Is faith a reliable path to reality?

[Angry Ukulele Girl]

Hi there!

This is my first post
This is according to Hebrews 11:1
How exactly can "confidence in what we hope for"
and an "assurance about what we do not see"
be a reliable path to reality?
For example,
Would it be advisable to approach my bank account balance in such a way?

Thanks!

[Difflugia]

If you can have a relationship with the Divine, then there must be a Divine person.

If you want to define it that way, then we're not having the same conversation. Divinity also exists in our heads. In fact, I think divinity only exists in our heads, but that's not necessary for my earlier statement to be true.

God's not real, but many people still feel inspired and moved by The Shack. That some of them think God is real is part of their relationship with divinity. In the same way, I find a lot to value in the New Testament and it affects my relationship with divinity. I don't believe God is real, thoug, so that just isn't part of the relationship. While I apparently have a different relationship with divinity than you do, that doesn't mean either is more or less valid.

If there is a Divine person, then He could do everything that the Bible says because He is Divine. So either there is no Divine person to have a relationship with, or there is a Divine person and He did everything that He said that He did. There can be no Divine relationship without Divine action.

You're just asserting that the only valid relationship with divinity is the same kind you have. That seems par for the course, quite frankly.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #121]

If you want to define it that way, then we're not having the same conversation. Divinity also exists in our heads. In fact, I think divinity only exists in our heads, but that's not necessary for my earlier statement to be true.

Words have meanings. I was commenting on the words that you wrote.

So, you think you are God (god). I am not sure whether you think you are a small g or a capital G. You need to self-identify. Divinity means things related to God or God. So, if divinity exists in your head, then you believe you are God.

If you have a relationship with the Divine, then you have a relationship with God or something God created. The Bible cannot be Divine if God did not produce it. It would simply be a collection of wise writings, but it could not be divine.

If you do not believe that God exists, then nothing can be divine.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #120]

I'd say that was simple. There is no verifiable divine action. Physics, biology and indeed history works better without a god being postulated, never mind which one.

I believe you want to avoid going down this path. Methodological Naturalism has no starting point. With the discoveries that the James Webb space telescope is making, this is no season to argue Methodological Naturalism. The further we look out into space, all we see is more of the same thing. There is no evidence of galactic evolution, without galactic evolution, methodological naturalism is dead, because it has no starting point.

I am not sure what history you are speaking of.

[Difflugia]

Words have meanings.

They do. I know what I wrote and what I meant.

I was commenting on the words that you wrote.

That's why I charitably assumed that you just misunderstood and explained my meaning.

So, you think you are God (god).

No. There are no gods.

I am not sure whether you think you are a small g or a capital G. You need to self-identify.

He, him, his.

Divinity means things related to God or God.

That's right. There are no real gods, so divinity can only relate to imaginary gods. It's kind of like spirituality. "Spirit" isn't a thing, either, so it's more of an attitude or a way of thinking about reality.

So, if divinity exists in your head, then you believe you are God.

Of course not. I also don't believe I'm a hobbit when I read Lord of the Rings.

If you have a relationship with the Divine, then you have a relationship with God or something God created.

No, I have ideas about gods. Authors of the Bible had ideas about gods. When I read what they wrote, I have a relationship with them about divinity. When I read Tolkein, I have a relationship with him about Middle Earth.

The Bible cannot be Divine if God did not produce it. It would simply be a collection of wise writings, but it could not be divine.

That's absolutely right. The Bible's not divine.

If you do not believe that God exists, then nothing can be divine.

And if spirits don't exist, then nothing can be spirit. Yet, I still talk about things being spiritual and discuss them in a spiritual way. Most people don't see a contradiction.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #124]

I find a lot to value in the New Testament and it affects my relationship with divinity. I don't believe God is real, thoug, so that just isn't part of the relationship. While I apparently have a different relationship with divinity than you do, that doesn't mean either is more or less valid.

But it does mean that one is more valid than the other because one has to be true, and one has to be false. Both views cannot be true. Either God exists, or He does not exist. There is no middle ground.

If you are claiming that there is no God, you must also be claiming that you have some special knowledge that the rest of the scientific community does not have. No one can say there is no God. You may have hope that there is no God, but you cannot say with any certainty that there is no God.

Because you cannot say with certainty that there is no God, divinity cannot be used the way you are using it. You are using divinity with the assumption attached to it that God does not exist. That assumption may exist in your mind, but it cannot exist in reality because, in reality, the most you can do is hope that God does not exist.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #120]

I'd say that was simple. There is no verifiable divine action. Physics, biology and indeed history works better without a god being postulated, never mind which one.

Same with consciousness, morals and all the various religions.

On evidence, I'd say the Divine is the less viable or credible logical option for the way things are.

That is not what physics or biology say. There is no answer to the creation of the universe or life. No one can say that God does not exist without denying modern physics, cosmology, Chemistry, astronomy, and biology. Only those who want to deny the conclusions of modern science would say that God does not exist. Unless you know how the universe and life were formed, it is not logically possible for you to say that there is no God.

[Difflugia]

But it does mean that one is more valid than the other because one has to be true, and one has to be false. Both views cannot be true. Either God exists, or He does not exist. There is no middle ground.

Define validity how you wish.

If you are claiming that there is no God, you must also be claiming that you have some special knowledge that the rest of the scientific community does not have.

I'm claiming that I have at least a sizeable fraction of the special knowledge that most biologists have, of whom only 5.5% believe in God.

No one can say there is no God. You may have hope that there is no God, but you cannot say with any certainty that there is no God.

I can say that there are no gods with the same certainty that I can say that there are no giraffes in my home. With more certainty, in fact; I have very good reasons to believe that giraffes exist elsewhere, so there is a nonzero chance that one wandered in when I wasn't looking.

Because you cannot say with certainty that there is no God, divinity cannot be used the way you are using it.

And yet I have done so.

You are using divinity with the assumption attached to it that God does not exist. That assumption may exist in your mind, but it cannot exist in reality because, in reality, the most you can do is hope that God does not exist.

I don't believe that there are hundreds of millions of dollars in my wallet, either, but I certainly don't have to hope that there isn't. I occasionally buy a lottery ticket, especially when the bartender and I start laughing about how I should spend the money when I win. Even though I hope I do win the jackpot, I can be pretty certain that I won't and the odds of gods being real are orders of magnitude lower than that. Whether I hope or not, I still won't win the lottery and there still are no gods.

[William]

If you can have a relationship with the Divine, then there must be a Divine person.

If you want to define it that way, then we're not having the same conversation. Divinity also exists in our heads. In fact, I think divinity only exists in our heads, but that's not necessary for my earlier statement to be true.

God's not real, but many people still feel inspired and moved by The Shack. That some of them think God is real is part of their relationship with divinity. In the same way, I find a lot to value in the New Testament and it affects my relationship with divinity. I don't believe God is real, thoug, so that just isn't part of the relationship. While I apparently have a different relationship with divinity than you do, that doesn't mean either is more or less valid.

If there is a Divine person, then He could do everything that the Bible says because He is Divine. So either there is no Divine person to have a relationship with, or there is a Divine person and He did everything that He said that He did. There can be no Divine relationship without Divine action.

You're just asserting that the only valid relationship with divinity is the same kind you have. That seems par for the course, quite frankly.

When it comes to relationship with divinity defined as "something one can mindfully engage with" (re the above conversation) then what appears to be a factor in both is the extent to which the mindfulness of the divine and the individual integrate and what other observations can be made by the individual in relation to the objective reality the subjective experience is engaged with (and how that influences said experience).

Recently I have engaged with information which I think is pertinent to that whole subject. The data comes from Diana Walsh Pasulka, professor of religious studies and chair of the department of philosophy and religion at the University of North Carolina, Wilmington.

Her research centers on the connections between technology and human belief in the context of religious history. She is the author of American Cosmic: UFOs, Religion, Technology, & Encounters: Experiences with Nonhuman Intelligences: Explorations with UFOs, Dreams, Angels, AI and Other Dimensions.

Like me, Diana has been studying these phenomena for many years yet unlike me, she has not (yet) come to the conclusion that there is mindfulness behind this reality experience we are all engaged with (with differing perspectives) and has a rather atheistic approach to the subject of Synchronicity - acknowledging that she experiences coincidences very frequently but choosing to thinking it is just randomness, preferring and thus proffering Nietzsche's belief/philosophy by not ascribing meaning to Synchronicity.

This particular position works against the opportunity to connect with said mind in any meaningful manner re subjective/objective experience

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #120]

I'd say that was simple. There is no verifiable divine action. Physics, biology and indeed history works better without a god being postulated, never mind which one.

I believe you want to avoid going down this path. Methodological Naturalism has no starting point. With the discoveries that the James Webb space telescope is making, this is no season to argue Methodological Naturalism. The further we look out into space, all we see is more of the same thing. There is no evidence of galactic evolution, without galactic evolution, methodological naturalism is dead, because it has no starting point.

I am not sure what history you are speaking of.

T^his is a common fallacy - appeal to unknown. Wat is unknown is unknown. It is not a gap for ago m(name your own, anyway). What is knopwn or at least as far as we know it, has not provided good evidence for a god, and rather evidence that a god is not necessary.

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #120]

I'd say that was simple. There is no verifiable divine action. Physics, biology and indeed history works better without a god being postulated, never mind which one.

Same with consciousness, morals and all the various religions.

On evidence, I'd say the Divine is the less viable or credible logical option for the way things are.

That is not what physics or biology say. There is no answer to the creation of the universe or life. No one can say that God does not exist without denying modern physics, cosmology, Chemistry, astronomy, and biology. Only those who want to deny the conclusions of modern science would say that God does not exist. Unless you know how the universe and life were formed, it is not logically possible for you to say that there is no God.

Another common logical error of theism. The burden of proof is on the god - claim, not for doubters, scientists or atheists to prove that it doesn't.

The answers to unknowns such as cosmic origins, or the unproven theory of the origins of life, or even the disputed origin of consciousness (which i don't consider a difficulty anyway) is Unknown, not 'God'.
A prori godfaith is a logical error and is why Faith is not a good path to truth.

[TRANSPONDER]

If you can have a relationship with the Divine, then there must be a Divine person.

If you want to define it that way, then we're not having the same conversation. Divinity also exists in our heads. In fact, I think divinity only exists in our heads, but that's not necessary for my earlier statement to be true.

God's not real, but many people still feel inspired and moved by The Shack. That some of them think God is real is part of their relationship with divinity. In the same way, I find a lot to value in the New Testament and it affects my relationship with divinity. I don't believe God is real, thoug, so that just isn't part of the relationship. While I apparently have a different relationship with divinity than you do, that doesn't mean either is more or less valid.

If there is a Divine person, then He could do everything that the Bible says because He is Divine. So either there is no Divine person to have a relationship with, or there is a Divine person and He did everything that He said that He did. There can be no Divine relationship without Divine action.

You're just asserting that the only valid relationship with divinity is the same kind you have. That seems par for the course, quite frankly.

When it comes to relationship with divinity defined as "something one can mindfully engage with" (re the above conversation) then what appears to be a factor in both is the extent to which the mindfulness of the divine and the individual integrate and what other observations can be made by the individual in relation to the objective reality the subjective experience is engaged with (and how that influences said experience).

Recently I have engaged with information which I think is pertinent to that whole subject. The data comes from Diana Walsh Pasulka, professor of religious studies and chair of the department of philosophy and religion at the University of North Carolina, Wilmington.

Her research centers on the connections between technology and human belief in the context of religious history. She is the author of American Cosmic: UFOs, Religion, Technology, & Encounters: Experiences with Nonhuman Intelligences: Explorations with UFOs, Dreams, Angels, AI and Other Dimensions.

Like me, Diana has been studying these phenomena for many years yet unlike me, she has not (yet) come to the conclusion that there is mindfulness behind this reality experience we are all engaged with (with differing perspectives) and has a rather atheistic approach to the subject of Synchronicity - acknowledging that she experiences coincidences very frequently but choosing to thinking it is just randomness, preferring and thus proffering Nietzsche's belief/philosophy by not ascribing meaning to Synchronicity.

This particular position works against the opportunity to connect with said mind in any meaningful manner re subjective/objective experience

How about that? I have to approve this message. Honest and open - minded research must conclude that there is no compelling evidence or reason to suppose that the stuff that we think up in our heads is necessarily contact with a reality somewhere.

Klingons, and indeed fairies or Flying saucers are things we have thoughts about, but there is no guarantee that they are real rather than imaginary, or misinterpretation of things we have seen.