “Mt Everest” example limp quite a bit. Got carried away, it seems. My bad.
You rightfully point out that there is a category of “acceptance” between faith and knowledge: i.e., acceptance because you trust other folks who have the knowledge or because the knowledge is readily available (but you just haven’t reached for it). A lot of stuff (most of science, I suspect) fits in that category.
YOU: “you are disagreeing with the post are you not?”
ME: The original “post” appears to be advising against arguing from “spirituality,” which, at least in this particular example, Theosophical Ruminator seems to equate with “divine revelation” (e.g., “the Holy Spirit told me”).
I responded that I believed “faith” (if that was what he meant by “spirituality”) was a valid path to the “truth.” So, yes, I disagreed with the post.
YOU: “if you disagree [with the post] and you aren’t talking about “blind faith” your position in disagreeing with the post is flawed.”
ME: Well, I don’t think so. “Blind faith” is a colloquialism (it’s not an “official” category for “faith”) suggesting acceptance with neither evidence nor competent authority to support it. But all faith isn’t blind.
Of course, TR’s point may well have been that arguing from “faith” is counter-productive. Each “believer” has a “faith” that he or she adopts wholeheartedly. and that becomes part of “who I am.” Arguing against such faith is arguing against the value a person places on themselves. And that’s a losing argument.
YOU: “the argument is your interpretation is correct and mine is not …
however, you have to be able to explain apparent contradictions or your argument crashes and burns.”
ME: Well, I can offer other interpretations of such “contradictions.” of course, but why isn’t simply pointing out contradictions enough to call either or both of the arguments into question? Why is it necessary for one (or the other) to “explain” the contradiction — though one (or the other) may certainly want to defend their position..
And last (but not least) —
YOU: “you [i.e., me] stated and I’ll quote —– “The “laws” of physics don’t “prove” anything” proves you are not using the accepted meaning of those “Laws.”
ME: Sorry, Mr Paul, but I am indeed using the “accepted meaning” of those laws: The “laws of physics” are quantifiable descriptions of how the universe functions (at least from our time and place). The “law of gravity” doesn’t prove anything but the existence of a “force” that we call gravity; it describes how matter behaves under the influence of that force. We may use those “laws” as starting points, or as “standards,” or as “fundamental principles” (or all three) for exploring such questions as “why it happens this way” and “by what process(-es) does it happen” for a plethora of phenomena.
You can even use the existence of those laws, should you so desire, to support a belief in a “supernatural being” who created the “natural world.” (You can use the laws to support the contrary, as well.) But if you go a step further and say the laws “prove” that proposition, well, at this point you’re misusing science. Science — and its laws — are not designed for anything other than an exploration of the physical universe, Anything beyond that is outside the science box.
Turned out to be longer than I wanted (but shorter than it needs to be). Mea culpa.
LikeLike
November 29, 2020 at 8:03 pm
Joe, no worries as the kids say.
faith by definition is not blind. but “blind faith” perfectly describes the type of faith the person has if they are arguing based solely on — that’s what the Holy Spirit told me. could they be correct ? yes, a stopped clock is right twice a day. but based on the context of the post the correct answer is no. that’s because — the one person has argued with facts that support them and the response of the other person is you are wrong with no facts to back them up.
that’s the point of bringing up the laws that apply as I did as an argument. are they true ? yes, so what does that mean ? 1. the universe always was and always will be expanding and contracting for eternity. but that’s impossible based on the law of conservation of matter. the argument that “nothing is something” is hilarious because nothing means nothing OR 2. there’s something outside of the natural world not bound by our laws (ie. supernatural) that’s the first cause. but please let me know if you have a 3rd or other options ?
so you saying —- those laws also supports the contrary is like the person arguing the Holy Spirit told me. there’s no facts there, not even a plausible story —– it’s solely based on there is no such thing as the “supernatural” so you can’t be right. but the only thing that fits is the supernatural exists. but since that can’t be explicitly proven it’s by faith I hold that position.
LikeLike
December 5, 2020 at 12:06 pm
A little delay in answering, but I haven’t forgotten…
I’ll stick to the same format I’ve been using: I’ll cite a section of your note, then comment directly on its content (and sometimes on what I think your purpose to be). Ok, then.
YOU #1: “faith by definition is not blind. but “blind faith” perfectly describes the type of faith the person has if they are arguing based solely on — that’s what the Holy Spirit told me.”
ME: You’re right on: “Faith” is never blind; it is always based on confidence in something – your own judgement, human nature, a divine presence, a good friend, your college professor… something (or someone). “Blind” faith, on the other hand, is a metaphor, a colloquialism. It isn’t a technical term and probably doesn’t belong in our discussion. It is usually a pejorative term, used to emphasize what one feels to be an “unjustified” belief.
The faith you describe is not “blind.” It is, for the True Believer, based solidly on a belief in the existence and truth of “revelation.” You may not agree with that acceptance (the absence of mutually acceptable “facts” seems to be your sticking point), but your disagreement should not be used to characterize someone else’s personal choice.
YOU #2: could they be correct ? yes, a stopped clock is right twice a day. but based on the context of the post the correct answer is no. that’s because — the one person has argued with facts that support them and the response of the other person is you are wrong with no facts to back them up.
ME: First, I’m picking a not here; I freely admit it. A “stopped clock” is, well, a stopped clock. It isn’t telling time. It’s never “right.” This is another colloquialism, usually used to denigrate an argument that turns out right simply because of happenstance, not by design. I have a feeling this wasn’t your intent.
Second – and more seriously – you place a great deal of emphasis on “facts” as dispositive of an argument. Two points: (A) That works well as long as the two (or more) parties agree on what the “facts” are and on how they are to be applied. And (B) We usually assume that “facts” exist independent of our believing them, but too often the “facts” turn out to be fungible items rather than absolutes. Even scientists, whose business is fact-based, sometimes run into trouble.
Having “no facts to back them up” doesn’t necessarily mean that “they” are wrong. They might just be “before their time.”
YOU #3: “that’s the point of bringing up the laws that apply as I did as an argument. are they true ? yes,”
ME: Don’t confuse – or conflate – scientific “law” with legislation. Those two “laws” are quite different: they have different origins and different applications; legislation is imposed on a social system, the scientific law is inherent in the system.
Science “laws” are quantifiable descriptions of how matter and energy behave. They may be accurate or inaccurate, but true-false doesn’t apply. They can change as new and better data and insights become available.
A data-supported and -confirmed conclusion about how the universe behaves is called a “theory,” and as the theory becomes quantifiable, the term “law” is often applied. Scientific laws (and theories) are useful because scientists have found that in all the instances they have studied, matter behaves this way. They may now assume that it is a consistent behavior pattern – a “theory” or a “law” – and apply the pattern to new observations. A scientific law is not a rule imposed from outside the universe; it is simply how the universe works.
YOU #4: “so what does that mean ? 1. the universe always was and always will be expanding and contracting for eternity. but that’s impossible based on the law of conservation of matter.”
ME: First, the “law of conservation of matter [and energy] has nothing to do with whether the universe is expanding or contraction. In either case, the total amount of matter and energy does not change; it is only reconfigured.
Second, the latest iteration of the expansion-contraction debate has settled rather firmly on expansion. Period. No contraction. But… if the next step isn’t contraction (followed by yet another expansion…), then what is it? No answers yet… other than that, in a few tens of billions of years (!), we wind up a cold, dead universe. [“If that’s all there is my friends, then let’s keep dancing/ Let’s break out the booze and have a ball” Peggy Lee, 1969].
YOU #5: “the argument that “nothing is something” is hilarious because nothing means nothing.”
ME: Well… It’s not exactly “hilarious,” but it is a bit of a conundrum.
An “absolute” nothing is problematic, but, on the bright side, we never use “nothing” in such an absolute sense. It is always relative to the “thing” part of “nothing.” Even when we say that God “created from nothing,” we certainly don’t mean that when God created, nothing existed; God existed (and, presumably, other divine critters), yes? What we mean is that God put matter and energy where there was none before. Where did that matter and energy come from? Whence the “space” into which that matter and energy blossomed? Ah, gird for battle.
YOU #6: “OR 2. there’s something outside of the natural world not bound by our laws (ie. supernatural) that’s the first cause. but please let me know if you have a 3rd or other options ?
ME: The “first cause” argument has been around since the Greeks invented philosophy, with still no mutually acceptable resolution.
The first-cause argument was developed to avoid thinking about an infinite regression of cause-and-effect arguments; “religion” posits the First Cause as “God.” On the other hand, some folk today are content with the idea that matter and energy have always been here as the “ground” of existence; there’s no need for a First Cause. (Buddhists, if I remember correctly, think along those lines, though, I would emphasize, not so simplistically.)
I’m intrigued by your phrasing: “not bound by our laws.” Why not? If that supernatural “something” were to interact with “our” world, would the rules then apply? If not, why not?
YOU #7: “so you saying —- those laws also support the contrary is like the person arguing the Holy Spirit told me. There are no facts there, not even a plausible story —– it’s solely based on there is no such thing as the “supernatural” so you can’t be right. but the only thing that fits is the supernatural exists. but since that can’t be explicitly proven it’s by faith I hold that position.”
ME: It seems to me that here in particular, you are conflating legislation with science laws. The “laws” of science are descriptive, not imperative. They are inherent in the nature of the matter and energy; they are not imposed on our universe by an outside source. (That would make the laws “arbitrary”: if God can make these laws today, then he can change them and make those laws tomorrow.)
Aha! I fully agree with your final clause: “It’s by faith I hold that position.” Not by “facts,” but by faith. Somewhere, a few hundreds of words ago, I opined that faith is an acceptable path to the truth. Of course, it’s a very personal path, but a path nonetheless. You seem to have found one. Good for you.
LikeLike
December 6, 2020 at 12:04 pm
Joe, LOL ……. that’s your error —- your definition of “faith.” b/c the Law of Conservation of Matter can be “explicitly” proven via scientific experiment …… accepting it by definition does not require faith.
LOL …… again you miss the point. if person A argues the earth revolves around the sun they are correct (that’s a fact) but may not be able to answer/explain questions from person B disputing that b/c they don’t have the knowledge to do so. I’m not confusing the meaning of the word “fact.” what has happened recently is people argue facts are not facts anymore.
LOL ….. again you miss the point. first ….. where is your evidence the law of conservation of matter is false ? if you don’t have any you are arguing from “blind faith.” it’s very simple, based on that law the universe had to always have existed. based on the timeline of the big bang it’s been suggested that it happened before and there wasn’t sufficient energy so the expansion contracted back on itself. this occurred until conditions were right and the universe we know could be formed. if too much energy —- expansion would’ve been such that the universe would not form, things would’ve expanded into oblivion. and yes…… based on the definition of nothing there’s no conundrum it is hilarious.
LOL …… yes it has been around for a long time and not disproven b/c it makes perfect sense. since the law of conservation of matter can be explicitly proven the 1st cause can’t be bound by that law. again for you to argue against this you have to admit that law is incorrect yet you have zero evidence it is.
LOL ……. it’s hilarious what you did there. first, yes you are using blind faith b/c those laws can’t be used to make a contrary argument —– if they could you would have done so. secondly, yes my position is based on facts but the
logical and reasonable conclusion of those facts (this creation has a creator) can not be “explicitly” proven so I correctly state it’s by faith but not the blind faith you profess.
LikeLike
December 6, 2020 at 12:54 pm
Well…. I certainly did “miss the point” — at least YOUR points. But I also might suggest that you, in turn, have entirely missed MY points.
With us so consistently missing each other’s points, even this far into the conversation, it’s probably best that we end this diversion. We’re getting nowhere.
Mr Paul, it’s been nice talking to you. Have a safe, happy, and healthy Christmas.
–Joe M
LikeLike
December 8, 2020 at 9:00 am
Joe, LOL ……. well that’s interesting as i’m usually pretty easy to understand and can understand others. but agreed this is going no where and I’m out of this conversation.
and all the best to you and yours.
Regards,
Paul
LikeLike
December 12, 2020 at 8:44 am
Belief and Faith are synonymous. Christians seem to think that if they separate their use they separate the definitions but they don’t, they are the same thing. To have faith in something, someone is to believe in that something or someone. Your denomination is not your faith, it’s your denomination.
Religion is your belief and religion is your faith. That one person is a Catholic and another person is a Protestant does not mean they have different faiths and different beliefs. They may express different doctrines but the belief and faith are the same regardless of the different doctrines, different practices, and different ritualisms. Belief is what you have faith in and faith is what you have belief in. Trying to separate them into two distinct parts with distinct definitions is a useless argument in semantics; they are only “distinctions without a difference.” Their use and misuse do not change their definitions.
Very few Christians understand the nature of faith they so readily use so erroneously.
LikeLike