Changing beliefs

Let's brake this down. A religion is a belief system, be it institutionalized or personal, that makes certain claims about morals, the nature of being, meaning, and knowledge. Therefore a religion is simply one's worldview see my post [post=381477]here[/post]. Now here's the problem; you say that religious beliefs can't be verified. This is a very strong claim, and personally I don't think you meant it to be. Anyway, since a religion is a worldview, or a “philosophy of life” then it is a belief of your religion that religious beliefs can't be verified. In other words, what I've quoted from you above is merely a belief in your religion. And this being the case means that it can't be verified that religious beliefs can't be verified, which inturn leaves your proposition unverifiable. But I'm afraid the problem goes beyond this. If what you've said above is indeed the case, then no proposition can be verified since all propositions are a product of one's worldview. So belief that God exist along with belief that you're looking a computer monitor, are both unverifiable and therefore are not in the category of “truth and falsehood.”

But the problems don't stop there. If only propositions which are verifiable can be true or false, then how do I verify that these proposition musts be verified? That is, how can I verify the proposition “only verifiable propositions can be considered true or false” (since by it's own criterion it must be verified in order to be considered true)? And how can the proposition even be verified without running into the problem of induction, which is itself a formal fallacy? And if these certain propositions one believes in, need verification, that is, if one needs a reason to hold to any belief which claims to be true, then he must also have a reason for that reason,...and a reason for the reason for that reason,...and a reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for that reason, and so on ad infinitum, which is absurd.

There, then must be 'things' that do need to be verified, 'things' that are themselve self-evident, like the law of contradiction which states: A cannot be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same sense. If this proposition needed to be verified then it wouldn't be self-evident. Yet I can still affirm that it is true, eventhough it hasn't been verified. In fact, any argument that trys to show that this proposition needs to be verified would itself need to first presume the truth of the proposition. Every argument employs this law in one way shape or form (even the argument employed by the poor sap who attempts to argue against it).

So then there must be self-evident 'things' that do need to be verified. There are also beliefs that are themselves irreducible; beliefs that you either have the right to believe in without verification, or that are one's “starting point” or “axiom” (as in geometry) of their worldview, from which everything else is deduced. One example is belief that the external world exist, and another is perhaps, belief that God exist. Or even, dare I say, belief that the Bible is the Word of God.

So, no, not all claims need to verified since the process itself cannot even be verified. But I suspect that you intended to be more specific since you couldn't have meant that no religious claim can be verified. You must have meant that certain specific claims cannot be verified. So, what specifically cannot be verified? Why?

This is another one of those “so what?” points. I think I've covered this adequately in previous postings in this thread, but let me draw an illustration to help it sink in. I am right now in Southern California. Now, what if someone comes up to you and says, “Hey, Tim is in Ohio right now.” Then, shortly after that someone else comes around and says “No silly, he's in New York right now.” Then shortly after that a third person comes around and says “No, you're both wrong! Tim is in California.” Now obvious just because these three people disagree on where I'm currently at, doesn't mean that I'm suddenly nowhere, or that no one is right in the matter; I'm still in California.

How could you know this? If you're consistent with the claims you've made, than you could neither know nor verify this. So, how do you know that ultimate truth is God? Have you verified this?

Can I think God's thoughts? Well, I seriously doubt I can. I'm not even sure God 'thinks' in the way we understand the word. But this question is a bit misguided. Can I think the the thoughts of John who only speaks French? How about the thoughts of Jane who only spoke a now extinct dialect? The answer to both questions is no. However, can I think the same propositions as both John and Jane? Yes. And can I think the same propositions as God? Yes! An example? God exist.

Because I feel God is one yes. Because I believe a reality without God reduces to absurdity it another. Why would you ignore the many other reasons one could have for believing that God exist? There have been those who regarded feelings as inadequate, and did not trust them; they therefore arrived at the proposition “God exist” through other means such as through logical deduction. The “touchy feely” Christianity is more of a modern invention. And I certainly don't think that feeling along is adequate. The Bible even says that the heart is deceitful (Jeremiah 17:9) and 1 Thessalonians 5:21 commands us to "Test everything," to include subjective feelings.

Why would something need to be comprehended in order to exist? Did I say this?

Can you verify this? How could you verify that what you said is true for those who lived 5,000 years ago?

Have you verifed this? How could you verify that this is the case with me? What about John Doe from 2500BC?

If both of our “feelings” are contradictory, than they both can't be true. Which would mean that *gasp* one or both of us was wrong. Now I don't know about you, but I am not a fan of holding to false beliefs, especially in a matter as important as this.

No, I'd say God is more like a mind

On occasion. Why?

Sometimes. Why?

*looks at his bible which is filled with facts and data*

I may not understand the proposition "God exist" univocally, but the proposition is itself not a metaphor.

 

That's called indoctrination. Most people believe simply because they were born into it and grew up with it, and it's too strongly imbedded in them to really question it. Not to say it's unexamined faith, just that they always considered their religion's basics to be truth, and it's hard to doubt your personal truths. One usually approaches these questions from the position they already hold, and so see it through biased eyes. It's nearly impossible to look at things objectively without preconciveved notions, not intellectually anyways.

You're right though, experience is the main thing. I think that many people are raised with such strict metaphors that they can't view god any other way, and so condemn everyone else that doesn't describe god in the same way. This is contrary to what a [good] religion seeks to do, which is to break down barriers. This is the fault I have with any religion that claims to have the "one and only True Faith," they seem to build more walls than they break down. I'd say it's because people aren't basing things on the experience but on the symbols and intellectualized ideas.

Good point. That's what I'm arguing against here, this idea that the metaphors themselves are absolute truth. And when you have two people stuck on differeing metaphors, you can even get violence, wars. It's annoying to have Christians telling me I have to describe my feeling of God in THEIR metaphorical imagery, as if the symbol was more important than the meaning.

 

Well those who live a good life are those who believe the truth. The bible can be proven to be true based on the fulfillment of it's prophecies. Prophecies which were accurate in the past, and prophecies that are accurate today. The fact is these prophecies are the back bone of the bible, and for the most part the church and the non-christian ignore them equally. They do this out of either ignorance or fear. I came across them on my own and was shocked when I discovered that world history, and are soon to come future was already recorded in the bible. My belief in this book was not shaped by force, but by truth. The Jews are not back in Israel by accident. The God of the bible has wonders to perform.

 

superNova if you were raised buddhist your entire life, then someone showed you the bible when you were 80, you're expected to drop everything you heard before that and believe the bible. that is completely unreasonable, and i, for one, don't believe in that kind of god.


My reply, shows I agree...
Jesus couldn't slam the pearly gates in the face a warmly smiling, humbly bowing, sincere 80 year old Tibetan Buddist monk without a corrupt cell in his body. BG13



JatomPersonal experience is one of the strongest evidences.

The personal experience, to me, is the strongest of all the reasons for what I believe. It makes my faith in Spirit very comfortable. I only want to add that my experiences are absolutely no reason nor the slightest evidence for anyone else to believe anything.

 

Are you saying a Buddhist or a Muslim can't live a good life?

 

I have heard that the devil believes the truth, so then C34's quote would imply that he leads a good life.
I am sure that is not what he meant though.

Of course, any person, regardless of spiritual beliefs, can live a good life.
The other thing I thought of regarding the statement was that it is true, it is a good life to seek and to believe the truth, no matter which faith or person expresses it.

 

The devil was once an angel. Of course he believes in truth. In fact, if satan would repent, he would be forgiven.

 

What if he is waiting to be forgiven first, then he'll repent?
I'll try to get him to repent if I run into him.

 

Forgiveness comes after repentance. Satan isn't trying to repent.

 

I always thought that forgiveness had no conditions attached to it.

 

That is why the bible always speaks of repentance. The act of being truly sorry.

"well than satan can go to hell" - LOL!!!! I agree

 

I know of people who have forgiven others who wronged them, even though the ones who did the evil deeds have not repented, or changed their ways.

That is something I find inspirational.

 

I do not assert that my 'religion', as you call it, is verifiable. By suggesting that beliefs in god cannot be verified, this applies, as well, to my own. I have nothing to prove, no miracles or holy book. Rather, my worldview is a response to various works which are, each individually, the supposed 'word of god'. I do not look to a sole holy book (and disregard the others), I look to the connections between ALL holy books.

And to quote you, Jatom:
"Personal experience is one of the strongest evidences."

I agree that religion is very much a personal affair, and it is in this vein that beliefs in god are very much unverifiable.

So here you make a leap from 'religion cannot be verified' and equate it to 'reality cannot be verified'.
I agree, all propositions are a product of one's worldview, but 'religion' (which was the actual subject you quoted me on) does not include the belief that I'm looking through a computer monitor.
The fact that I am looking through a computer monitor could be agreed upon by just about everybody. Which 'holy book' is the real word of god, on the other hand, would likely cause a heated dispute and violent eruption.

Allow me to draw my part of this illustration.
Say that the person claiming Tim is in Ohio states that, "Anyone who believes Tim is anywhere but Ohio is stupid". But then let's say that the two who believe Tim is somewhere else, never got word that Tim was in Ohio. Can they be called stupid for their beliefs? Let's say they had been told by many people close to them, or better yet, let's say that their entire culture and society had convinced them, that Tim was in New York. Could they really be held accountable and called stupid for the fact that they believe Tim was somewhere other than Ohio?
Hell, the person claiming Tim is in Ohio was only claiming so in the first place. Let's say the other person states that, "Anyone who believes Tim is anywhere but New York is stupid".

Maybe Tim died at sea and was no more in one place than any other, because his spirit was everywhere.

Deut. 4:28-29: "There you will worship man-made gods of wood and stone, which cannot see or hear or eat or smell. But if from there you seek the Lord your God, you will find him if you look for him with all your heart and all your soul".

See this is my point, our feelings are not contradictory, it is our ways of explaining them that are. (I believe that language is HIGHLY inadequate in its communication of feelings). Which means that explanations, when taken literally, and not seen as explanations, get in the way. Which implies that fundamentally *gasp* neither of us are 'wrong'.

If you do not understand the proposition how do you know it is not a metaphor? God exists, but in what way? Is god separated from nature or is god nature?

 

This is why i turned my back on Christians, its bullshit that the "hardcore " ones believe everybody in the world that isnt Christian is going to hell thats bullshit! Where do buddists go? hindus? muslims? well acording to most christians they are going to hell. thats stupid! the religion that is supposed to be the most "loving" is the MOST judgemental!

 

Loving? yes, truthful? yes? People seem to have a faulty perception that if you don't steal or lie, and you do thoughtful things, that it guarantees you a spot into Heaven. One does not get into Heaven merely based on their actions. Jesus has a plan. It is laid down throught the Bible. The word says that if you do not follow this plan, you will not be with him one day. Very plain, and very simple. Christians tell others because we are witnesses for Christ. I am not going to sit around and lie to someone that there is paradise waiting for them when they refuse to know who Christ is. Lying is for people who do not care. I care about other's souls and as a Christian, God said to spread his message to all nations.


Buddists, Hindus, and Muslims, do not know follow Jesus Christ. He said that he is the ONLY way. This is not my own personal opinion, this is not my own judgement. This is what the Bible says. This is what he himself said.

Heaven is God's realm.... not Buddah's, not Allah's, but God's. You must know him to enter into his realm. The Bible says there will be praise and worshipping in Heaven. If you cannot praise and worship God on earth, then you will not be praising and worshipping him up there.

 

The problem is that you people act like you have a monopoly on God. A truly laughable concept!

 

Epiphany,
Does it really feel right in your heart to think this way?

I would like to share a verse with you.

Colossians 3:9-11:

"Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its creator. Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all."

blessings.

 

How do you know that hell is a bad thing? It is a necessary step in spiritual development to go to (through) hell.

 

Good, than you only affirm what I've already said, and you view reduces to the same nonsense I mention above.

Notice I did not say that, "personal experience is the only evidence," nor did I say "personal experience is the best evidece." I only said that it was the "strongest."

But you've completely missed what I said (and the link I provided which explained the matter in more detail):

A religon=A worldview; one's worldview is their religion. Get it? Now you affirmed that "'truth' and 'falsehood' do not pertain to religious beliefs, because there is no way to verify either." This proposition is a product of your worldview--your religion--therefore not even it can be verified, and it does not belong in the category of "true and falsehood"

Ah, but belief that you're looking at a computer monitor is a logical inference from your worldview--your religion--a proposition deduced from an axiom that you hold to on blind faith; that axiom is "My senses are reliable, and correspond to an external world" (which allows you to believe that you are looking at a monitor). If you don't believe that you hold this on blind faith than non-fallaciously show how your faith in this axiom is warrented. Until then, it remains that this is merely a belief in your religion; however if you can show that this belief is warrented, then you contradict yourself since you've already affirmed that "'truth' and 'falsehood' do not pertain to religious beliefs, because there is no way to verify either."

But you're missing the point, regardless of who calls who stupid, Tim is still in southern California. Likewise, if Christianity is true then it is true regardless of who say's what. This is the point I'm trying to make and we really can't get any further on the matter until you can at least admit this.

Good, now:
1. What's the context
2. What's the author's (not yours) meaning in context
3. What is meant by the word "heart" or more precisesly the phase "heart and soul"
4. What relationship, if any, is there to this passage and the "touchy feely" Christianity I mentioned above?

If language is highly inadequate, than how can you know that my feelings aren't contradictory to yours since mine can't be communicated to you? If what you say really is the case, then you can't know anybody's feelings but your own, since in order to know someone else's they would need to be communicated to you.

When did I say that I couldn't understand the proposition? I only said that I do not understand it univocally. And of course I can't make logical inference about whether God is separated from nature or if He is nature itself, since this proposition say's nothing about thr nature of God's existence. No, it only says, "God exist" and nothing else. Anyway what is predicated about about many things (such as "such and such exist") is the simpler of the two, but since there is nothing simpler than God, nothing can be predicated about God and of other things. In short, I exist, that is I particapte in the category of existence, but God is essentially Existence. Likewise, I can love, but God is essentially Love "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love" (1 John 4:8) We particapate in a catogory, but what God is, He is essentially, which is why God is Existence, and I merely exist. Hence, I cannot understand the proposition "God exist" univocally. More specifly, there is a univocal concept--"existence"--which is analogically affirmed through predication--"God exist."

But this in no way means that all that is written in the bible is a metaphor.

 

Oh and, Happy New Year's!