The One True Religion

[Matt Greatorex]

Faith without logic, able to exist? Off the top of my head, I think "no." At least not my faith in God. I believe there is proof of His exisistance. I think logic can get me to that point. I also have faith and trust that He is real.

One of the definitions of faith is "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence". That statement, in itself, says to me that it is possible to have faith without needing proof. Faith is a belief that stands upon the strength of its own conviction. After all, not intending to mock in any way the 'logic' behind the existence of God could as easily be applied to the existence of anything that can't be seen, touched, etc.

One is perfectly entitled to believe that He created everything since - as many people observe - we can't be sure he didn't and everything came from somewhere. That doesn't prove logically that he did, though. Suppose I believed wholeheartedly that dragons created the universe. Who's to say that they didn't? There's just as much evidence for it.

The Earth came from somewhere. I don't know where, so God must have created it. That is faith in it's purest sense - and there is nothing at all wrong with it - but it isn't logical.

 

[Rich]

And you know this how?

I read it in a book

 

[ShaneMan]

Well it looks like we have more in common than I might have imagined earlier. next time I'm back home I'll look you up for a lunch or something. Mom and Dad own a small farm right outside of Lone Star.

Make sure you do that. I don't know where Lone Star is but I am in the DFW area.

 

[ShaneMan]

The significant question here is which came first for you. Faith, by definition, is belief held without proof. If you contemplate the existence of God and use logic to prove He exists, then your belief is not faith. It is based on logic. This is a mutually exclusive relationship.

However, you can start the process with faith - a proofless belief in the existence of God - and from there construct logical arguments to support your belief. In that case, faith and logic are not mutually exclusive.

Hey Kraj,

Always good to have your brain involved. Wish you would share it more often. If pinned down I would have to say that the second choice is probably the most likely answer. With that said, I guess I really didn't do a good job of answering Matt's question.

 

[ShaneMan]

One of the definitions of faith is "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence". That statement, in itself, says to me that it is possible to have faith without needing proof. Faith is a belief that stands upon the strength of its own conviction. After all, not intending to mock in any way the 'logic' behind the existence of God could as easily be applied to the existence of anything that can't be seen, touched, etc.

One is perfectly entitled to believe that He created everything since - as many people observe - we can't be sure he didn't and everything came from somewhere. That doesn't prove logically that he did, though. Suppose I believed wholeheartedly that dragons created the universe. Who's to say that they didn't? There's just as much evidence for it.

The Earth came from somewhere. I don't know where, so God must have created it. That is faith in it's purest sense - and there is nothing at all wrong with it - but it isn't logical.

Matt, take a look at my post to Kraj. I don't think I answered you question very well.

Your second paragraph is interesting and I really can't disagree with what you have said except for the very last part. We do have a Book that the authors in it are real people who have written thousands of years ago that this is how everything was created. Dragons can't say that.

 

[Mile-O]

We do have a Book that the authors in it are real people who have written thousands of years ago that this is how everything was created. Dragons can't say that.

Dragons may not be able to say it, but the Flying Spaghetti Monster has written evidence.

The notion of God as Creator jars because you are posed the question of how did God come to be.

 

[ShaneMan]

Dragons may not be able to say it, but the Flying Spaghetti Monster has written evidence.

The notion of God as Creator jars because you are posed the question of how did God come to be.

Why is that jarring? God has always been. No beginning. No end. That's what makes him God.

 

[Mile-O]

I'll come back to it tomorrow. It's 01:06 and I'm back up at 06:00.

 

[Adeptus]

Your second paragraph is interesting and I really can't disagree with what you have said except for the very last part. We do have a Book that the authors in it are real people who have written thousands of years ago that this is how everything was created. Dragons can't say that.

How do you know any of these aren't the "true" story of the creation of the universe?
They are no less believable than the Jewish/Christian creation myth.

 

[jsanders]

How do you know any of these aren't the "true" story of the creation of the universe?
They are no less believable than the Jewish/Christian creation myth.

Funny though, that Science uses modern words to describe an event that is essentially the same.

Amazing that those uneducated Jews could have such insight.

 

[Rich]

I note that my question asking why America does not follow the teachings of Jesus has gone unanswered

 

[BarryMK]

Here’s a question for all of the atheists amongst us.

Have you ever known a non-believer alcoholic, to get sober and stay that way his (her) entire life?

I'm sorry but I think this is an ill conceived question but I'll answer it honestly, you might see the flaw in your approach.

Personally I'm sure I've known several acoholics in my lifetime, however I don't recall any one of them letting me in on the secret. They tend, I believe, to be either in denial or trying to conceal their problem from others

Also I've known many people of different persuasions from atheist to extreme God-botherer. In general the only ones who let their convictions be known socially/publicly were the proselytisers like Jehovas Witnesses, otherwise people here at least tend to keep their views to themselves.

Meeting/recognising a reformed, 'born-again' alcoholic is probably an unlikely event in most peoples' lives.

Ergo your question is unlikely to to be anwered because the central characters are a bit thin on the ground.

Now - is there a reason why you haven't answered my question?

 

[jsanders]

Now - is there a reason why you haven't answered my question?

I'm not evegelical.

 

[KenHigg]

I note that my question asking why America does not follow the teachings of Jesus has gone unanswered

That's because it's a stupid question.

 

[Matt Greatorex]

Matt, take a look at my post to Kraj. I don't think I answered your question very well.

No, you didn't. Kindly get your act together.

We do have a Book that the authors in it are real people who have written thousands of years ago that this is how everything was created. Dragons can't say that.

So, to continue the analogy, how about if I do have a book and know that my dragon book was written by real people - as opposed to surreal ones? - and that they swear blind they were writing the truth?

I have a bit of difficulty with the whole 'truth' bit. I mean, my dragon guys are as good as they come, honest to a man, but they're only human and so are fallible (unlike the dragons themselves). Even though they say they are writing down everything exactly as it happened - or as dictated to them by one of the dragons - there's always the chance that they've misremembered or misunderstood something, no?

I'm also awfully conscious of the fact that you can show five people the same event and get five different stories back, if you immediately ask them to describe what happened. This is for a recent event, too, never mind things that happened thousands of years ago and have been translated from the original dragon language.

 

[KalelGmoon]

on this too, the authors of the bible arent the people whose names are on the books themselves. the actual books of the bible werent put down on papyrus until over 100 years after the last of Jesus' disciples went to meet there buddy. so the bible is hearsay and he said she said. which by the way would not be allowed in a court of law.

 

[Matt Greatorex]

on this too, the authors of the bible arent the people whose names are on the books themselves. the actual books of the bible werent put down on papyrus until over 100 years after the last of Jesus' disciples went to meet there buddy.

I was deliberately trying to avoid this bit

If I told you something detailed and said you could go and write it down immediately, you would still probably get at least parts of it incorrect.

If, on the other hand, I said you had to pass it verbally from person to person, for a prolonged perdio of time, before someone a century from now was allowed to write it down, how much would still be a true representation of what I said?

so the bible is hearsay and he said she said. which by the way would not be allowed in a court of law.

However, it has been. I think the most famous recent ocasion was the Scopes/Monkey trial in the '20s.

Dragons may not be able to say it, but the Flying Spaghetti Monster has written evidence.

I was deliberately trying to avoid this one, but it's a valid point. Why is one piece of information taken to be more valid than another, when both were written long after the event allegedly occurred? Yes, I know the spaghetti monster is deliberately untrue, but if one didn't know this, what would differentiate it from other religious texts?

 

[BarryMK]

I'm not evegelical.

I was asking a serious question and you respond with a fatuous comment like that.

If you don't wish to enlighten us as to how you arrived at your current beliefs as a matter of privacy, you could have just said so.

Many of your posts seem to show that you consider that Rich and Col only offer stupid, obtuse and evasive arguments but then you go and act in the same manner.

Forgive me for thinking that your alleged beliefs were worthy of intelligent discussion as even you apparently don't think they are.

 

[Kraj]

Hey Kraj,

Always good to have your brain involved. Wish you would share it more often. If pinned down I would have to say that the second choice is probably the most likely answer.

Thanks, Shane! Nice of you to say. Small doses, my friend; I can only handle small doses these days.

 

[jsanders]

I was asking a serious question and you respond with a fatuous comment like that.

If you don't wish to enlighten us as to how you arrived at your current beliefs as a matter of privacy, you could have just said so.

Many of your posts seem to show that you consider that Rich and Col only offer stupid, obtuse and evasive arguments but then you go and act in the same manner.

Forgive me for thinking that your alleged beliefs were worthy of intelligent discussion as even you apparently don't think they are.

That's not it, at all.
I don’t aspire to have anyone believe the same way I do.
And the last thing I am about, is being evangelistic. So when anyone tells you their beliefs it is mostly to try to get you to believe that same as they.

Which is why I started this thread. Several people have entered into the debate and are stoic in their beliefs.

Here’s what I can tell you; (and I came to this all by myself) religion is mostly a method that humans use to keep themselves tuned to the holy part of the universe. Some people don’t need religion to connect, for others it’s a great comfort. Still for many; they wish they could feel the power, but it eludes them.

For me; I feel the power in varying degrees, depending on how much time I spend trying to stay connected.

God exist, I have witnessed his power. That has nothing to do with faith or a contradiction with logic. It is merely a statement of fact.

As far as science goes; I can tell you that for most people, that use the science argument, to disprove the existence of a supreme being, they have no clue as to the size of the holes in which they place their faith.

Hope this cleared it up for you.

So yes I came by it on my own. There’s a lot more to what I think, about the true nature of the universe, but I'll hold on to it until some of ya’ll get through dissecting my post.