#Faith

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

gaunt pawn
#

What is faith?
Is it a reliable source to what is congruent with reality?

#

My answer would be
There are two forms of faith

One being complete trust in something

The second being belief without evidence

The first is fine as you may have reasons for such trust
The second is harmful because belief without evidence holds us back from reliable sources of truth

tribal acorn
#

Faith is inherently not a reliable source for anything. Just because you believe something does not make it true.

neat patrol
#

Faith should be reasonably founded, not meaning something is concretely set, but can be given benefit of the doubt based upon what is available and known.

tribal acorn
neat patrol
# tribal acorn How can faith be ''giving the benefit of the doubt''? Faith is inherently a bel...

But you missed the caveat i never stated. I didn't say it should be used as a reliable source of anything, but rather, based upon the evidence available. In example of God vs no God, it cannot be proven nor can it be disproven, therefore, faith erring on the side of benefit of the doubt in favor. Belief in God subtracts nothing and gains everything particularly in Judeo-Christian belief. Submitting to a higher power, if existent, gains eternity. Not submitting gains eternal separation and torment.
If however God is non-existent, then I won't know either way because once I die, it's all over anyway with no ability to recall because of ceasing to exist.
In terms of deities, we can examine historical claims and locations, claims of prophets, etc and show or disprove their historical accuracy. If Historical accuracy isn't reasonable, or is severely lacking, then surely we cannot also believe the faith claims.
it's about possibility, not constant reliance upon the faith to get through, except when necessary. There is evidence for both sides of God/no god, so either choice becomes a faith choice.

tribal acorn
#

I mean sure, but the question was whether it should be used as a reliable source, then the answer would be no either way.

I don't understand what you mean with this statement: ''Belief in God subtracts nothing and gains everything particularly in Judeo-Christian belief. Submitting to a higher power, if existent, gains eternity. Not submitting gains eternal separation and torment.''

''In terms of deities, we can examine historical claims and locations, claims of prophets, etc and show or disprove their historical accuracy. If Historical accuracy isn't reasonable, or is severely lacking, then surely we cannot also believe the faith claims.'' - Sure you can do this, but that still says nothing about the validity of the belief system itself, or the reliability thereof. Let me give you an example:

Suppose about 5000 years ago there was a massive flood in the Mesopotamia area. This would have had a severe impact on the lives of the people living there at that time. They would make stories about it and tell them over generations. At some point, someone writes it down (e.g. in the bible) and this knowledge gets passed down. Now suppose we would find evidence for such a flood, does this prove the bible is right? No, it only proves a flood happened and people were there to witness it. Does it mean a god may exist? Well no, there is zero correlation between the event and the existence of god.

Also I don't think there can ever be any ''evidence'' of (a) god(s), so I don't understand what you mean with ''there is evidence for both sides''. There is none on either side, as it is impossible to prove/disprove either of them.

#

Maybe I should mention that I am not a christian, nor do I particularly believe in any kind of religious faith. To me claiming the existence of one god sounds even less likely than the existence of multiple gods. As when a god can exist, why is it limited to one. Suppose we would know that at least one god would exist, how would we be sure there are not more? I can sort of understand your view from a christian perspective, but the christian faith is just one of many many religions and faiths out there, so claiming the christian one is the correct one makes no sense to me

#

Suppose there is a god, but it is not the christian god. Suppose there is an afterlife where you can end up good or bad. Does believing in the Christian god help you then for the afterlife? Maybe, but more likely no. I mean, the Christian faith is particularly biased against anyone worshipping any other god(s). How would this be diffent if the Christian god is not the ''real'' god. Would a non-believer and a ''wrong-believer'' be measured the same way in the afterlife?

gaunt pawn
#

That is called inference

vapid widget
gaunt pawn
gaunt pawn
#

Έστιν δέ πίστις έλπιζομένων ύπόστασις, πραγμάτων έλεγχος ού βλεπομένων

wind rock
#

Faith- Confidence in a person/thing/concept. officially, The assent of the mind to the truth of a proposition or statement for which there is not complete evidence; belief in general. So, you can have faith that gravity exists (we cant see it, so does it really exist). sure, a dumb example, but essentially thats the premise. I have faith, but as a follower of Jesus, I would say my faith has become more of a supplement to the evidences I have both studied (archeology, basic scientific principles and there fragility), as well as personally experienced (near death experiences, a vision during college, and seen God provide financially for people without any intervention (this has happened even this week to a friend)

gaunt pawn
gaunt pawn