|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Is faith necessary?
What is faith and how has it effected anything at all in your life?
And; in theory, could faith promote being violent and unreasonable to other people based on the fact that you cannot prove to yourself that they don't have similar feelings?
Explain what your thoughts are. Thank you.
And; in theory, could faith promote being violent and unreasonable to other people based on the fact that you cannot prove to yourself that they don't have similar feelings?
Explain what your thoughts are. Thank you.
No. Faith may have helped a few people but it leads to ignorants, superstition and violence.
| Lobo23 wrote: |
| What is faith and how has it effected anything at all in your life?
And; in theory, could faith promote being violent and unreasonable to other people based on the fact that you cannot prove to yourself that they don't have similar feelings? Explain what your thoughts are. Thank you. |
Faith is the belief that a concept, thing or person is 'true' or valuable, regardless of logical or physical proof for such a belief - indeed sometimes in spite of evidence to the contrary.
Any system of belief can lead to unreasonable, violent or confrontational behaviour if followers of that belief are convinced of their own righteousness and therefore, by definition, the 'wrongness' of non-followers. This does not apply only to religious faith but also to other types of faith systems such as political and economic ones.
It does not, of course, follow that all people of faith are therefore dangerous, violent or unreasonable people - that would be a ridiculous claim to make. I would, however, argue that it is more likely that unreasonable behaviour will occur in people who are convinced of their righteousness than in people who know that they don't know.
As an atheist I have no belief in supernatural or divine entities, powers or forces. That does not mean that I have no faith at all - it just means that I will always put aside a belief if it can be demonstrated that it is logically flawed, or it is refuted by experiment or observation.
If, for example, God appeared and demonstrated His divinity by some means which I could quantify and validate, then I would abandon atheism and accept the religion in question, since that would be the obvious and logical course to follow. My attitude and 'beliefs' are, therefore, changeable which means I am unlikely to be 'backed into a corner' defending a belief system that is clearly problematic. This, I maintain, makes it less likely that I will engage in violent or unreasonable behaviour.
When cornered and threatened the instinctive reaction is to fight back - this can be easily observed in both human and animal experiments. When someone of deep faith is confronted by someone with an equally deep conviction which is not compatible or is contradictory they can sometimes be threatened by that, and animals and humans often do not respond well to threats of that type.
faith in what?
a higher power? yourself? other people?
the government?... haha, I crack myself up
a higher power? yourself? other people?
the government?... haha, I crack myself up
peace be upon you.
I believe faith is ESSENTIAL.
Whether in God or not.
If an athelete goes to a race convinced he will loose, what chance can he stand?
Many years ago, no man had lifted 400kilos. It was convinced to be "impossible". So they got a man, and changed the scales to make it look "399" which had been lifted before, and the man lifted over 400kilos cos he believed it was less than 400. (note: i might have got the units wrong).
Belief made him do it.
Faith therefore, regardless of God, is essential to success.
may God bless you.
I believe faith is ESSENTIAL.
Whether in God or not.
If an athelete goes to a race convinced he will loose, what chance can he stand?
Many years ago, no man had lifted 400kilos. It was convinced to be "impossible". So they got a man, and changed the scales to make it look "399" which had been lifted before, and the man lifted over 400kilos cos he believed it was less than 400. (note: i might have got the units wrong).
Belief made him do it.
Faith therefore, regardless of God, is essential to success.
may God bless you.
no faith is not essential.
You can live a nice life without a faith, without believing in any religion.
Think how many people have had nice lives without believing in religion. I'm not saying faith is good or bad, thats up to people to decide for themselves.
However if you are troubled, it helps to believe in God so that there is someone to turn to, to pray to...
You can live a nice life without a faith, without believing in any religion.
Think how many people have had nice lives without believing in religion. I'm not saying faith is good or bad, thats up to people to decide for themselves.
However if you are troubled, it helps to believe in God so that there is someone to turn to, to pray to...
Well I think that faith, as a Religious faith, isn't a necessity.
You don't have to belong to any of the Religion group, but if it would be that simple almost noone would be a part of them. Some people (including me) keep their faith mostly cause of the advantages like all the cool holidays and stuff and practically having a faith (f.e Christian) makes your life kind of easier cause there are certain things that only Christian can have.
Now in my case, I'm a Christian, but i don't go to Church, i don't believe in them, I do believe in God however and have faith in Him, but i'm not exactly sure that it's exactly the one that my church is describing. Though this faith keeps me going and if I feel like praying i do so.
In any case having faith can give you a boost sometimes, help you physicaly and mentaly, but it's not required of you to have it, afterall we all have the freedom of choice, it's not Middle Ages anymore...
You don't have to belong to any of the Religion group, but if it would be that simple almost noone would be a part of them. Some people (including me) keep their faith mostly cause of the advantages like all the cool holidays and stuff and practically having a faith (f.e Christian) makes your life kind of easier cause there are certain things that only Christian can have.
Now in my case, I'm a Christian, but i don't go to Church, i don't believe in them, I do believe in God however and have faith in Him, but i'm not exactly sure that it's exactly the one that my church is describing. Though this faith keeps me going and if I feel like praying i do so.
In any case having faith can give you a boost sometimes, help you physicaly and mentaly, but it's not required of you to have it, afterall we all have the freedom of choice, it's not Middle Ages anymore...
| divinitywolf wrote: |
| no faith is not essential.
You can live a nice life without a faith, without believing in any religion. Think how many people have had nice lives without believing in religion. I'm not saying faith is good or bad, thats up to people to decide for themselves. However if you are troubled, it helps to believe in God so that there is someone to turn to, to pray to... |
You misunderstood my post. I was saying faith is essential. Faith as in "to believe in something to be true". Not faith as in "religion". Read my post carefully.
may God bless you.
| loyal wrote: |
| peace be upon you.
I believe faith is ESSENTIAL. Whether in God or not. If an athelete goes to a race convinced he will loose, what chance can he stand? Many years ago, no man had lifted 400kilos. It was convinced to be "impossible". So they got a man, and changed the scales to make it look "399" which had been lifted before, and the man lifted over 400kilos cos he believed it was less than 400. (note: i might have got the units wrong). Belief made him do it. Faith therefore, regardless of God, is essential to success. may God bless you. |
Those example are do not help you.
If a man has faith that he will win a race, that dose not mean and will not help him in winning. And if he loses, his faith will backfire, doing harm to him. And they guy would have lifted it knowing how much it weighed.
You are also ignoring the negative consequences of it, the violence, death, deletions caused by faith.
| The Conspirator wrote: | ||
Those example are do not help you. If a man has faith that he will win a race, that dose not mean and will not help him in winning. And if he loses, his faith will backfire, doing harm to him. And they guy would have lifted it knowing how much it weighed. |
That ain't the half of it. As it turns out, both of those examples not only do not make the case that faith is necessary... they actually make the case that faith is bad.
Observe.
First, you gotta call him out on this: "If an athelete goes to a race convinced he will loose, what chance can he stand?" Do you realize that what he's just done is give an example where an athlete has faith that he will lose... and thus will not try? Isn't that a pretty good argument against faith?
But let's take the situation step by step and see what we get. Let's look at four possibilities, where the athlete believes they will win and where the athlete believes they will lose, in each case using and not using faith.
The athlete believes they will lose without reason (that is, by faith)
If the athlete believes they will lose, what motivation is there to bother trying (as in the example given)? However, if the athlete has no reason to believe that they will lose... they will be quitting for no reason, when in fact there may actually be a reason they could win. Thus, faith is bad in this case.
The athlete believes they will lose with a reason (that is, not by faith)
As above, what motivation is there to bother trying? However, in this case, the athlete has a reason to believe that they will lose (they are not in top form, the other athletes far outclass them, whatever). Therefore, if they quit, they will have a reason.
The athlete believes they will win without reason (that is, by faith)
If the athlete believes they will win, what motivation is there to bother training? However, if the athlete has no reason to believe that they will win... then they may lose simply because they haven't bothered to train, even though they could have won otherwise. In fact, if they do win, it will literally be by blind luck, because they have no reason to believe that they will win. Thus, faith is bad in this case.
The athlete believes they will win with a reason (that is, not by faith)
As above, what motivation is there to bother training? However, in this case, the athlete has a reason to believe that they will win (they have done sufficient training, they outclass the competetiion, whatever). Therefore, when they decide that they have done enough training, they will have a reason to believe that.
In each of those cases, it doesn't actually matter what the result is - win or lose. What is being measured here is whether the amount of effort being put into the event makes sense. Whenever faith is used, it does not. Whenever reason is used, it does. Thus, faith is bad.
As for the weightlifter case, that situation is rather disturbing. But there are two possible options. Either the weightlifter had a reason for believing they could not lift 400 kg, or they did not (they believed they could not lift 400 kg by faith). Let's look at each case.
The weightlifter had faith that he could not lift 400 kg
In this case, the weightlifter had no reason to believe he could not lift that weight. What those people who lied about the weight being lifted did was effectively prove that his faith was bad.
The weightlifter had reason to believe that he could not lift 400 kg
In this case, the weightlifter had some reason to believe he could not lift that weight. Perhaps in his training he realized that 400 kg was just beyond the threshold of safety for the effort he had to put out, and he was risking permanent injury straining any more. What those people who lied about the weight being lifted did was effectively fool him into ignoring the reasons he had for thinking that the lift would be impossible. He would have done the lift, feeling the strain but feeling safe because he knew from his training that the weight was within his limits... and potentially risked harming himself. In essence, the people that did that little experiment were unethical sons of bitches. If i were the weighlifter, and i actually did have a reason for believing i could not make that lift, i would have had them charged with criminial mischief. They were just damn lucky that the weightlifter's estimates were just a little conservative... or just lucky period.
So despite the claim made, faith is not essential to success. Success, in fact, when it occurs, does so in spite of faith. Whenever faith is used to determine success, if success occurs it is just blind luck.
| Indi wrote: | ||||
That ain't the half of it. As it turns out, both of those examples not only do not make the case that faith is necessary... they actually make the case that faith is bad. Observe. First, you gotta call him out on this: "If an athelete goes to a race convinced he will loose, what chance can he stand?" Do you realize that what he's just done is give an example where an athlete has faith that he will lose... and thus will not try? Isn't that a pretty good argument against faith? |
I believe you have misunderstood them here.
"If an athelete goes to a race convinced he will loose, what chance can he stand?"
This is an example of lack of faith. It is more likely true, than false. If you have already settled on believing that you will lose, then you most likely will not try. Thus, you will surely lose.
I believe you have misunderstood them here.
"If an athelete goes to a race convinced he will loose, what chance can he stand?"
This is an example of lack of faith. It is more likely true, than false. If you have already settled on believing that you will lose, then you most likely will not try. Thus, you will surely lose.[/quote]
That is not an example of a lack of faith. An example of a lacked faith would be "a man knows he's going to loose through knowledge of his own limits and the limits of one or more of the other racers, he knows his and the limits of the others through reason." or "A man knows he's going to win cause he knows his limits and the limits of the other racers, he know there limits and his through reason", if a person know that he will win or loose by reason, he will know that there are other factors and though the possibility of winning is small, its not imposable.
"If an athelete goes to a race convinced he will loose, what chance can he stand?"
This is an example of lack of faith. It is more likely true, than false. If you have already settled on believing that you will lose, then you most likely will not try. Thus, you will surely lose.[/quote]
That is not an example of a lack of faith. An example of a lacked faith would be "a man knows he's going to loose through knowledge of his own limits and the limits of one or more of the other racers, he knows his and the limits of the others through reason." or "A man knows he's going to win cause he knows his limits and the limits of the other racers, he know there limits and his through reason", if a person know that he will win or loose by reason, he will know that there are other factors and though the possibility of winning is small, its not imposable.
| JessieF wrote: | ||||||
I believe you have misunderstood them here. "If an athelete goes to a race convinced he will loose, what chance can he stand?" This is an example of lack of faith. It is more likely true, than false. If you have already settled on believing that you will lose, then you most likely will not try. Thus, you will surely lose. |
No sir, i did not misunderstand. ^_^
If the athlete is convinced he will lose, that is not a lack of faith. Assuming there is no reason for believing he will lose, then that is very much real and active faith.
It is just as possible to have faith you will lose as it is to have faith you will win. It is just social convention that makes people believe faith must be a positive thing.
in addition to what I said.
If a person has faith that he will win the race, it would diminish the possibility of him winning. Cause of that faith he wouldn't give all he can as others racers would do.
If a person has faith that he will win the race, it would diminish the possibility of him winning. Cause of that faith he wouldn't give all he can as others racers would do.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| in addition to what I said.
If a person has faith that he will win the race, it would diminish the possibility of him winning. Cause of that faith he wouldn't give all he can as others racers would do. |
not necessarily, his faith may be that IF HE does his best he will beat the rest
(that would mean he would definitely be more likely to win, because he would try his hardest 
)
| Indi wrote: |
| "If an athelete goes to a race convinced he will loose, what chance can he stand?"
If the athlete is convinced he will lose, that is not a lack of faith. Assuming there is no reason for believing he will lose, then that is very much real and active faith. |
Here, here. If someone had faith that George Bush would not be reelected that is not a a 'lack of faith' that he will (be reelected), no sir, ".. that is very much real and active faith."
i voted that faith is nothing
because for me it is
however i do believe that for some people, having faith actually makes a difference in their lives, irrespective of what this faith is
but for me i believe that i do not need faith to live a morally correct and good life
so therefor i do not believe that there needs to be a higher force which created everything
i am quite happy to believe that there is a scientiffic explanation for everything
even if we havent found it yet
because for me it is
however i do believe that for some people, having faith actually makes a difference in their lives, irrespective of what this faith is
but for me i believe that i do not need faith to live a morally correct and good life
so therefor i do not believe that there needs to be a higher force which created everything
i am quite happy to believe that there is a scientiffic explanation for everything
even if we havent found it yet
| Quote: |
|
That ain't the half of it. As it turns out, both of those examples not only do not make the case that faith is necessary... they actually make the case that faith is bad. |
I disagree.
| Quote: |
|
Observe. First, you gotta call him out on this: "If an athelete goes to a race convinced he will loose, what chance can he stand?" Do you realize that what he's just done is give an example where an athlete has faith that he will lose... and thus will not try? Isn't that a pretty good argument against faith? |
Wrong. What i said was if an athelete has faith that he will loose, faith is so powerful, he will loose.
| Quote: |
|
But let's take the situation step by step and see what we get. Let's look at four possibilities, where the athlete believes they will win and where the athlete believes they will lose, in each case using and not using faith. The athlete believes they will lose without reason (that is, by faith) If the athlete believes they will lose, what motivation is there to bother trying (as in the example given)? However, if the athlete has no reason to believe that they will lose... they will be quitting for no reason, when in fact there may actually be a reason they could win. Thus, faith is bad in this case. |
The flaw in that argument is underlined. You automatically assume the athlete is quitting simply out of belief. Faith and fact can go together. When i was racing, i knew this kid could beat me; it was a fact. And so i believed i would come not first but maybe second.
| Quote: |
|
The athlete believes they will lose with a reason (that is, not by faith) As above, what motivation is there to bother trying? However, in this case, the athlete has a reason to believe that they will lose (they are not in top form, the other athletes far outclass them, whatever). Therefore, if they quit, they will have a reason. |
See above.
| Quote: |
|
The athlete believes they will win without reason (that is, by faith) If the athlete believes they will win, what motivation is there to bother training? |
That's really bad reasoning.
I believe in God. Doesn't mean that i throw all my logic, understanding, and skepticism to the winds! I use faith and fact together.
In the same way, an athlete knows he can't win by mere faith. He trains, and then BECAUSE of his training, [because of fact] he believes he can win, because he has potential.
| Quote: |
|
However, if the athlete has no reason to believe that they will win... then they may lose simply because they haven't bothered to train, even though they could have won otherwise. In fact, if they do win, it will literally be by blind luck, because they have no reason to believe that they will win. Thus, faith is bad in this case. |
This is a repeat of a previous argument.
| Quote: |
|
The athlete believes they will win with a reason (that is, not by faith) As above, what motivation is there to bother training? However, in this case, the athlete has a reason to believe that they will win (they have done sufficient training, they outclass the competetiion, whatever). Therefore, when they decide that they have done enough training, they will have a reason to believe that. |
Faith in this case is a booster. He might have trained really hard, and then someone told him the race was fixed. The athlete would then become depressed and convince himself he could not win, when he could have beat it (in other words, he could have beat the fixed result).
| Quote: |
|
...As for the weightlifter case, that situation is rather disturbing. But there are two possible options. Either the weightlifter had a reason for believing they could not lift 400 kg, or they did not (they believed they could not lift 400 kg by faith). Let's look at each case. |
No-one had lifted 400kg. So people believed it was impossible.
That's simply it.
| Quote: |
|
The weightlifter had faith that he could not lift 400 kg In this case, the weightlifter had no reason to believe he could not lift that weight. What those people who lied about the weight being lifted did was effectively prove that his faith was bad. |
Wrong.
All the weightlifters had faith they could lift it. The people who lied, meant that the weightlifter had faith it was LESS than 400kg and he COULD lift it.
In other words, the weightlifter had faith he COULD lift under 400kg, and DID. This proves faith is good.
| Quote: |
|
The weightlifter had reason to believe that he could not lift 400 kg In this case, the weightlifter had some reason to believe he could not lift that weight. Perhaps in his training he realized that 400 kg was just beyond the threshold of safety for the effort he had to put out, and he was risking permanent injury straining any more. What those people who lied about the weight being lifted did was effectively fool him into ignoring the reasons he had for thinking that the lift would be impossible. |
That's wrong. They didn't "fool him" into ignoring anything! They just changed the scales. You're changing the example.
| Quote: |
|
He would have done the lift, feeling the strain but feeling safe because he knew from his training that the weight was within his limits... and potentially risked harming himself. In essence, the people that did that little experiment were unethical sons of bitches. |
you're completely changing this!!!
The fact is the weightlifter believes he can lift 399kg. A single kg will not affect his health!!
You need to reevalute your reasons.
may god bless you.
^^^ 
gosh 
I think this argument is getting a little crazy.
Rather than focusing on talking about what other people have said (and if it was right or wrong) people should focus on sharing their view, and make sure their view CLEAR.
gosh
I think this argument is getting a little crazy.
Rather than focusing on talking about what other people have said (and if it was right or wrong) people should focus on sharing their view, and make sure their view CLEAR.
| dray101 wrote: |
| ^^^ gosh
I think this argument is getting a little crazy. Rather than focusing on talking about what other people have said (and if it was right or wrong) people should focus on sharing their view, and make sure their view CLEAR. |
That would not be a debate. That would be an opinion poll.
Faith is absolutely necessary. People who pretend they have no faith just aren't aware of the limits of their knowledge.
IMHO, most of what Loyal says is right. There have been numerous studies showing that having a positive belief is beneficial. As he says, faith and fact do go together. We know in part and we have faith in part.
When I was young, I used to do swimming training. We used to get up at 4am in the morning and putter down to the pool, swimming and weight training. If I consider the opposite of having faith - then there is no way that it could possibly let you train so hard, let alone win races. You definitely need both - faith that you can win, but also the physical ability.
IMHO, most of what Loyal says is right. There have been numerous studies showing that having a positive belief is beneficial. As he says, faith and fact do go together. We know in part and we have faith in part.
When I was young, I used to do swimming training. We used to get up at 4am in the morning and putter down to the pool, swimming and weight training. If I consider the opposite of having faith - then there is no way that it could possibly let you train so hard, let alone win races. You definitely need both - faith that you can win, but also the physical ability.
Faith is bad,faith is evil.
Faith has no positive attributes. Faith is belief with out or despite evidence. If you have faith in your ability's, you will loose, if you think "I will do my absolute best to win" you have a much grater chance of winning. It also leads to ignorants, superstition, violence and death.
Faith has no positive attributes. Faith is belief with out or despite evidence. If you have faith in your ability's, you will loose, if you think "I will do my absolute best to win" you have a much grater chance of winning. It also leads to ignorants, superstition, violence and death.
| Indi wrote: | ||
That would not be a debate. That would be an opinion poll. |
Ah.. no! I said FOCUS!!!
Yes, in a good debate you do discredit the opponents argument, but you spend MOST OF THE TIME explaining your point of view and why it is right!
Think before you post guys!
Try reading (properly) what they said, think, and read over your post for readability and sense.
| loyal wrote: |
| Wrong. What i said was if an athelete has faith that he will loose, faith is so powerful, he will loose. |
i know what you said, and no one is disputing that faith is powerful. Any belief, if strong enough, can motivate you to do things that you would not have been able to do without the belief - and that includes beliefs based on faith as well as beliefs based on logic and/or evidence.
The problem that i was pointing out is that unlike beliefs based on logic and/or evidence, beliefs based on faith have no rational basis in reality. If you have two athletes who strongly believe that they will lose - one who believes based on evidence and one who believes based on faith - they will probably both lose. The problem is that only the one who had evidence that they will lose is really justified in not trying. The one who simply had faith that they will lose had no objective, rational reason to believe they would lose - and, in fact, if they had looked at the evidence, maybe they would have seen that they had a good chance of winning.
| loyal wrote: |
| The flaw in that argument is underlined. You automatically assume the athlete is quitting simply out of belief. Faith and fact can go together. When i was racing, i knew this kid could beat me; it was a fact. And so i believed i would come not first but maybe second. |
That is not a flaw in my argument. That is what faith is... by definition.
The first problem is that you are confusing the environment of a belief with the content of a belief.
Consider the belief "i believe i will win the 100 m dash at the next Olympics". Are there any facts, evidence or logic involved in that belief? Yes, in fact, there are many. It wouldn't make any sense to believe that i will win the 100 m dash at the next Olympics if it weren't for the fact that the Olympics exist... and that there will be one in the future within my lifetime... and that there is an event called the 100 m dash... and that that event can be won by someone... and so on.
But all of those facts are not part of the content of the belief, they are part of the environment of the belief. The belief itself only involves whether or not i will win that race, nothing more, nothing less. And there is certainly no evidence or logic that could lead me to believe i could win that race.
(In fact, it turns out that pure faith is completely irrational and useless. Without some kind of real world environment based on evidence and logic, faith - far from being "necessary" - is of no good to anyone.)
So, looking at your belief that you would come second - the environment of your belief was that the race existed, and that you were in it, and that first place was impossible. But the belief itself was that you would come second. If you had no reason - no evidence or logic - for that belief, then it is a faith-based belief.
Which brings us to the second problem - you are attempting to redefine faith to make it easier on you. Faith is, by definition, a belief that is not based on evidence or logic. You can't say that you believed you would come in second based on the evidence that you were better than all but one of the participants and call it faith. If your belief that you would come second were really based on faith, then you cannot have evidence or logic for that belief - you may know that first place is not possible, but you can have no evidence or logic for believing that you might come second, as opposed to third, fourth or last.
| loyal wrote: |
| That's really bad reasoning.
I believe in God. Doesn't mean that i throw all my logic, understanding, and skepticism to the winds! I use faith and fact together. |
Bad reasoning? Maybe, but it's not my bad reasoning, because it's not my argument. i never claimed that faith requires you to abandon all sense. i never claimed that when you believe something by faith that you would not bother to seek real evidence or logic for it.
If your belief in God is based on faith, then you believe in God without the benefit of any real evidence or reason. That is not my opinion, that is the definition of faith. If you believe in God based on evidence or reason, then you do not believe in God based on faith. That's all there is to it.
However, if you do believe in God based on faith, that doesn't mean that you can't or won't want to seek out real evidence or logic for that belief. There's nothing wrong with having faith that God exists while at the same time seeking evidence for his existence. If and when you ever find real evidence, then it will no longer be faith.
| loyal wrote: |
| In the same way, an athlete knows he can't win by mere faith. He trains, and then BECAUSE of his training, [because of fact] he believes he can win, because he has potential. |
Again, you are attempting to redefine faith. If the athlete has reason to believe he will win - for example, because he has trained well and he has talent - then it is not faith.
| loyal wrote: |
| No-one had lifted 400kg. So people believed it was impossible.
That's simply it. |
That tells us nothing. It doesn't matter what the belief was. It matters where the belief came from. Was there a reason (that is, was there any evidence or logic) to believe that no one could lift 400 kg? Then it was not faith. Was there no reason for that belief? Then it was faith.
| loyal wrote: |
| Wrong.
All the weightlifters had faith they could lift it. The people who lied, meant that the weightlifter had faith it was LESS than 400kg and he COULD lift it. In other words, the weightlifter had faith he COULD lift under 400kg, and DID. This proves faith is good. |
Now you're getting all confused. If the weightlifter believed he could lift 400 kg, what was the point of the example? He believed he could, and he did. The 399 kg deception has no relevance.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Faith is absolutely necessary. People who pretend they have no faith just aren't aware of the limits of their knowledge. |
i'll get back to this "faith is necessary" thing in a minute.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| IMHO, most of what Loyal says is right. There have been numerous studies showing that having a positive belief is beneficial. As he says, faith and fact do go together. We know in part and we have faith in part. |
Again, no one has claimed that belief - belief based on faith or otherwise - is not powerful. It is powerful enough to motivate you or demotivate you considerably. But powerful does not equal good. There is no reason faith cannot be both powerful and really, really bad.
And this "faith and fact go together argument" is based on two flaws. First, confusing the facts that make up the environment of the belief with the facts (or lack thereof) that make up the content of the belief. And second, the attempt to redefine faith to make it more palatable to those who are forced to rely on it for some of their beliefs. Faith is belief without logic or evidence. That is the definition of faith. If you have real world evidence or logic for your belief, then it is not faith. That's all there is to it, no matter how you try to weasel the definition.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| When I was young, I used to do swimming training. We used to get up at 4am in the morning and putter down to the pool, swimming and weight training. If I consider the opposite of having faith - then there is no way that it could possibly let you train so hard, let alone win races. You definitely need both - faith that you can win, but also the physical ability. |
There is another disturbing trend that i see mirrored here - the idea that all belief is faith. That is simply nonsense. If i drop a glass bottle out of my apartment window onto the parking lot below, i believe it will break. i base that belief on the evidence of my experience with glass, and logic from my knowledge of physics. There is no faith in that belief.
i was an athlete too. i also believed i could win and do well, and in fact did quite well. But i did not base that belief on faith. My father, all of my uncles and several of my cousins were also champions to varying degrees in the sport, so i had the evidence and the logic that genetically i was blessed. i had also done very well in training and trials. i also worked hard.
Based on all that, i believed i would do well. But there was no faith involved. i had very good and very solid reasons for that belief.
Second, you are really reworking the concepts in an extremely self-serving way. You define the belief that you will do well if you work hard as faith, but the belief that you have no chance at all as "the opposite of having faith". That's just plain wrong. If you believe that you will do well if you work hard, that's not necessarily faith - if you have evidence to indicate that if you worked hard you would do well then that is not faith at all. Further, the belief that you have no chance even if you try is not necessarily the "opposite" of faith - it could very easily be faith unless you have evidence or logic to support that belief - and in fact, the way you describe it, it is indeed faith.
---------------------------------
i wanted to take a moment to take the question of this thread head on, because by this point, a couple of arguments have been put forward in support. Specifically, two arguments for why faith is "necessary" have been put forward, and both suffer from the same weakness.
First, it appears that we're not all clear on what the word "necessary" means (you'll see why i say this in a minute). "Necessary" means required, essential and/or indispensible - something we cannot do without.
Let's practice.
You are trapped in a room with a bomb locked in cage where you cannot reach it. The bomb has an off button, but unless you can get the cage open, you cannot reach it, and you have no tools or anything else you can use. There is no way to live without disarming the bomb; there is no way to disarm the bomb without opening the cage; there is no way to open the cage without the key. If you want to survive, the key is necessary. Yes/no?
Answer: yes. The key is necessary to survive.
Now, consider the same scenario, only you don't have the key. Your death is unavoidable. That means your death is necessary. Yes/no?
Answer: no. Your death is inevitable. It is unavoidable. It is not necessary.
As i mentioned, you'll see why that is important in a minute. i should also make note that something that is helpful is also not necessary. You would think that is obvious, but....
Ok, so, as i mentioned, so far there have been two arguments put forward to justify the claim that faith is necessary.
Argument 1: Faith makes the unlikely happen
The first argument takes the form of pointing out that people like athletes must believe that they will do well in order to do well (and for some reason holds that the only way you can hold that belief is by faith, but that's an entirely different argument). That is not true.
It is true that if athletes sincerely believe that if they work hard they will make it to the top, they will probably do much, much better than they would without that belief. That means that the belief is helpful to their success. That does not make it necessary. In fact, even if you think you will fail miserably, there is still the chance that you will succeed. It's unlikely, but not impossible. Thus the belief is not necessary (and of course, it is not necessarily a belief held by faith).
Argument 2: Everyone has faith
The second argument is that it is impossible/impractical for a person to base all their beliefs on evidence and/or logic. At some point, we all have to take things on faith. Thus, the argument goes, faith is necessary.
Remember when i explained the difference between necessary and inevitable? Bring that to the front of your mind, and reread the argument above. What's wrong with it?
The argument above really only concludes that faith cannot normally be avoided, not that it is necessary. Necessary implies that any attempt to not use faith will fail... it shouldn't even be attempted. But that's not true. We can definitely try to find evidence and logic to support our beliefs, and it's not doomed to failure.
Furthermore, just because a thing is inevitable, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's good. A thousand years ago, if you drank poison, death was inevitable. Does that mean that if a person had drunk poison it would be a good thing that they die? Hardly. It was inevitable, not good. It also doesn't mean that we should sit back and accept it. Would you argue there was no point in even trying to find a way to negate the poison and save the person? Hardly. Even more, just because a thing is inevitable now does not mean that it will always be. It is no longer true for most poisons that ingestion inevitably means death.
I think that faith is a good thing, whether it's religious based or not. No one said that the only faith there is is religious faith. I have faith that my parents love me, that my husband love me and that my children love me. I have faith that I can learn things if I would just set my mind to it. Some things may be harder to learn than others, but I will learn it given time.
Any why is having faith in yourself sometimes a bad thing? I teach my children that as long as they do their best, I'm proud of them, win or loose. They have faith in themselves that if they practice at something, they will get better. What is wrong with that? They don't have to win a game to have faith.
Do I believe that everything will turn out perfect if I have enough faith? No. Bad things happen no matter how much faith you have and it's something I teach my boys.
Any why is having faith in yourself sometimes a bad thing? I teach my children that as long as they do their best, I'm proud of them, win or loose. They have faith in themselves that if they practice at something, they will get better. What is wrong with that? They don't have to win a game to have faith.
Do I believe that everything will turn out perfect if I have enough faith? No. Bad things happen no matter how much faith you have and it's something I teach my boys.
| Indi wrote: | ||
i know what you said, and no one is disputing that faith is powerful. Any belief, if strong enough, can motivate you to do things that you would not have been able to do without the belief - and that includes beliefs based on faith as well as beliefs based on logic and/or evidence. |
That's all i was saying. Full stop. Nothing more, nothing less.
Faith is powerful enough to make you do things. It is generally needed for everyday life.
| Quote: |
|
The problem that i was pointing out is that unlike beliefs based on logic and/or evidence, beliefs based on faith have no rational basis in reality. If you have two athletes who strongly believe that they will lose - one who believes based on evidence and one who believes based on faith - they will probably both lose. The problem is that only the one who had evidence that they will lose is really justified in not trying. The one who simply had faith that they will lose had no objective, rational reason to believe they would lose - and, in fact, if they had looked at the evidence, maybe they would have seen that they had a good chance of winning. |
That is not what i was talking about.
I agree with you that faith is irrational sometimes.
| Quote: |
|
(In fact, it turns out that pure faith is completely irrational and useless. |
Correction: in the western world, where for centuries christians believed in christianity irrationally and with no proof, the definition of faith is irrational.
In the Middle east, faith can be based on reason.
Besides, pure faith is in no case completely useless. It does things. It can make you win races; it can make you loose races. It does affect the person who believes.
-----
The rest of your post seems to be based on just the definition of faith.
Our definitions disagree.
My middle eastern connection means i believe faith to include reason and evidence. Your western connection means you believe faith to include no evidence and irrationality.
may God bless you.
loyal, faith is belief with out (or despite) evidence, there is no reason in that what so ever. You can not have reason and faith together. So long as you believe something without (or despite) evidence, theres no reason there, only self delusion
Yes faith can make you do things but so can logical belief and reason. Logic belief and reason can be just as powerful as faith. Reason, logic and logical belief are just as powerful as faith and with none of the negative side effect.
Yes faith can make you do things but so can logical belief and reason. Logic belief and reason can be just as powerful as faith. Reason, logic and logical belief are just as powerful as faith and with none of the negative side effect.
| loyal wrote: |
| That's all i was saying. Full stop. Nothing more, nothing less.
Faith is powerful enough to make you do things. It is generally needed for everyday life. |
Faith is powerful? Absolutely. Faith is helpful? Maybe, sure, why not? If you think so. i don't think so, but i'll accept that for now.
But neither powerful nor helpful equals necessary. And that's where i have a problem with this argument. Helpful does not equal "generally needed".
It seems to me that based on the arguments so far that some people do "need" faith to accomplish things. However, judging by the descriptions given, those people are the people who are simply too lazy to bother to find other means to motivate themselves sufficiently. The athlete that requires faith to motivate them to try their best does so simply because they're too lazy to find more realistic means of motivation - such as by thoroughly analysing the capabilities of their opponents and adjusting their training to counter them. You don't need need faith that you will win if you have already assured yourself objectively that you're going to because you're just way better than the competition.
| loyal wrote: |
| I agree with you that faith is irrational sometimes. |
Faith is irrational all the time by the definition of the word faith. What you're trying to do is say that a circular path is sometimes straight. Or that a white object is sometimes black. It's utter nonsense. If the object is black, it cannot be white by definition. If the path is straight it cannot be circular by definition. If a belief is rationally-based it cannot be faith by definition.
You can't just rewrite the dictionary to suit your position. The dictionary definition of faith is belief without evidence or logic. Period.
| loyal wrote: | ||
Correction: in the western world, where for centuries christians believed in christianity irrationally and with no proof, the definition of faith is irrational. In the Middle east, faith can be based on reason. Besides, pure faith is in no case completely useless. It does things. It can make you win races; it can make you loose races. It does affect the person who believes. ----- The rest of your post seems to be based on just the definition of faith. Our definitions disagree. My middle eastern connection means i believe faith to include reason and evidence. Your western connection means you believe faith to include no evidence and irrationality. may God bless you. |
This has nothing to do with east or west, or north or south or even up or down. -_-
This has to do with the English langauge, and specifically the word faith. In the English language, the word faith is defined to mean belief without evidence or logic. No matter how much noise you make, no matter what part of the world you're from and no matter what religion you are, you cannot change the meaning of the word.
Yes, our definitions disagree... but the fact that we disagree doesn't mean that there is no objective truth here. In point of fact, you are wrong. That's all there is to it. That's not my opinion. That's the opinion of the English language. Get yourself a decent dictionary and find out.
If you have a problem with that, you don't have a problem with me, my beliefs or what part of the world i'm from, you have a problem with the English language. Well, tough. Use it or lose it. You don't like the way faith is defined by the English language, take up Esperanto. But don't try to rewrite the dictionary just because it doesn't fit your world view.
Given that faith is defined as belief without evidence or reason, then it follows logically from that - again, this is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact - that faith must be irrational. It doesn't matter how anyone feels about the subject, this is a matter of pure logic using the English language definitions of the various words involved. If faith is defined as belief without evidence or reason (which it is), then faith is irrational. Further, if faith is irrational, then pure faith must be purely irrational. Again, no opinion necessary.
It's not even hard to prove. This is what a statement of pure faith-based belief looks like: "Every garful has a spoolunk." That's pure faith there - there is not a single iota of reason or evidence there, neither in the content nor the environment of the belief. Do garfuls and spoolunks even exist? You have no reason or logic to believe that they do, thus if you believe that they do, it must be by faith. Is a spoolunk something that a garful can have? Once again, if you believe that it is, then it must be faith. Every aspect of that belief must be faith. It is pure faith. It is also nonsense.
And if i added any kind of logic or evidence to that example, such as by giving you any kind of evidence that garfuls exist or that "garful" is just another word for "chicken" or anything... then it would no longer be pure faith. In fact, if i connected it in anyway to reality, i would have to do so by means of logic and/or evidence. Thus, pure faith must be useless nonsense. QED.
At the beginning of last century, the 1900's the famous mathematician Hilbert declared that "We must know, we will know". His idea was to put all of mathematics on a logical basis. That is one which proceeded from a formal system of beliefs (known as axioms), and then to prove it correct (or at least self-consistent). As nice as this view sounds Goedel (pictured above) proved it can never work. Any axiomatic belief system, which accepts arithmetic (that is, adding two numbers, multiplying ect), is incomplete. There will never be a time when logic answers all questions, and this is not just an experimental fact. It is necessarily so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorem
Materialism has to be taken on faith, since there is no proof of it.
Loyal used a perfectly acceptable definition of faith. Indi, would you please tell us which dictionary you are used for the definition of faith as a belief held in the absence of logic, evidence and reason? I looked, but could not find a dictionary which agrees with you. Faith simply means a belief held in the absence of proof. Here are the definitions from www.dictionary.com:
| www.dictionary.com wrote: |
|
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims. 4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty. 5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith. 6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith. 7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles. 8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved. |
Faith in the Christian context has nothing whatever to being illogical, irrational or denying evidence. It is a trust in God, and the revelation of him through Jesus. In Islam too, and Loyal, please correct me if I am wrong here, is not irrational, but accepts revelation of God as expressed by Mohammed in the Koran.
In my humble opinion all faith should start from God, and proceed from there.
| nopaniers wrote: |
|
At the beginning of last century, the 1900's the famous mathematician Hilbert declared that "We must know, we will know". His idea was to put all of mathematics on a logical basis. That is one which proceeded from a formal system of beliefs (known as axioms), and then to prove it correct (or at least self-consistent). As nice as this view sounds Goedel (pictured above) proved it can never work. Any axiomatic belief system, which accepts arithmetic (that is, adding two numbers, multiplying ect), is incomplete. There will never be a time when logic answers all questions, and this is not just an experimental fact. It is necessarily so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorem |
There are several things wrong with this argument.
First, you don't completely understand Gödel's theorems. You understand just enough to fool yourself. What Gödel's theorems state is that you cannot prove any axiomatically based system using that system. That last bit is very important. What it means is that you cannot prove that the system of arithmetic is true using the system of arithmetic... but you can use set theory to prove arithmetic axioms, and you can use arithmetic to prove set theory axioms. Granted, that doesn't constitute absolute proof of either system, because both systems could be flawed and just happen to be flawed in a way that they work together. Which brings us to problem two.
You are interpreting the word "proof" to mean "absolute proof", which is a nonsensical concept. Absolute proof is impossible - totally impossible, not functionally impossible - the concept itself is illogical and cannot ever exist. Obviously when we talk about proof, we're not talking about a meaningless and illogical concept that cannot ever exist. So we're not talking about absolute proof. Therefore a proper definition of proof is any evidence or logical argument that serves to support belief. So when you say "do you have proof?", what you're really saying is "do you have any evidence or logical argument that supports that belief?". Not "can you show this belief to be true without any possible argument against?".
And then there's the third problem. Gödel's incompleteness theorems do not apply to everything. They are theorems of first order logic, and thus they only apply to systems based on first order logic. You can't just apply them to the universe and say "there! i've proven that you cannot ever know the universe completely!" That's just absurd. i know that's it's vogue now in postmodern thinking to try to apply science and math concepts to just about anything - from religion to literature - but it doesn't work. You might as well apply the second law of thermodynamics to aesthetics, or apply social clustering theories to gas particle interactions. Nonsense. -_- Gödel's theorems were constructed within a limited field, and they apply only within that limited field. If you want to apply Gödel's theorems to the material world, first you have to show that they are actually applicable here. The material world is not a first order logical system, and it is not axiomatically defined.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Materialism has to be taken on faith, since there is no proof of it. |
It was this quote that made me realize how you were defining "proof", because unless you interpret "proof" to mean "absolute proof", this statement is nonsense. Of course, if you define "proof" to mean "absolute proof", the statement is still nonsense, because absolute proof is impossible.
But with a more realistic and practical definition of proof, your claim is easily shown to be false. First, the short, but less solid proof: materialism is either true, or there is a non-physical aspect to the universe. In all of recorded human history, not a single iota of reasonably solid evidence or logic has ever been found that suggests there is any non-physical part of the universe. Never. In all of human knowledge. None.
That's a pretty powerful argument right there in favour of materialism, but not completely solid. For that, there is another, longer, more complicated argument, based on the necessity for similarity in order to interact (similarity is a philosophical concept). i'm not going to outline it here because: 1) it's really long and complicated, 2) it's not really relevant to the discussion and 3) it's not going to change your mind anyway. So there's no point. If you're interested, start another thread on it.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Loyal used a perfectly acceptable definition of faith. |
Speaking of requiring definitions, i'm afraid you're going to have to provide one for "perfectly acceptible" that includes "dead wrong".
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Indi, would you please tell us which dictionary you are used for the definition of faith as a belief held in the absence of logic, evidence and reason? I looked, but could not find a dictionary which agrees with you. Faith simply means a belief held in the absence of proof. |
That's it right there. You have it already. It was in your dictionary definition, too. Any dictionary will work.
All you have to do now is look up "proof". You will find that proof means "evidence or logical argument to support that the belief is true". Put it together to get: "Faith simply means a belief held in the absence of evidence or logical argument to support that the belief is true." It's all right there.
Your confusion seems to have been based on a misunderstanding of the definition of the word "proof".
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Faith in the Christian context has nothing whatever to being illogical, irrational or denying evidence. It is a trust in God, and the revelation of him through Jesus. In Islam too, and Loyal, please correct me if I am wrong here, is not irrational, but accepts revelation of God as expressed by Mohammed in the Koran.
In my humble opinion all faith should start from God, and proceed from there. |
Whoa. Right about here you go way off into weirdness country.
We're not talking about religious faith. That's something else entirely. You know this too, because you already gave the correct definition of faith above (i highlighted it in red). We're talking about epistemological faith - "plain old everyday" faith - the kind of faith that you defined above.
Where did all this religious nonsense come from? Surely you're not going to seriously try and argue that religious faith is necessary? Because that's so ridicuously absurd, it's not even worth responding to.
| Quote: |
| First, you don't completely understand Gödel's theorems. |
Even if we accept your example and try to repair both theories by accepting both arithmetic and set theory, A. In this case you end up with a bigger theory by combining both (with is axiomatic and contains arithmetic), which must in turn be incomplete B, and in turn be described by a larger theory, C... and so on. Not one of those theories are complete.
| Quote: |
| You are interpreting the word "proof" to mean "absolute proof", which is a nonsensical concept. Absolute proof is impossible - totally impossible, not functionally impossible |
Goedel's theorem does not demand an absolute proof. It only asks that our beliefs (as expressed as axioms) be self-consistent.
For humans, I agree that faith comes in practice from the many uncertainties about the world, which we all face. In the case of the race, we do not know who will win or lose. We can never know everything, and therefore require faith.
| Quote: |
| Gödel's incompleteness theorems do not apply to everything... The material world is not a first order logical system, and it is not axiomatically defined. |
I am not applying it to the universe. I am applying it to human beliefs. In particular, to logic and science. Such a belief system IS logical and axiomatic, and therefore cannot be complete. Why is it that you deny that logic and science are valid in our universe?
| Quote: |
| In all of recorded human history, not a single iota of reasonably solid evidence or logic has ever been found that suggests that the physically measured part of universe is all there is. Never. In all of human knowledge. None. |
Well, actually Indi didn't say that, but it's clear that the argument is nonsense, and more than that, the argument is based on faith.
If Indi's definition to proof was true, you could prove that moon is made of cheese. Look up, and see that the moon is a similar colour, and or looks similar to cheese (see photo by subflux). That's evidence which supports the belief. By Indi's definition though, evidence which supports a belief is the same as proof. I think it's a really bad definition. Not surprisingly the dictionary says doesn't agree with Indi and says that proof is sufficient to produce belief that something is true. To leave off the sufficient truth part changes the meaning!
| Loyal wrote: |
| in the western world, where for centuries christians believed in christianity irrationally and with no proof, the definition of faith is irrational. |
I humbly suggest that Loyal was talking about religious faith. And yes, religious faith is absolutely essential for us as humans. We have a worldview, and a faith in that worldview whether we like it or not.
If I may, let me finish with a quote from Luther, which agrees with Loyal's previous statement about the transforming of belief into actions:
| Martin Luther wrote: |
| Instead, faith is God's work in us, that changes us and gives new birth from God. (John 1:13). It kills the Old Adam and makes us completely different people. It changes our hearts, our spirits, our thoughts and all our powers. It brings the Holy Spirit with it. Yes, it is a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn't stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever. He stumbles around and looks for faith and good works, even though he does not know what faith or good works are. Yet he gossips and chatters about faith and good works with many words. |
| nopaniers wrote: | ||
Even if we accept your example and try to repair both theories by accepting both arithmetic and set theory, A. In this case you end up with a bigger theory by combining both (with is axiomatic and contains arithmetic), which must in turn be incomplete B, and in turn be described by a larger theory, C... and so on. Not one of those theories are complete. |
Which is what i said, albeit in a slightly different way. -_-
| nopaniers wrote: | ||
Goedel's theorem does not demand an absolute proof. It only asks that our beliefs (as expressed as axioms) be self-consistent. |
i didn't say it did. -_- i said you were defining proof in the sense of absolute proof, not Gödel.
Read more carefully.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| For humans, I agree that faith comes in practice from the many uncertainties about the world, which we all face. In the case of the race, we do not know who will win or lose. We can never know everything, and therefore require faith. |
And now you're back to defining proof as absolute proof. Explicitly even.
If you live in a world where the only thing that can count as proof is absolute proof, then you live in a world where nothing is rational. Why? Because if you can never accept something is true based on any evidential or logical support - if no such proof is ever going to be enough, if everything requires faith - then you can never believe anything on the basis of evidence or logic... it will never be good enough. What that would mean is that you're really just wasting your time trying to claim that faith isn't completely irrational... because in that world, nothing is rational... rational can't even exist. That's why absolute proof doesn't work.
| nopaniers wrote: | ||
I am not applying it to the universe. I am applying it to human beliefs. In particular, to logic and science. Such a belief system IS logical and axiomatic, and therefore cannot be complete. Why is it that you deny that logic and science are valid in our universe? |
What? >_< Dude, seriously. If you're going to put words in my mouth, at least put semi-intelligent words there, please. That paragraph is nonsensical and incoherent. One minute you're talking about human beliefs, the next you're talking about science and logic... as if the two are interchangeable. And... somehow you can make conclusions about the nature of the universe based on the uncertainty of human beliefs??? What? There's no sense in there at all. -_-
| nopaniers wrote: | ||
Well, actually Indi didn't say that, but it's clear that the argument is nonsense, and more than that, the argument is based on faith.
If Indi's definition to proof was true, you could prove that moon is made of cheese. Look up, and see that the moon is a similar colour, and or looks similar to cheese (see photo by subflux). That's evidence which supports the belief. By Indi's definition though, evidence which supports a belief is the same as proof. I think it's a really bad definition. Not surprisingly the dictionary says doesn't agree with Indi and says that proof is sufficient to produce belief that something is true. To leave off the sufficient truth part changes the meaning! |
i honestly can't even figure out what you're trying to say here, or how it in anyway relates to anything i said. It is literally unintelligible. It makes no sense at all.
| nopaniers wrote: | ||
I humbly suggest that Loyal was talking about religious faith. And yes, religious faith is absolutely essential for us as humans. We have a worldview, and a faith in that worldview whether we like it or not. |
Uh huh? -_- So you are claiming that religion is necessary? Good grief.
You do realize that that claim has absolutely no relationship to anything that's been discussed here so far? As in, like, none? We've been talking about non-religious faith... as is clearly evidenced by the examples we've been tossing about involving athletes (or are you going to argue now that an athlete's belief that he will win a race is a religious belief? -_-). i humbly suggest that if loyal was talking about religious faith, he was as far out in left field as you appear to be.
Goedel's theorem does not mean we need to throw away rational argument. But we do have to keep it in perspective.
I think, Indi, we are going to have to agree to disagree again. I hope you have a good day.
I think, Indi, we are going to have to agree to disagree again. I hope you have a good day.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Goedel's theorem does not mean we need to throw away rational argument. But we do have to keep it in perspective. |
What? >_< Who said we did? All i said was that you cannot apply Gödel's theorems to just any old system you feel like, they only apply to axiomatically-defined, closed, first order logical systems. If you can prove that the universe is such a system, you go ahead and apply away. But you can't. Therefore it is wrong to apply them. Simple. What the hell does that have to do with rational or irrational anything? -_-
| Quote: |
| But you can't. Therefore it is wrong to apply them. Simple. |
I completely disagree. We are perfectly justified in applying both logic and science ("axiomatically-defined, closed, first order logical systems").
| nopaniers wrote: | ||
I completely disagree. We are perfectly justified in applying both logic and science ("axiomatically-defined, closed, first order logical systems"). |
Honestly -_- Your comprehension skills are atrocious. i mean horrible. Quote me exactly where i said or implied that we are not perfectly justified in applying logic and science to understand the universe.
You will find i said nothing of the sort. i said, and this is the entirety of what i said starting right here -> You cannot apply Gödel's theorems to any random system; they only apply to axiomatically-defined, closed, first order logical systems. If you want to apply them to science or the universe in general, you first have to show that they are axiomatically-defined, closed, first order logical systems. Until you do that, you cannot apply Gödel's theorems. <- And it ends there. That's it. That's all. Everything else you read you put there yourself.
Science is neither closed nor a first-order logic system. Science's axioms are not simply defined by science, they are determined by observation of nature - thus it is not a closed system. Science is a study of relationships of relationships (interrelationships), thus it cannot be a first-order logical system. It's as simple as that. Gödel's theorems do not apply to science.
As for this "logic" you're talking about, i have no idea what you mean. If you mean logic in general, then quite obviously Gödel's theorems do not apply, because logic in general isn't all first-order logic (or we wouldn't need the term first-order logic). Again, Gödel's theorems do not apply to logic in general.
The universe itself may or may not be an axiomatically-defined, closed, first-order logical system. i don't know, no one does. Maybe it's not closed. Maybe it's not axiomatically-defined. Maybe it's of a higher-order logic. Who knows? But until you prove that it is an axiomatically-defined, closed, first-order logical system - good luck - you can't apply Gödel's theorems to the universe.
Even if you try to create a blanket group by saying that if you lump all of science, logical thought and the universe altogether you get a closed system (which is not necessarily true), you still can't apply Gödel's theorems, because you still can't show it's a first-order logical system.
You can't just randomly apply equations and theorems wherever you want. You have to make sure that the equations or theorems are valid within the scope of where you're using them. Fermi-Dirac statistics can be applied to electrons, quarks and muons because those equations are valid for those particles... they are not valid for photons or gluons so applying them there would be wrong. Gödel's theorems apply to axiomatically-defined, closed, first-order logical systems... they are not valid for any other system. It's that simple.
That's all. That's all there is to it. All the other bullshit you're accusing me of, like throwing away all logical argument and all rationality, you're making that up yourself. It is no where explicit or implicit in anything i have said.
I claim that we do not have complete knowledge, and this is necessarily so. Indi disagrees. To prove my contention, I have to show that there always exist at least one problem to which we do not have the answer. Indi, on the other hand has to prove that there exists a time when every problem will be solved.
Indi claims that science is open. If you accept this, then it is clear that we do not have complete knowledge. At this point the rest of his post becomes pointless.
But better than that, we can provide several constructive examples.
Goedel's theorem provides such an example. I do not need to show that it applies in every case, and in particular I do not need to show that it applies to whatever case Indi dreams up. I only need to show that it applies at least once. And it does. It applies to all computationally enumerable theories that prove basic arithmetical truths.
The most famous is the halting problem. That is: Given a description of a Turing machine program and a finite input, decide whether the program finishes running or will run forever, given that input. This problem in not computable. That is, there is no general algorithm to decide if it will or will not halt.
I am under no obligation whatever to prove that the assumptions of Goedel's theorem apply in the physical universe, because I can hold beliefs about abstract things too - for example I believe that NP is not P, and that 2^32582657-1 is prime.
Indi claims that science is open. If you accept this, then it is clear that we do not have complete knowledge. At this point the rest of his post becomes pointless.
But better than that, we can provide several constructive examples.
Goedel's theorem provides such an example. I do not need to show that it applies in every case, and in particular I do not need to show that it applies to whatever case Indi dreams up. I only need to show that it applies at least once. And it does. It applies to all computationally enumerable theories that prove basic arithmetical truths.
The most famous is the halting problem. That is: Given a description of a Turing machine program and a finite input, decide whether the program finishes running or will run forever, given that input. This problem in not computable. That is, there is no general algorithm to decide if it will or will not halt.
I am under no obligation whatever to prove that the assumptions of Goedel's theorem apply in the physical universe, because I can hold beliefs about abstract things too - for example I believe that NP is not P, and that 2^32582657-1 is prime.
| Indi wrote: | ||||
Honestly -_- Your comprehension skills are atrocious. i mean horrible. |
| Indi wrote: |
| Quote me exactly where i said or implied that we are not perfectly justified in applying logic and science to understand the universe.
|
| Indi wrote: |
| You will find i said nothing of the sort. i said, and this is the entirety of what i said starting right here -> You cannot apply Gödel's theorems to any random system; they only apply to axiomatically-defined, closed, first order logical systems.
|
| Indi wrote: |
| If you want to apply them to science or the universe in general, you first have to show that they are axiomatically-defined, closed, first order logical systems. Until you do that, you cannot apply Gödel's theorems. <- And it ends there. That's it. That's all. Everything else you read you put there yourself.
|
| nopaniers wrote: |
| I claim that we do not have complete knowledge, and this is necessarily so. Indi disagrees. |
Who exactly are you talking to?
You are lying. You did not claim that it is impossible to have complete knowledge of the universe. You claimed that you could apply Gödel's theorems to the universe. That claim is false.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| To prove my contention, I have to show that there always exist at least one problem to which we do not have the answer. Indi, on the other hand has to prove that there exists a time when every problem will be solved. |
Only if that were the claim being discussed. It is not. The claim you made is that you could apply Gödel's theorems to the universe.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Indi claims that science is open. If you accept this, then it is clear that we do not have complete knowledge. At this point the rest of his post becomes pointless. |
That would be true if the point of my post was what you are now claiming it to be. It is not. You claimed that you could apply Gödel's theorems to the universe. That post is a refutation of that claim. In that context, it has a point.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Goedel's theorem provides such an example. I do not need to show that it applies in every case, and in particular I do not need to show that it applies to whatever case Indi dreams up. |
And here is where you completely leave the realm of logic.
What makes you think you can make that claim? If it's true, then why can't i apply the second law of thermodynamics to literary analysis? Why can't i apply economic game theory to particle interactions?
You know quantum mechanics. Tell me - precisely - why i can't use Fermi-Dirac statistics to describe bosons. If what you claim is true, one doesn't need any justification to apply a theory that is true in one context to another context. So why exactly can't i use Fermi-Dirac statistics to describe bosons?
Gödel's theorems were designed within a specific context to apply only to that context - spefically, first order computational logic. If you want to apply them to any other context, you do have to show that they apply.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| I only need to show that it applies at least once. And it does. It applies to all computationally enumerable theories that prove basic arithmetical truths. |
BAM! Right there.
Now prove the universe is computationally enumerable.
You'll find you can't. Sure, it is usually assumed to be so, for the sake of simplicity. But that's no guarantee that it is. And, in fact, there is a lot of evidence that it is not, given the fact that there exist things that are not computationally enumerable within the universe.
Therefore Gödel's theorems do not apply. That has nothing to do with whether or not it is possible to know everything. The only thing it has to do with is whether or not Gödel's theorems appy. Try and stay with the rest of us now.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Goedel's theorem apply in the physical universe, because I can hold beliefs about abstract things too |
So logic be damned, you don't have to prove that Gödel's theorems apply because you believe they apply? You believe the universe is a closed, first-order system - without proof - so you can apply Gödel's theorems, and i just have to accept it?
Goedel's theorems do apply to the universe. They apply to computers.
Enough said.
Enough said.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Goedel's theorems do apply to the universe. They apply to computers.
Enough said. |
Yeah? Now prove the universe is a computer.
| Indi wrote: | ||
Yeah? Now prove the universe is a computer. |
Just as a neural network, such as the human brain, can be simulated by a computer, so can the Mind of God. There is nothing that is not a computer.
I defy you to show any evidence from Goedel that his theoroms do not apply to any computational device?
(Point of information)
a) Planck said nothing about spacetime being quantised and never mentioned quanta of space or time.
b) The idea that spacetime is quantised (ie it exists in discreet units) is unproven. There is, as yet, no experimental evidence that I know of that spacetime is quantised. If spacetime is, indeed, quantised then it is likely to be on a very very small scale. Quantum Gravity theory postulates that spacetime is quantised on the scale of the Planck length (10^-35m).
c) The idea that if spacetime IS quantised then the individual quanta would constitute cellular automata is an assumption. To be correct it would require spacetime quanta to
*It follows from this that time must be discreet.
For those interested in this area I suggest the following sources of information as a starting point.
Simple definition of a cellular automaton
More details on cellular automata at a general level
Introduction to the idea of the Universe as a computer
Wikki article on Seth Lloyd's 'Programming the Universe'.
Conference on this idea
Review of Seth Lloyd's 'Programming the Universe'.
Discussion on the issue in the Physics Forums
Video on Order and the Universe
a) Planck said nothing about spacetime being quantised and never mentioned quanta of space or time.
b) The idea that spacetime is quantised (ie it exists in discreet units) is unproven. There is, as yet, no experimental evidence that I know of that spacetime is quantised. If spacetime is, indeed, quantised then it is likely to be on a very very small scale. Quantum Gravity theory postulates that spacetime is quantised on the scale of the Planck length (10^-35m).
c) The idea that if spacetime IS quantised then the individual quanta would constitute cellular automata is an assumption. To be correct it would require spacetime quanta to
- be capable of existing in a finite number of discreet states
- change state based on a fixed rule concerning neighbouring quanta of spacetime. In more correct terminology; each cell in a cellular automata has a state (S) at a particular time (T) which is a function of the states of a finite number of neighbouring cells at time T-1*
*It follows from this that time must be discreet.
For those interested in this area I suggest the following sources of information as a starting point.
Simple definition of a cellular automaton
More details on cellular automata at a general level
Introduction to the idea of the Universe as a computer
Wikki article on Seth Lloyd's 'Programming the Universe'.
Conference on this idea
Review of Seth Lloyd's 'Programming the Universe'.
Discussion on the issue in the Physics Forums
Video on Order and the Universe
Dear Conspirator, I disagree with you. Please, read below my opinion.
Faith is necessary for the human being. This makes us different from any animal. We must have faith BUT faith in life and faith in love. When you get faithful in both life and love you will need to be faithful in God, because this is the only way we can keep away the ignorance, the superstition, the violence and the "true" death. The Bible says this and I believe this is true. And it works. Think of this!
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| Faith is bad,faith is evil. Faith has no positive attributes. Faith is belief with out or despite evidence. If you have faith in your ability's, you will loose, if you think "I will do my absolute best to win" you have a much grater chance of winning. It also leads to ignorants, superstition, violence and death. |
Faith is necessary for the human being. This makes us different from any animal. We must have faith BUT faith in life and faith in love. When you get faithful in both life and love you will need to be faithful in God, because this is the only way we can keep away the ignorance, the superstition, the violence and the "true" death. The Bible says this and I believe this is true. And it works. Think of this!
| volotao wrote: | ||
Dear Conspirator, I disagree with you. Please, read below my opinion.
Faith is necessary for the human being. This makes us different from any animal. We must have faith BUT faith in life and faith in love. When you get faithful in both life and love you will need to be faithful in God, because this is the only way we can keep away the ignorance, the superstition, the violence and the "true" death. The Bible says this and I believe this is true. And it works. Think of this! |
Excuse me... but isn't it our intelligence that makes us different from "any animal" (presumably you mean any other animal on Earth)? What's faith got to do with that?
As a matter of fact, faith-based belief does not require intelligence. A dribbling idiot could have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. But only someone with intelligence could have a reason for believing that the sun will rise tomorrow. So, contrary to your assertion, it is when we do not use f