Is it possible that God exists?

Ha, who's point do you think I am debating? I am not confused about the point I am making.

True.

Not irrelevant if you want to communicate. It appears to me that heeh2 considers any measure of faith to be devoid of reason, I think this is a distortion.

Yes, this is the point, that it changes the argument. There is some information that, if we had it at the beginning, would make a whole chain of argument a moot point.

Yes, I find reason for faith as well.

I have made an effort to acknowledge this distinction.

I am glad you say usually always because there is a belief in the existence of god that is based on palpable phenomena. The word god meaning, "that which is invoked". We always choose with a guide.

 

Then why don't you say trust? Could it be that I cant distinguish which faith
your talking about at every particular instance?

I can list plenty of front page stories. It was faith that caused 911, prevents
stem cell research, oppresses gays, disempowers women. I could go on.

You aren't going to say it isn't faith being affirmed, when it comes to the
above.

Again, if this is me under a misapprehension of which "faith" you are talking about, I don't think the error is mine.

This is where we part ways. I don't think they are diametrically opposed, but
you cant have both simultaneously like you think.

You either have faith, or you have reason. If you have faith in reason then
your speaking in a relative manner and getting lost in the relativity.

I never said it was, but faith is not the arbiter of all things good like you would
like it to be. Quite the contrary, actually.

Trying to have it both ways again.

You acknowledge that information is being affirmed, but you still call it faith.

If we did not have faith that the other drivers on the road would stay in their lanes when passing by them, we would be too frightened to drive, or if we did not have faith in the aviation equipment to function properly, we could not bring ourselves to fly.

Everything you wrote above would be true if human beings were controlled by
their fear alone, but we both know that isn't true.

"We have loved the stars too fondly to be fearful of the night"

It was a quote regarding the above.

 

This is what I mean, your arguing for a definition that heeh2 was not using. Then you should not be surprised when its not agreed upon.

 

I am not surprised. I am pointing out that heeh2's argument hinges on a peculiar or limited definition of the word faith.

 

I could say trust, but that word doesn't get the same regard from you, doesn't have the same emotional taboo associated with it.

It is not faith that is the cause of these thing but the quality of information that is believed in.
I am not arguing that people do not have beliefs that they cling to despite contravening fact. I have already acknowledged that such beliefs are symbols chosen to represent an unknown variable.

I'm just trying to level the playing field here. I am not trying to make you in error but if others can be mistaken in their beliefs, then so can we. You have a belief about faith based systems being responsible only for negative effects.

You don't want the word to be part of a normal and meaningful vocabulary.
Yes I can have both and both are necessary in some if not all instances.

The two words are not mutually exclusive unless you restrict the definition of both words, or in other words, remove them from areas of common usage which do exist. The word reason for example can be a justification for something, or a motive for something. The word reason can represent the power of orderly thought or the ability to think clearly and coherently. You can have faith and be reasonable.

Do you not believe or have faith in the rule of law? Don't we uphold the system because we believe to not have it allows for more mayhem than we are comfortable with.

I never made that claim nor do I think that is the case. I like to be straight on all sides. That is, I do not wish in any way to be deceived, nor do I "hope" that things fall my way.

No, just stating what is. Faith can also mean allegiance or loyalty to someone or something.

No, I don't agree. You don't need to be ruled by or controlled by fear, just be afraid enough not to feel comfortable. This driving automobile example is one that I lived through.

I learned to drive a car on the highway with my grandfather. I was 13 years old. When I first started out as cars approached form the opposite direction, I had a tendency to slow down or jerk or swerve and I can remember my grandfather saying, you've got to have faith that the other guy is going to stay in his lane. With that little instruction I began to feel much more comfortable.

 

This is as much about your tautology as it is about my emotional association
with faith.

And you yourself have called that "symbol" faith several times. you contradict yourself here.

This isn't true.

I think faith is a cause that is very capable of negative effects;
A word masquerading around as a virtue under the guise of hope.

But I don't deny the existence of Muslim relief funds and Jewish soup kitchens, nor do I think solidarity requires, or even insists upon delusions.

Then I guess its necessary to skip the sensitivity required to understand your brand of tautology. Why would I try to understand someone being willingly
unclear?

Now your admitting its semantics.

If law stopped people from committing crimes, the united states wouldn't have
the largest prison population on the planet. Having it, and not having it
is more mayhem than is necessary.

Personally, I uphold the system because I'll be thrown in prison if I don't pay
my taxes.

You've no problem with being confusing though. I understand a lot of your
posts, but they aren't very sensitive.

Are we playing 'guess the word' or having a conversation.

I can only understand this response as a fundamental misreading of what I wrote.

 

Which definition of tautology are you referring to?
I prefer #3 myself.
1. linguistic redundancy: the redundant repetition of a meaning in a sentence, using different words
2. instance of linguistic redundancy: an instance of redundant repetition of a meaning in a sentence, using different words
3. logical true proposition: a proposition or statement that, in itself, is logically true

I've tried to make a distinction between the reasonable expectation of success, faith, and a symbol chosen to represent an unknown variable, belief.
I do not think there is an example where I have deviated from this perspective, but I do not absolutely rule out that it may have happened. Is it important enough for you to look back and provide an example? This point is not important enough for me to do it

Given equal opportunity, which perspective are you most inclined to profess?
But yeah, over reaching of me to say you only regard it in one way.

The lack of clarity it seems to me to stem from the idea that it must be a certain way. That there is no way faith can be part of reason, or there is no reason to have faith.

Yes, semantics is the study of meaning in language. Is there something not genuine in this study? It is exceedingly important to clarify meaning because the words we use to relay true things look and sound identical to the words we use to relay false things.

Semantics is also the study of logic or the study of ways of interpreting and analyzing theories of logic.
So yes, I admit to semantics but not to an inferior position.

I agree that the system dose not preform as advertised. That fact in itself makes me question the fundamental belief or "world model" that makes it all seem reasonable. I personally think there would be fewer criminals, not more,
if crime was abolished.

Being confusing is a determination that relies on the judgment of the observer. I have no problem answering questions if someone is confused. I do not purposefully intend to be confusing, and I do enjoy talking to you.

I agree with you that I am not sympathetic to illusions. Minds cannot attack other minds. If any are disillusioned it is because they had believed first in illusions.

You said of my point, "Everything you wrote above would be true if human beings were controlled by
their fear alone, but we both know that isn't true."

Could you understand it as a response to that statement?
Have I misread that statement?

 

I wonder, after all the exchange how improbable it is that you really understand me. Its possible these responses are waves of radiation from space inadvertently creating coherent english sentences. Id think
the number is too great to imagine. Improbability on a colossal scale, only
to come crashing to its knees at the word 'tautology'.

Though the bit about radiation isn't even necessary, the fact that we are
communicating is profound enough.

Its hard to think about without getting lost in the relative perspectives really.
I think its said best like this:

There is a reason people have faith, but those people are not aware of the reason. If they were aware of the why, it would not be called faith. But that is my mind;

Someone with faith thinks it reasonable, but a great many haven't asked
about it.

Its genuine, I just think its kind of trivial. It would appear we both speak
english, and I think I'm capable of considering context. Its just that I need
context to consider it.

Just 50 years ago it was a crime that my grandparents were married.

Today its the gays repeating the fight against the same idiots.

I don't know a word despicable enough to describe law.

I don't know, I would have to re-read everything to remember what I was on about and I don't think it was important enough to do so.

 

uh.... why?


oh, and to answer this whole argument very simply: the brocoli must die.

 

Well, 43 years to be precise.

In the 18th, 19th, and early 20th century, many American states passed anti-miscegenation laws, which were often defended by invoking racist interpretations of the Bible.

Interracial marriage wasn't legal until 1967.

 

This is funny. I know what it is like to be falsely accused and I think it might be from that level that some of these perspectives are formed. I think I understand you and you do speak to an annoying fact that some people believe they may find worth in making someone else seem less valuable.

I agree with you here on the point that there is much unexamined belief forming a base around which many people operate. But I don't think this is peculiar to religion, rather the phenomena of taboo and hero worship is a cultural affectation spreading across a whole range of diverging beliefs.

I can't imagine a serious communication occurring between disparate individuals without first establishing a common vocabulary. Even though we speak the same language, we don't all use words in the same way. For instance I know some females who cannot read a document meant to describe human relations, that uses out of habit the male pronoun exclusively.
You know, going on and on about not having dicks and rejecting the language as not describing or including them.

Many of the things that are said by people are false by definition. For example, the words always and never, while seldom actually describing something, are used often and have a tendency to add an emotional charge to the discourse. This is an unexamined verbal habit that yields undo anxiety.

 

The phenomena of taboo and hero worship that is a cultural affectation spreading across a whole range of diverging beliefs is called religion.

 

I agree religion is one form. Civic award and incarceration are another.

 

I don't think religion is an affirmation of something known though, like civic award and incarceration.

Its the same difference between loving who you think someone is, and loving
who they really are.

The feelings are the same, yes. But the grasp on the situation is incoherent.

 

I don't think to judge involving any model of human worthiness, represents a coherent grasp on the situation. We are never upset for a fact but for the interpretation of fact.

 

Anything is possible
To be blunt
The god of religion is worth only laughter
Only a fool believes jesus was god and jesus would agree
Mohammadd was a warlord. he was his own creator as a prophet

whats more can one say

 

Laughter indeed.

 

God is a supposition

 

Yes, it's possible that God exists. I just go about my existence as though he doesn't.

 

probably several things. begining of course with christianity does no own god. nor does islam.
and of course the god as most often depicted by christianity especially and probably for the most part islam, would seem more like a psychotic spoiled brat and bully then anything loving its creation and wishing us well.
the next question then becomes what would any nonphysical thing have to gain by wishing us other then well?
my answer to that is pretty much a resounding nothing. so there go all the demons and devils and all that nonsense. but not the possible, even probably existence of all sorts of neat fun invisible things, that are NOT obliged to resemble what any organized belief, or at least any popular perceptions of any organized belief, claims to know about them.
this brings us to the much more believable tao, which as everyone who's ever read up on it knows, that whatever they think it is, it isn't.
other then something invisible.

my other quibble is the use of the world religion, which could be construed as encompassing any and all forms of belief and spirituality, as equating with only those most popular and dominant forms.

i think you have a great mind and a great heart. it just sets my teeth on edge every time i hear that word misused in that way. however popular it may be among the many to do so.

there is of course, an entirely different way of looking at the concept of what a one ultimate god would be or is, and that is simply, that of all harmless well meaning invisible things, whatever happens to be the most all powerful.

to me, god then becomes a generic term meaning this. not a name. because such a being would need no name to distinguish it. and because every name is one we, meaning our fellow ever so material sentients, have come up with ourselves.

and of course, not only is it possible that something resembling god, or a god may very well exist, but also that it may have very little to do with anything in this world, most likely because of its choosing not to. not in the sense of abandonment, but of staying out of the way of our collective self development.

my personal experience, meaningless to anyone beyond myself, is that invisible and nonphysical things do exist, none of them wishing us any harm and most having no more idea of our existence then we have of theirs. not really affecting anything in this existence either, except as companions and friends.

not demons, devils, or angels, but just invisible awairnessess.