I wouldn’t call it faith, and it is a very weak belief. Things 15 billion light years away are beyond our event horizon, and thus cannot even theoretically affect us in any way. We’ll know a billion years from now - but then we’d wonder about events 16 billion light years away. The reason I think its the same is a weak and informal type of induction - as we’ve see further in the past the laws have held, so there is no reason to think it won’t hold true in the future. But that’s far from a proof.
I’ m not sure what faith means to other people, but faith does not seem to be provisional. The believer has faith in God or Jesus despite the lack of evidence - in fact perhaps because of it, if you believe those who say that God does not give us evidence to build our faith.
All my beliefs are provisional. I go by the motto “the race may not go to the swift - but that’s the way to bet.” If I saw it rain in one window and be sunny in another, like in Heinlein’s “They” I’d be shocked, but I’d be more interested in how they pulled it off. (Actually, given the microclimates in the Bay Area, that happens all the time. 
) I’m not one of those atheists who would absolutely refuse to believe in God if he came down, white beard and all, and started parting bodies of water. I’d look for the spaceship, true, but I could be provisionally convinced.
As an example, check out the supernatural thread, where I was the only person who seemed willing to change my view of science if strong evidence for the supernatural was found. Theists and atheists ganged up on me in that one. So, I don’t do faith - not in religion, and not in science.
Not in temporal logic, because there are no symmetrical relations across tenses. A Euclidean system, for example, like S5 modal logic, is problematic. Moreover, when the assertion is doxastic, belief must be justified and true to be knowledge (although there is some mild controversy over that these days). So there are times when you cannot posit two opposing possibilities. You cannot know that both these are possible: WTC fell on 9/11 and WTC did not fall on 9/11. (There is no world in which the latter is true; therefore, it is not possible. Your belief, then, is not true; therefore, it is not knowledge.)
Again, the formal term is “now-necessary”. Because the projection is toward the assymetrical future rather than the assymetrical past, and because it is given that God knows at least one (the premise of the argument), and because omniscience implies that if He knows one then He must know the other, we can conclude that He knew both. (Note that omniscience alone is not sufficient to imply that he knew both without knowing one, because of the assymetry.) So, like I said before, rather than present a second controversial axiom in a reductio argument, we deduced it.
Well, (4) has to be true, because it follows from 2 and 3 and the necessity principle. It works because it is not a doxastic assertion.
Okay, now is when getting all technical is appropriate. Your tenses are wrong. Since he did rise, he must now be risen. That’s exactly what now-necessary means. It is an odd sort of necessity, what with being contingent on the past. Besides, God couldn’t have known that Jesus would return. We’ve proved that. Logic isn’t like science. There’s no point in retesting what has been proved true.
I can’t imagine why (5) would be controversial. It follows from 4 and the Def of Nec:
A or ~A <-> ~<>~A or ~<>A.
Liberal, if you don’t like how I argue, don’t argue with me. Goodness knows you have plenty of other playmates. I have issues with how you argue, but I don’t presume to tell you what you may or may not do.
I have no problem with how you argue. I have a problem with your presuming to know what I think, what I believe, and what is in my mind — particularly when it is in direct opposition to what I have said. When I say “addressed”, I do not mean “refuted”. What you said that I believe was incorrect.
I’m going to start a thread on falsification some day. You might be interested in reading Night Comes to the Cretaceous Amazon Link which is about the Alvarez asteroid theory, but really about the scientific battle. It is fast reading, interesting, and even better than The Double Helix in showing how science really works. It shows that falsification is not so simple as you might think.
Science does not relish making errors, but it does accept the possibility, no, the inevitability, of making errors. Reproducibility is perhaps more important than falsification in everyday science, and that exists to allow errors to be found and expunged. Only by accepting that you will make errors can you protect yourself against them. At the heart of all religions is a germ of infallibility and unquestioned truth. It may be bigger, like in fundamentalism, or moderate, like Papal infallibility, or small, like Reform Judaism where the nonexistence of the Davidic empire seems to have no impact, but it is there.
Gerry Weinberg, in The Psychology of Computer Programming, says that programming should be egoless, and that you should be willing to share your mistakes with others. I’ve found this to be valuable, since if you are willing to do that you open yourself to admitting you make mistakes. It’s important in science also - the cold fusion guys should have quickly owned up to their mistake, in fact they should have checked for it, by publishing, before holding big press conferences and getting themselves in so deep they couldn’t admit error. So, while scientists shouldn’t be proud of screwing up, they should cheerfully admit to it, as a lesson to others. A big criticism of journals is that papers describing failed experiments never get published, so people think science is one grand march directly to the truth.
Liberal, I’m not telling you what you may or may not do. You can continue trying to tell me what I may or may not do. I’m telling you that I’m not going to accept the instructions.
As for the particular thing about which you’re whining here, in context, the two words are nearly synonymous. In any event, if you want to correct me or clarify, that’s fine. But you have several times now tried to tell me what I may not do. It’s not going to work.
Bear in mind, btw, that it’s also open to me to decide I won’t debate you. I’m getting there.
It’s been about five years now, but I have read it. And as I recall, it wasn’t the falsification that was difficult, but the paelontology — specifically, the question of diversity among the dinosaur population and its distribution over time. Look, I’m not trying to make falsification into something simplistic. I’m trying to make science into something recognizably Popperian (which Night Comes did in spades).
Well, that’s a far cry from “cherishing” them, isn’t it? I’m not saying that a scientist who makes an error should rend his garment in twain, put on a sackcloth, and fling himself from a cliff. But why he should glory in it or be proud is a mystery to me. What he should be is careful, and yes there will always be errors, but they’re nothing to be proud of. Not in a discipline ostensibly intended to settle questions about the world around us.
Where do you draw that line? What about deliberate errors, like those in the EPA’s second hand smoke report? What about fraud in general? If it is so glorious to make errors, why not encourage them?
That simply isn’t true. “Beyond all, question.” — 1 Timothy 3:16. “Test everything. Hold on to the good.” — 1 Thessalonians 5:21
I don’t disagree with that.
Agreed again. That sort of ignorance is all over this board in fact. There are people who do not even differentiate science from deduction, and who do not even understand that science and religion are sibling branches of philosophy.
Sorry for my poor word choice. The way you put it is much better. But you understood what I meant. It’s not the error themselves that are to be cherished, but rather our ability to accept them, incorporate them, and continue on our search.
I will. Thanks
If a religion is open to self-scrutinization and the acceptance of the possibility of error, it makes it that much more attractive to me.
Your version of Christianity is something I can definitely live with. What I cannot readily accept is the traditional – for lack of a better word – “we can’t be wrong” attitude that some versions of the religion hold.
I don’t believe there is an external and absolute form of justice. To me, it is just a societal construct. It is not a “truth” but simply a system by which we, as a society, implicity agree to live by (or die by).
But as for a “spiritual truth” or, more simply, the question of “How did it all happen?”… I’m looking for something more than a consensus among men. I want to know what actually happened, although I may never find that answer.
In terms of religions and how we should live, yes, this is the view I hold as well. To each their own, as long as they can live and let live.
In terms of religions and using them to answer questions, however, I’m not sure this approach is helpful. IMO there can be but one objective answer to some of these questions.
These “external truths” – let’s call them questions instead, because that’s all they really are – are just questions I would like answered. Nothing more and nothing less.
I understand that questions aren’t all that matter. And they’re not all I care about! I’m so focused on them only because they are the topic of this thread. Outside of this thread, I definitely agree with your sentiment that religion is about more than these questions.
It’s a sort of catch-22, isn’t it? You have to ask god that question, but in order to do so you have to first believe in the existence of that god (otherwise you wouldn’t be asking him that question). But if I already believe in that god, I wouln’t need to ask the question. What to do?
What struck me was how the anti-asteroid contingent attempted to falsify the hypothesis of the Alvarez faction, and were convinced they succeeded. The Alvarez side was mostl;y looking for supporting data. Yes, the book was cast in a format of “falsifying any of these falsifies the theory” but notice how many facts that could be interpreted as falsifying the theory were explained away - such as finding some fossils above the KT layer.
I’m definitely not saying they were wrong - just that there are often alternate explanations for difficult facts - and sometimes these are true explanations.
I saw Luis Alvarez speak on this at Princeton in late 1980 or early 1981, and he was in an advocacy mode. This was before they found the real crater - he was betting on it being near Iceland back then.
Some don’t live up to those words do they? I deliberately did not apply this to all religions, or even all Christians. Do you think the devout creationists would claim they’re living up to these words? I bet they would, since they’d claim they tested their faith, found it to be true, and that this took precedence than any old rocks. And they might feel that they’re truly interpreting things correctly.
My point is that I believe that question can be answered, but not by seeking externally. You seem to see it as a scientific and linear time type question. IMHO it isn’t that type of question.
I agree to an extent. I think certain religious concepts taught by mainstream religions are pointing people in the wrong direction. I have no problem expressing that when a discussion of the subject comes up. I also trust that anyone who is sincerely seeking the truth will come to it eventually. I leave the timing to the individual and God. It’s okay for people to agree to disagree. “Think and let think” my brother calls it.
Fair enough. I hope I’m being clear. The question “Is their really a God?” Is not an external truth. From there I don’t think other questions about God and our relationship with God can be external. Now if your question about how it all began is taken from a scientific view thats a different thread.
I see you point but for me it wasn’t that way. I didn’t already believe in God when I prayed. I surrendered to the possibility that it might be true. I mean really surrendered inside, and found out that God was there. A lot of the process of spiritual truth is surrender. Having a heart and mind that is open to the spirit and being willing to let go of false concepts. Sometimes that is extremely uncomfortable and takes repeated effort. Patience is one of the fruits of the Spirit.
Another point of agreement between us. It seems to me that the more meta the study, the less scientific it is. Interpretation of the data is one reason scientists need a firm grounding in the philosophy of science. Another reason is construction of their experiments.
I suppose so. But fakirs are to be found in every discipline, from science to art to religion to government. I take the same libertarian approach to my faith that I take to my politics. To each his own, and let him take it up with his own god. My journey consumes enough of my time and effort such that I don’t have sufficient resources to spare in examining the journeys of others. I guess I learned the hard way that God is not found in others, but in ourselves.
You might be interested in checking out the Society of Friends.
I meant to reply to this, but don’t have the time to respond adequately. The hijack of a hijack of a hijack is more interesting anyhow. Just so you don’t think I’m ignoring you.
I don’t know if you mean this literally or figuratively, but this is a sentiment I totally agree with. God, representing something that can set a moral code, give purpose, and provide an ear, can be found in oneself and not in anyone else.
I like that way of looking at things.
It is, after all, what Jesus taught: look within ourselves to find God’s kingdom (and by extension, the King Who dwells within it.)
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.” — Luke 17:20-21
Speaking for myself, I would say it’s figuratively. It’s not in a physical sense although there are physical manifestations. To me it feels like I’m tapping into another plane of existance. A me that is beyond the physical connected to something more also beyond the physical. I like the term mysterium tremendum, used by one doper. Regardless of how strange that sounds the point is that it’s a unique individual experience. We can try to express it, and hopefully the way we live is some small witness, but it is an act of personal surrender that we cannot force on anyone else. It can only be their choice in their own time.
The other aspect to remember is that we are multifaceted unique beings, so our journeys may have the outward appearence of being completely different without being a question of wrong or right. My own winding path is far from perfect so I shouldn’t be harsh on others whose path is different than mine.
Now, as far as God not being something that can be found in anyone else, I agree that nobody can intellectually instruct you on “what God is” or tell you what your unique path should be, but I think there are moments of profound love that we share with others where we do see God in others.
Here’s a poem found handwritten inside an old Bible at a used book store. As meaningful as any other passage in that book.
I See Christ
Anonymous
Not only in the words you pray,
Not merely in your deeds expressed
But in the most unconscious way
Is Christ expressed.
Is it in some saintly smile
Or holy light upon your brow?
Oh no: I felt His presence while
You laughed just now.
To me ‘twas not the truth you taught,
To you so clear, to me so dim,
But when you came to me you brought
A sense of Him.
And from your eyes He beckons me.
And from your heart His love is shed
Till I lose sight of you, and see
Christ instead.
Liberal: I would like to point out a contradiction to you,You stated that" Essence means having to do with the core Identity of a thing" . What thing? A thing must exist or is non existent.
My niece’s husband works for Nasa and he is a Rocket Scientist he agrees with me, everything even a thought exists,so must be inexistence.
Monavis
Yes but the important question is can you Dad beat up his Dad?
Does a unicorn exist? Does Santa Claus? How about the Easter Bunny? And yet they are easily identifiable. My niece’s husband is a dad beat dad and a crack addict. He agrees with you too.