Is Faith logical?

[Jelrak TB]

Originally Posted by LaramieHirsch

I'm back.

Sorry my participation is a little sparse. I am primarily able to comment on the thread on weekends, though I'm trying to chime in during the week.

- - - -

Okay, Axiom 1 was:

Biological organisms are created from other biological organisms on planet Earth.

And one response was:



And we can agree on this simple truth. Good. Now, I have a second Axiom.

Axiom 2: If biological organisms are created from other biological organisms on planet Earth, then therefore, there will be a continual production and likely increase of biological organisms on planet Earth in the Future.

Do we all agree on Axiom 2?

No.

So long as life is supportable, there may be a continued production of same, but it need not necessarily lead to any particular increase overall. Consider, an increase in human biomass may arrive at a corresponding decrease in plant or animal biomass. Alternately, an increase in any animal biomass might be cause for disease or starvation to reduce the numbers back to a more sustainable level.

Any temporary increases overall might be met with corresponding decreases overall in the future.

[Jelrak TB]

Originally Posted by LaramieHirsch

(Concerning your particular question of, if God is Omniscient. I say yes. But I do not want to start a bunch of loose ends with the dialogue, if possible. But I suppose it's worth an answer here.)

Might it not require the tying of many loose ends to properly braid a rope?

2) If God is Omniscient, does he foresee the future?

[clmowry]

Originally Posted by jmvizanko

Well should I go into why I think the classic arguments for god's existence are illogical in my opinion? It just seems like, even if that is the only way to respond to the thread, it is beyond the scope of size for a discussion in a particular thread.

If you think that you could somehow therby prove faith illogical. Then yes.

Perhaps not illogical, but it does show that one can easily have an honest faith in something that isn't true, as most people do.

Sure, happens all the time. Turns out the sun isn't the center of the universe. That didn't make beliving so based on the data available at the time illogical.

And that's one of my big problems with faith, it seems that it is something you cannot have without it being arbitrary. Arbitrarily something you inherited or arbitrarily arrived at through personal experiences and arguments.

There is nothing whatsoever Arbitray about my faith.

What couclusion did you arrive at on any subject that did not develop via your personal experiences and arguments?

I presume by this discription that your atheism is an arbitray choice.

Chuck

[grannymh]

In response to granny's post 84 which stated "Of course Genesis is about real events."

Originally Posted by Jelrak TB

Real events as in actual, or as in allegorical?

Actual events related in some form of figurative language which goes more to the point of Divine Revelation.

For example. For decades, there have been Catholics who ignore Original Sin. Some refer to allegory in the first three chapters as representing some truth. A general example would be -- the eating of the fruit represents the human population's rise to consciousness of good and bad. Say what?

Genesis 1: 26 - 28 does not sound like an allegory of something else. It is a flat out blessing for an event which resulted in the human race, including you and me.

A logical approach to Catholicism would be to first understand the doctrines which have a source in the first three chapters and then go to the figurative language being used. Logical approach as in using common sense to research the truth.

Because my own faith was shaken in regard to Adam and Eve, I pay particular attention to the first three chapters of Genesis and to paragraphs 355 - 421 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church Second Edition including some of the footnotes.

Would faith be a form of trust? An interesting sentence in the Catechism is "Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God's command." CCC 397 http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/397.htm

Would it be logical to trust in God as a spiritual being even when it appears that He is not present?

My apology. Due to commitments I will get back to the middle of your excellent and necessary questions. The last question could be part of a long demonstration for the spiritual existence of God. So I am sure you will have more to say about it.

If a child were to "recognize" the existence of a monster lurking unseen in the shadows of his/her room, would this be a proof that such an ethereal being must exist?

"must exist?" No. Objective existence is independent of someone else being in the same room.

In this case, "recognition" is more reflective of the child's own developing cognitive powers. Obviously, the child wonders about invisible monsters. The child is questioning the shadows and memory could bring back cartoons with surprise appearances of a character. It also may indicate that the child is open to something she or he cannot see. This childlike openness to the invisible may be why Jesus commented that we should be like little children.

Thank you for this detailed response.

You are welcome.

[jmvizanko]

Originally Posted by clmowry

If you think that you could somehow therby prove faith illogical. Then yes.

Both the cosmological and teleological arguments fail because they do not answer the objection of what caused god. The usual reply is god is outside of time, to which the reply is not time-dependent; why does a god just exist anyway? And how is that any more easy to accept than a universe that just existed forever or popped into existence without reason? Either way, we have a universe that is just here, or a god that is just here, with a universe it created. I don't see a reason to think either is more easy to accept.

The ontological argument fails because it would follow that the perfect version of anything must exist, ie the perfect unicorn.

The arguments from morality, beauty etc. fail because there is no logical reason to need a god for any of these things to exist. The Mandelbrot set even proves that beauty exists independent of a god, as god cannot make a square circle or a Mandelbrot set that isn't a Mandelbrot set. The Mandelbrot set is a purely true logical construct that is what it is no matter what god or being comprehends or views it.

The anthropic and fine-tuning arguments fail because they are inherently a lack of imagination of what completely different forms of life could be like in universes completely unlike our own, or even in vastly different parts of our own. Usually you see a claim like that you need atoms. And I don't understand this "atomic" chauvinism. Who is to say that in a universe with building blocks that are 10^200 times bigger you couldn't have sentient configurations of life, even if they had no resemblance to anything we know?

These are just my responses to some of the main classical arguments for god's existence. (I suppose we could get into any of them more, but if you want to, I think it should be a different thread) To me, the failure of these arguments leaves me with no reason to believe there is a god. And if there are no reasons to believe in a god, then believing in a god is unreasonable.

Plus there are also the arguments against a god's existence, like the problem of evil, the problem of hell, and the problem of unbelief. And I do find those 3 at least somewhat if not very convincing against the existence of certain god's, especially the god of Christianity and the god of Islam, religions where what you believe matters to god.

And in the end if there is no good reason to believe there is a god, but there are good reasons to believe there isn't, or at least to doubt enough to be uncertain (which I am regarding a general formulation of a deity), then it is logical to not have faith.

Why is faith logical?

Originally Posted by clmowry

There is nothing whatsoever Arbitray about my faith.

What couclusion did you arrive at on any subject that did not develop via your personal experiences and arguments?

I presume by this discription that your atheism is an arbitray choice.

I would say my atheism is arbitrary in that I did not choose it, the arguments for it are more convincing to me, and ad nauseum, you cannot choose what you think is true. Of course, atheism is not holding something to be true that is unprovable like faith is, at least in its implicit form. Regardless of whether I had any say in choosing it, what makes admitting you don't know less logical than placing your faith in one of the many possible explanations that have no proof? And I do not mean this in a nasty way, but until you can explain to me why your faith is not arbitrary, and that if you were born and raised in Pakistan that it is necessarily true that you would end up a Christian, I will consider it arbitrary.

Lets take the example of an alien that comes from a distant part of the universe. If they come from a race and world that has no religion, and they land here, what reason would they have for adopting any of our religions over any of the others? There are highly intelligent Christians, Muslims, Atheists, etc., some of which have made it their life's quest and research to understand and defend their religion. And despite all the sophistication that the advanced scholar of any of these religions has, all of them are wrong except for one. How can there be so much specific reason to believe in a religion found, in every religion, if only one of them actually contains the truth?

In short, if there is no good reason to place your faith in any specific religion over any other, then if you do it is both illogical and arbitrary to do so. And (not everybody, but I think probably most) people's faith is just arbitrarily what they were raised to put their faith in.

[LaramieHirsch]

Still on Axiom 2.

Originally Posted by Jelrak TB

No.

So long as life is supportable, there may be a continued production of same, but it need not necessarily lead to any particular increase overall. Consider, an increase in human biomass may arrive at a corresponding decrease in plant or animal biomass. Alternately, an increase in any animal biomass might be cause for disease or starvation to reduce the numbers back to a more sustainable level.

Any temporary increases overall might be met with corresponding decreases overall in the future.

Yes, but I'm trying to stick to the basics. Excluding biomass, sustainability arguments, and devastating corrections that reduce numbers, we can assume that, if life continues to be supportable, biological organisms will continue to produce. Right?

Originally Posted by Jelrak TB

Might it not require the tying of many loose ends to properly braid a rope?

2) If God is Omniscient, does he foresee the future?

Yes, God forsees the future.

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by Jelrak TB

If one were to peer closely enough, might one be blessed enough to see God's reflection in the eyes of a plague-carrying flea?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Whether we are amazed at the grandeur of the solar system or the intricacies of an insect's eye, having human eyes, we only see part of God's reflection.

Now, you may ask what about the plague carried by the flea. What does the plague reflect? The plague reflects death which is normative for human anatomies. Our intellective soul then asks "Where, O death, is your sting?'' While the tiny plague-carrying flea reflects the reality of death, it also brings to mind the power of God to transform us from our troubled earthly existence to eternal peace in the presence of the Beatific Vision.

If we allow our mind the liberty of seeking God when we are faced with a reflection of death in the eyes of a plague-carrying flea; then we will see the reflection of God's supreme power -- "Death is swallowed up in victory." (source:1 Corinthians 15: 50-58)

[Jelrak TB]

Originally Posted by grannymh

In response to granny's post 84 which stated "Of course Genesis is about real events."

Actual events related in some form of figurative language which goes more to the point of Divine Revelation.

For example. For decades, there have been Catholics who ignore Original Sin. Some refer to allegory in the first three chapters as representing some truth. A general example would be -- the eating of the fruit represents the human population's rise to consciousness of good and bad. Say what?

Genesis 1: 26 - 28 does not sound like an allegory of something else. It is a flat out blessing for an event which resulted in the human race, including you and me.

A logical approach to Catholicism would be to first understand the doctrines which have a source in the first three chapters and then go to the figurative language being used. Logical approach as in using common sense to research the truth.

Because my own faith was shaken in regard to Adam and Eve, I pay particular attention to the first three chapters of Genesis and to paragraphs 355 - 421 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church Second Edition including some of the footnotes.

Consider the question of God's apparent relationship with man. If God placed into the garden two individuals who had not yet eaten from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, how might it be said that these two might have been culpable of any wrongdoing? How might they have known what they were about to do was evil until the deed itself was accomplished?

Further, in such a naive state, how might Adam and Eve have been capable of outwitting God's most enlightened creation whose intelligence was second only to God's own? Would not God have successfully predicted the outcome of his innocent creation versus the calculating shrewdness of a being capable of successfully convincing and corrupting a full third of the angels?

If it might be said with certainty that God knew, or should have known, the outcome, would not the Fall of mankind necessarily have been purposeful on the part of God? If purposeful, how might mankind be given over to bear the blame? To be punished?

How might one fully trust an entity who seemingly shares only a part of its essence with mankind and who appears willing to allow his simple creation to believe itself blameworthy for a fall that need not have occurred and over which it might have had only very limited control?

Would faith be a form of trust? An interesting sentence in the Catechism is "Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God's command." CCC 397 http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/397.htm

Might it not be equally stated: "God, allowing a super-genius devil to tempt an innocent mankind abused the trust that mankind had placed in assuming the garden was safe?"

Would it be logical to trust in God as a spiritual being even when it appears that He is not present?

My apology. Due to commitments I will get back to the middle of your excellent and necessary questions. The last question could be part of a long demonstration for the spiritual existence of God. So I am sure you will have more to say about it.

OK.

"must exist?" No. Objective existence is independent of someone else being in the same room.

In this case, "recognition" is more reflective of the child's own developing cognitive powers. Obviously, the child wonders about invisible monsters. The child is questioning the shadows and memory could bring back cartoons with surprise appearances of a character. It also may indicate that the child is open to something she or he cannot see. This childlike openness to the invisible may be why Jesus commented that we should be like little children.

How is a child's imagining of a local monster dismissible as fanciful, but an adult's imagining of a creator acceptable as proof of same? Might it not be equally suggested that such imagining (on the part of an adult) may merely be the developing cognitive powers of an adult psychology? Perhaps one who might have always known a parent figure, and who might require a replacement should the earthly version become deceased?

[Jelrak TB]

Originally Posted by LaramieHirsch

Still on Axiom 2.

Yes, but I'm trying to stick to the basics. Excluding biomass, sustainability arguments, and devastating corrections that reduce numbers, we can assume that, if life continues to be supportable, biological organisms will continue to produce. Right?

If something appears to be growing at a given rate, it appears fair to assume it will continue to so do so long as conditions remain unchanged, yes.

Yes, God forsees the future.

3) Is God perfect?

[Jelrak TB]

Originally Posted by grannymh

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Whether we are amazed at the grandeur of the solar system or the intricacies of an insect's eye, having human eyes, we only see part of God's reflection.

Now, you may ask what about the plague carried by the flea. What does the plague reflect? The plague reflects death which is normative for human anatomies. Our intellective soul then asks "Where, O death, is your sting?'' While the tiny plague-carrying flea reflects the reality of death, it also brings to mind the power of God to transform us from our troubled earthly existence to eternal peace in the presence of the Beatific Vision.

If we allow our mind the liberty of seeking God when we are faced with a reflection of death in the eyes of a plague-carrying flea; then we will see the reflection of God's supreme power -- "Death is swallowed up in victory." (source:1 Corinthians 15: 50-58)

Fair enough.

[HailStarofSea]

Originally Posted by meltzerboy

There are no certainties in life, even--perhaps especially--in human relationships. For the truly faithful, belief in G-d is not a matter of certainty achieved by deductive or inductive logic and reason; rather, it is based on internal emotion, motivation, and trust. One is not afraid of making choices or possibly being deceived by wishful thinking and sentimentality. In a sense, one surrenders to one's inner perception and understanding of reality and truth.

I believe this is a description of every other religion EXCEPT the Catholic faith where this viewpoint is expressly vowed "against" for the Catholics most dedicated to the faith, the religious, when they take a vow of obedience. The vow of obedience means that they surrender to God, not themselves. In addition, the practice of spiritual direction would not exist if one is not afraid of being deceived.

Not only that, some have argued that it is the fact that Catholicism, unlike other religions, is focused on objective truth that allowed science to develop in the West and not in other countries. See Thomas Woods, Jr. "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization"

[LaramieHirsch]

Originally Posted by Jelrak TB

If something appears to be growing at a given rate, it appears fair to assume it will continue to so do so long as conditions remain unchanged, yes.




3) Is God perfect?

Concerning the axioms, we have the following:

Axiom 1: Biological organisms are created from other biological organisms on planet Earth.

Axiom 2: If biological organisms are created from other biological organisms on planet Earth, then therefore, there will be a continual production and likely increase of biological organisms on planet Earth in the Future. (... Excluding biomass, sustainability arguments, and devastating corrections that reduce numbers...)

Can we agree on a third Axiom? Can we agree on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? That things in the universe break down? Do I need to state the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

So far, with these axioms, I haven't really been delving into the question of God, but just what we know of our universe. I figure these are basic things we can agree on. But I figure it's good to establish these axioms. Again, sorry for the slow responses. I'm not as hyper speed with the forum participation as I used to be.


Concerning your question: Is God perfect? My answer is:

Yes, God is perfect.

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by LaramieHirsch

Concerning the axioms, we have the following:

Axiom 1: Biological organisms are created from other biological organisms on planet Earth.

Axiom 2: If biological organisms are created from other biological organisms on planet Earth, then therefore, there will be a continual production and likely increase of biological organisms on planet Earth in the Future. (... Excluding biomass, sustainability arguments, and devastating corrections that reduce numbers...)

Can we agree on a third Axiom? Can we agree on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? That things in the universe break down? Do I need to state the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

So far, with these axioms, I haven't really been delving into the question of God, but just what we know of our universe. I figure these are basic things we can agree on. But I figure it's good to establish these axioms. Again, sorry for the slow responses. I'm not as hyper speed with the forum participation as I used to be.


Concerning your question: Is God perfect? My answer is:

Yes, God is perfect.

I would like to see the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics stated plus a reliable link to it. As I recall, in the distant past, there have been some questions raised about this 2nd law. Thank you.

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by Jelrak TB

Consider the question of God's apparent relationship with man. If God placed into the garden two individuals who had not yet eaten from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, how might it be said that these two might have been culpable of any wrongdoing? How might they have known what they were about to do was evil until the deed itself was accomplished?

Further, in such a naive state, how might Adam and Eve have been capable of outwitting God's most enlightened creation whose intelligence was second only to God's own? Would not God have successfully predicted the outcome of his innocent creation versus the calculating shrewdness of a being capable of successfully convincing and corrupting a full third of the angels?

If it might be said with certainty that God knew, or should have known, the outcome, would not the Fall of mankind necessarily have been purposeful on the part of God? If purposeful, how might mankind be given over to bear the blame? To be punished?

How might one fully trust an entity who seemingly shares only a part of its essence with mankind and who appears willing to allow his simple creation to believe itself blameworthy for a fall that need not have occurred and over which it might have had only very limited control?

Might it not be equally stated: "God, allowing a super-genius devil to tempt an innocent mankind abused the trust that mankind had placed in assuming the garden was safe?"

I have been totally amazed that some, not all, Christians continually pose innocent-type situations for Adam and Eve. That is so illogical when one considers the watershed of Original Sin. It is as if Genesis 3: 1-7 has never been read.

It is also illogical to assume that human nature was not human nature when Adam and Eve were in God's friendship. However, I think that non-valid assumption is due to the flawed concept that Original Sin totally corrupted human nature. One poster used to insist that current humans were sin machines or something similar to that.

When speaking of logical faith, it is the actual teachings of the Catholic Church which are the logical interpretation for the first three chapters of Genesis. The logic of Catholicism has a firm base in the first three chapters of Genesis.

As I reread your post, it seems to me that there are a number of issues or questions which need to be resolved. Would it be possible to start a discussion with your favorite issue or question as a base or maybe a premise. For example, I have started with the premise that God exists as a spiritual being. I will be happy to switch to a premise of your choosing.

My sense is that you may be looking at Adam and Eve from questions such as -- Who are they? What kind of intelligence do they have? Is the Garden a real place? Was there love between God and Adam? What is the devil? Why are both a rational intellect and free will necessary to be in a relationship with God? Perhaps some of these questions belong to the basic question of what constitutes human nature in the first place.

On NCIS, there was a minor discussion about how does one put a puzzle together. Starting with the outside frame and working inward or starting in the center? Either approach works for me.

[Jelrak TB]

Originally Posted by LaramieHirsch

Concerning the axioms, we have the following:

Axiom 1: Biological organisms are created from other biological organisms on planet Earth.

Axiom 2: If biological organisms are created from other biological organisms on planet Earth, then therefore, there will be a continual production and likely increase of biological organisms on planet Earth in the Future. (... Excluding biomass, sustainability arguments, and devastating corrections that reduce numbers...)

Can we agree on a third Axiom? Can we agree on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? That things in the universe break down? Do I need to state the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

This is true only in a closed system.

So far, with these axioms, I haven't really been delving into the question of God, but just what we know of our universe. I figure these are basic things we can agree on. But I figure it's good to establish these axioms. Again, sorry for the slow responses. I'm not as hyper speed with the forum participation as I used to be.


Concerning your question: Is God perfect? My answer is:

Yes, God is perfect.

4) Does time (subjective or otherwise) pass in Heaven?