Faith and reason

[McCulloch]

Faith is a fruit of reason and rational thoughts.

Question: Does faith come from reason? Do rational thoughts lead one to faith?

Most non-theists and a good number of theists would deny this.

[Beto]

IF you have read the discussion I have with “Fallibleone” in the thread “An Invitation to Unbelievers...” I was trying to point out that it is impossible or illogical to grant all those who claim to have the “truth” as “true”.

I went through the thread and didn't find a single reasonable argument. You can't even begin to show why belief in one deity can be more logical than belief in another, or in none. Why one "truth" is true and another is false. You know perfectly well any argument you present can be turned against you, and you keep avoiding the issue claiming, one way or the other, that the questions are "beneath" you.

Saying "if this is the best you have to offer..." fools no one in this forum. You are stumped over and over, and you dance so much you have to be Travolta.

[ST_JB]

IF you have read the discussion I have with “Fallibleone” in the thread “An Invitation to Unbelievers...” I was trying to point out that it is impossible or illogical to grant all those who claim to have the “truth” as “true”.

I went through the thread and didn't find a single reasonable argument. You can't even begin to show why belief in one diety can be more logical than belief in another, or in none. Why one "truth" is true and another is false. You know perfectly well any argument you present can be turned against you, and you keep avoiding the issue claiming, one way or the other, that the questions are "beneath" you.

Saying "if this is the best you have to offer..." fools no one in this forum. You are stumped over and over, and you dance so much you have to be Travolta.

Hi there,

If you are really reading, the discussion was not meant to identify the "truth" but the point I was making was only to argue that there could be only one "truth". It is illogical to conceive that all those who claim to have the "truth" are all "true."

I have to ask you, do you believe that all those who claim to have the "truth" are all true?" Please support your answer.

[Beto]

IF you have read the discussion I have with “Fallibleone” in the thread “An Invitation to Unbelievers...” I was trying to point out that it is impossible or illogical to grant all those who claim to have the “truth” as “true”.

I went through the thread and didn't find a single reasonable argument. You can't even begin to show why belief in one diety can be more logical than belief in another, or in none. Why one "truth" is true and another is false. You know perfectly well any argument you present can be turned against you, and you keep avoiding the issue claiming, one way or the other, that the questions are "beneath" you.

Saying "if this is the best you have to offer..." fools no one in this forum. You are stumped over and over, and you dance so much you have to be Travolta.

Hi there,

If you are really reading, the discussion was not meant to identify the "truth" but the point I was making was only to argue that there could be only one "truth". It is illogically to conceive that all those who claim to have the "truth" are all "true."

I have to ask you, do you believe that all those who claim to have the "truth" are all true?" Please support your answer.

You're asking me a question after the patronising response I got earlier?

[Fallibleone]

So do you not believe that that which you have faith in is the truth?

I didn't say that what i believe in now is not the "truth".

Is that the same as 'what I believe in now is the truth'?

YES

Why could you not just say that? At least now we have a claim. Why the subterfuge? I knew your position already, but it is nice to every once in a while see a straightforward claim on the screen in front of me. Now I would like to see a reasoned argument to back it up, but no doubt I am far too ignorant to understand. I am, after all, not a Catholic.

I'm quite reluctant, now I think about it, to attempt to enter into another discussion about how if God exists, someone must be in possession of the 'truth', so maybe we can skip that bit. I'd be happy with just a reasoned argument explaining why you think you are the holder of that 'truth'.

[ST_JB]

IF you have read the discussion I have with “Fallibleone” in the thread “An Invitation to Unbelievers...” I was trying to point out that it is impossible or illogical to grant all those who claim to have the “truth” as “true”.

I went through the thread and didn't find a single reasonable argument. You can't even begin to show why belief in one diety can be more logical than belief in another, or in none. Why one "truth" is true and another is false. You know perfectly well any argument you present can be turned against you, and you keep avoiding the issue claiming, one way or the other, that the questions are "beneath" you.

Saying "if this is the best you have to offer..." fools no one in this forum. You are stumped over and over, and you dance so much you have to be Travolta.

Hi there,

If you are really reading, the discussion was not meant to identify the "truth" but the point I was making was only to argue that there could be only one "truth". It is illogically to conceive that all those who claim to have the "truth" are all "true."

I have to ask you, do you believe that all those who claim to have the "truth" are all true?" Please support your answer.

You're asking me a question after the patronising response I got earlier?

I had to ask you to clear some issues about your understanding on what you read. My post was cleaer enough to answer yours. If there are issues not clear to you... please let me know.

[Rathpig]

ST_JB,

Metaphysics is not the realm of "truth". That is one of the first errors you have made. Nothing you have presented leads to your possession of "truth" or reason and logic. You have merely stated, albeit only through subterfuge, that your superstition is correct; however all the support you present is fallacious.

Attacking your critics with ad hominem and condescension is clear evidence of a less than powerful argument. So far your only support has been a vacuous appeal to authority for the Catholic Church, and this is hardly an authority of anything other than ritualized superstition. You will have to do much better than previous shown to be considered a serious participant in a philosophical conversation.

[Klemp]

McCulloch

The Bible tells us that we should have the faith of a little child.

A child's faith comes from God; not from reason. What are some characteristics of a child? Humility - tender heart - etc.

However, after we are old enough to reason, we certainly should follow the reasonable path.

A person could ask where this "reason instruction" is coming from:


[color=red]Is it coming from atheists who are trying to prove their points?

Is it coming from untested science?

Is it coming from true and tested science?[/color]

I believe God gives faith to a person who wants to be a Christian, who repents of his sins and who is willing to let God be in charge of his life.

Those who want to continue sinning, I don't believe, are given the faith to believe.

[Rathpig]

......I believe God gives faith to a person who wants to be a Christian, who repents of his sins and who is willing to let God be in charge of his life.

Those who want to continue sinning, I don't believe, are given the faith to believe.

I know you specifically addressed McCulloch, but I am going to chime in on this last part because I think it speaks to the larger issue I have been making throughout this thread.


What has happened here is that you have the whole thing turned wrong way around. Because people want to believe that their cultural teachings are correct, and embrace the psychological support of these teachings, they counteract their lack of evidence with "faith". This becomes a self-fulfilled part of their cultural experience.

You simply can't say that faith in the Christian "God" isn't specifically culturally subjective. If this was an objective universal god then people who had never heard the message would spontaneously embrace the deity through this "God" given faith, yet that isn't how it works.

The faith comes from man to explain the god. Not the other way around. People have faith because they wish to have "God" to comfort them. They realize, as it is rather obvious, that nothing physical supports the construct, so they build believe without evidence. They build faith.

In order to continue their little metaphysical charade, they point to those who do not believe and say such inane things as "God doesn't like you", 'You are ignorant of the truth", or you just "want to continue sinning". They feel they have to explain away the one thing that threatens their deity: unbelief.

Not too many years ago these same people were known to take a violent approach to skeptics, which shows that the fragility of faith is obvious.

[allansmith]

I went through the thread and didn't find a single reasonable argument. You can't even begin to show why belief in one deity can be more logical than belief in another, or in none.

God will not (cannot) force me to love him freely.

Therefore, the world must be a place where it is perfectly possible for an honest, rational and informed person to disbelieve. It must be absolutely credible and plausible to say "NO" to God's proposal of marriage.

Any unambiguous evidence, any certain proof, would constitute an attempt on God's part to force the suit.

Doubt is therefore necessary to freedom.

This is why Jesus refused to give a sign.

[Beto]

God will not (cannot) force me to love him freely.

That's reasonable to assume, but you can't have it both ways. You can't say "I believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven" (with an alternative being not going to heaven, regardless of it being second death or Hell) and not recognize this is forcing love by means of coersion.