|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Oct 2, 2019 20:30:28 GMT
"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible." - St. Thomas Aquinas That sounds laudable, so lets look at some history: When I was four years old, I had faith, faith that Santa would be at my house on Christmas eve. But, I had more than faith, I had EVIDENCE. Mom and dad assured me that Santa was coming. I sat on his lap at Macy's. I left cookies and milk for him on Christmas eve. The milk was partially gone and there was a bite out of one of the cookies I left for him. And the gifts. Who can forget the presents. As most of you know, that was all a ruse, a conspiracy by mom, dad, Macy's, Hasbro, Mattel and many others. They all lied to me. I had faith, but I was deceived. Then, a couple of years later, my faith was tested when I lost a tooth. Again, I had more than faith, I had evidence. At the insistence of mom and dad, I put the tooth under my pillow. Low and behold, there was a money there in the morning. I continued to have faith for another four teeth until I learned the truth. Again, I had faith, but I discovered I was decieved. So if you have faith of God's existance, how do you know you are not being decieved. After all, everything you know about Yahweh you were told by another party, a party who could be deceiving you in their own self interest, be it power, control, money, or their own desperate hope of Heaven. As for St. Thomas Aquinas, I quote Matt Dillahunty. or another of his quotes,
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2019 21:17:49 GMT
One of the ways to identify a bad argument is if it returns inconsistent answers.
For instance there are a billion or so muslims in this world. Most of them believe in islam on faith. If mslo79 told them that islam was clearly false and their reasons for believing it were wrong, and they said "Well I have faith. And to one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible," would mslo79 accept this as a valid defence of islam? I suspect not. But if it's not a valid defence of islam, it's not a valid defence of christianity either.
Faith is simply not a reason to believe any proposition. A moment of thought shows that one can have faith in something and be wrong. An old claim some theists used was "well you have faith in your husband/wife, don't you?" But how many people who've had faith in their spouse have found that the spouse was cheating on them? It's in the millions! Clearly having faith in them does not in fact say anything about them.
Faith can be wrong. It often is wrong. Because it is not a method of determining truth, not at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Oct 2, 2019 22:22:10 GMT
because ninety nine times out of one hundred these same folks wouldn't know their ass from a hole in the ground. (i'm being kind here)
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Oct 2, 2019 23:51:56 GMT
Where does faith come from?
|
|
|
|
Post by Catman 猫的主人 on Oct 3, 2019 0:18:20 GMT
Where does faith come from? Well, Faith Yang was born in Taiwan and grew up in Sydney, Australia. She has a degree in biology and genetics from the University of Sydney but chose to pursue a musical career in Taiwan. She won the Taiwan Golden Music awards for Best Female Performer and was nominated for Best Album (Silence) in 2000.
|
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Oct 3, 2019 6:25:22 GMT
There is evidence for those who can see it... -Eucharistic Miracles (i.e. churchpop.com/2015/06/28/5-extraordinary-eucharistic-miracles-with-pictures/ etc) -Our Lady of Gaudalupe image from the year 1531 (i.e. youtu.be/Ds7nD_QNeKA ) -Our Lady of Las Lajas image on a rock from the year 1754 ("Geologists have since bored core samples from several places in the rock and discovered that there is no paint, dye, or pigment on the surface of the rock. The colors of the mysterious image are the colors of the rock itself and extend several feet deep inside the rock! The only man-made aspects of the miraculous image are the crowns above the heads of Jesus and Mary that were later added by local devotees." ; catholicexchange.com/miraculous-image-lady-las-lajas )
-Fatima (The Miracle of the Sun from Oct 13th 1917 which is viewed by tens of thousands of people)
-St. Pio (1887-1968) etc etc so comparing santa etc to Jesus Christ is a bit of a stretch 
but like I always say, some people won't believe no matter what as it's kind of like this quote from the bible...
"Then Abraham said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’" - Luke 16:31
which is basically another way of saying my usual St. Thomas Aquinas quote.
@graham
"Islam is inseparable from Muhammad. If Muhammad was a false prophet who presented a false picture of Jesus, then Islam, despite whatever truths it contains, is a false religion."
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Oct 3, 2019 10:26:06 GMT
Theorem:
Any brand of Christianity, Judaism and Islam that claims to be the only true religion, is a false religion.
Proof:
There are thousands of theistic religion in the world; past and present. So if only one of them is true, the a-priory probability of it being true is less than one in a thousand. Even less; because it's possible that all theistic religions are false (which is the case if God doesn't exist; but that hypothesis is not needed for my proof). Therefore, any theistic religion that claims to be the only true religion is a-priori almost certainly false.
Now, in order for one theistic religion to be true while all others are false, it should provide evidence why it is so.
Theistic religions all rely on prophets. Meaning: People who claim to communicate with and from the Gods the theistic religions worship.
One possibility for a religion to make a case why its prophets speak for God and the others don't: Its prophets are exclusive and only used for that religion. This is not true for either of the Abrahamic religions. They all share prophets.
Next possibility for a theistic religion to be true: The messages received from their Gods are free of contradictions. In Abrahamic religions, God is supposed to be perfect.
But in all three Abrahamic religions, the "holy books" (Tora, Bible and Quran) are full of contradictions.
Conclusion: All three Abrahamic religions fail to make a case why they are supposedly the only true religion.
So if they insist on only one true religion existing while all others are false, then they themselves fail the test.
Q.E.D.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2019 10:26:34 GMT
There is evidence for those who can see it... No, there really isn't. You have no idea if the things you listed actually happened, or were simply made up, misunderstood, or massively exaggerated over time. But according to you, if one has faith then none of that actually matters. Correct?
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 3, 2019 11:10:05 GMT
There is evidence for those who can see it...... Faith is born out of belief, belief is intangible. It is a personal thing. You CANNOT provide evidence for personal and especially supernatural belief.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 3, 2019 11:11:36 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by fatpaul on Oct 3, 2019 12:04:06 GMT
The funny thing is that people say this is a ‘quote’ from St.Thomas Aquinas, hence the quotation marks, but it isn’t a direct quote at all. My grammar isn’t that great but if I remember my basic English is should be written as:
To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible - St. Thomas Aquinas.
Because it’s a paraphrase from the Summa Theologica. I tend to think that people who use this as a bumper-sticker quote haven’t actually read the Summa (not even referentially). If I’m wrong then it should be easy for the person, who uses this quote, to show me exactly where this is written in this form. I don’t think they even know the actual quote from which it is paraphrased from! If there’s a Heaven then poor Thomas Aquinas must have a big palm print on his face from all the facepalming due to the misuse of this paraphrase because the hilarity of it all is that the Summa is nothing but explanations after explanations.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 4, 2019 1:46:33 GMT
Where does faith come from? Exactly the same place as 'wishful thinking'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Oct 4, 2019 10:25:37 GMT
Where does faith come from? Exactly the same place as 'wishful thinking'. I'm going to disagree a bit here. I'd say wishful thinking comes from a desire for something to be true, but faith comes from a more pragmatic need to believe things are true in order to act. The human brain doesn't have infinite resources to keep track of all spectrums of possibilities and probabilities, so we make assumptions about all kinds of things and consider them true to conserve brain power, and that ends up including assuming things for which we have little evidence. Of course, that makes it easier for wishful thinking to turn into faith, but I do think the two are different.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Oct 4, 2019 11:08:49 GMT
I think Thomas Aquinas' point isn't that faith is a fall-back when evidence is lacking. It's that if one has faith, they don't need evidence in the first place. Subtle difference there. Thomas' arguments were academic exercises amongst fellow believers, they were not intended to convince atheists there was a God, and theists needed no convincing in the first place.
This might of course lead you to wonder why he bothered - it seems in the end he wondered this too. Thomas had a couple of religious experiences towards the end of his life and after these he didn't even think his Summa Theologica was worth finishing, stating that all he had written felt like straw to him. He died with it uncompleted. Oddly most Thomists seem to ignore this later move away from natural theology to revealed theology.
I'm not sure I buy the Santa analogy. Your belief in Santa was based on what turned out to be false evidence (your parents' testimony and the false signs they left). This differs from faith imo which is belief that does not come from, and may even be at odds with, the evidence presented to you.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 4, 2019 20:39:29 GMT
Exactly the same place as 'wishful thinking'. I'm going to disagree a bit here. I'd say wishful thinking comes from a desire for something to be true, but faith comes from a more pragmatic need to believe things are true in order to act. The human brain doesn't have infinite resources to keep track of all spectrums of possibilities and probabilities, so we make assumptions about all kinds of things and consider them true to conserve brain power, and that ends up including assuming things for which we have little evidence. Of course, that makes it easier for wishful thinking to turn into faith, but I do think the two are different. Never in doubt and NOT what I was claiming. You missed the crucial words and concept of 'the same place'! 
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Oct 4, 2019 20:41:16 GMT
There is evidence for those who can see it... -Eucharistic Miracles (i.e. churchpop.com/2015/06/28/5-extraordinary-eucharistic-miracles-with-pictures/ etc) -Our Lady of Gaudalupe image from the year 1531 (i.e. youtu.be/Ds7nD_QNeKA ) -Our Lady of Las Lajas image on a rock from the year 1754 ("Geologists have since bored core samples from several places in the rock and discovered that there is no paint, dye, or pigment on the surface of the rock. The colors of the mysterious image are the colors of the rock itself and extend several feet deep inside the rock! The only man-made aspects of the miraculous image are the crowns above the heads of Jesus and Mary that were later added by local devotees." ; catholicexchange.com/miraculous-image-lady-las-lajas )
-Fatima (The Miracle of the Sun from Oct 13th 1917 which is viewed by tens of thousands of people)
-St. Pio (1887-1968) etc etc so comparing santa etc to Jesus Christ is a bit of a stretch
but like I always say, some people won't believe no matter what as it's kind of like this quote from the bible...
"Then Abraham said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’" - Luke 16:31
which is basically another way of saying my usual St. Thomas Aquinas quote.
@graham
"Islam is inseparable from Muhammad. If Muhammad was a false prophet who presented a false picture of Jesus, then Islam, despite whatever truths it contains, is a false religion."
|
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Oct 4, 2019 23:33:20 GMT
Theorem: Any brand of Christianity, Judaism and Islam that claims to be the only true religion, is a false religion. Proof: There are thousands of theistic religion in the world; past and present. So if only one of them is true, the a-priory probability of it being true is less than one in a thousand. Even less; because it's possible that all theistic religions are false (which is the case if God doesn't exist; but that hypothesis is not needed for my proof). Therefore, any theistic religion that claims to be the only true religion is a-priori almost certainly false. Now, in order for one theistic religion to be true while all others are false, it should provide evidence why it is so. Theistic religions all rely on prophets. Meaning: People who claim to communicate with and from the Gods the theistic religions worship. One possibility for a religion to make a case why its prophets speak for God and the others don't: Its prophets are exclusive and only used for that religion. This is not true for either of the Abrahamic religions. They all share prophets. Next possibility for a theistic religion to be true: The messages received from their Gods are free of contradictions. In Abrahamic religions, God is supposed to be perfect. But in all three Abrahamic religions, the "holy books" (Tora, Bible and Quran) are full of contradictions. Conclusion: All three Abrahamic religions fail to make a case why they are supposedly the only true religion. So if they insist on only one true religion existing while all others are false, then they themselves fail the test. Q.E.D. Okay then, how about Scientology? or better still, the Prince Philip movement? 
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Oct 5, 2019 2:38:27 GMT
Theorem: Any brand of Christianity, Judaism and Islam that claims to be the only true religion, is a false religion. Proof: There are thousands of theistic religion in the world; past and present. So if only one of them is true, the a-priory probability of it being true is less than one in a thousand. Even less; because it's possible that all theistic religions are false (which is the case if God doesn't exist; but that hypothesis is not needed for my proof). Therefore, any theistic religion that claims to be the only true religion is a-priori almost certainly false. Now, in order for one theistic religion to be true while all others are false, it should provide evidence why it is so. Theistic religions all rely on prophets. Meaning: People who claim to communicate with and from the Gods the theistic religions worship. One possibility for a religion to make a case why its prophets speak for God and the others don't: Its prophets are exclusive and only used for that religion. This is not true for either of the Abrahamic religions. They all share prophets. Next possibility for a theistic religion to be true: The messages received from their Gods are free of contradictions. In Abrahamic religions, God is supposed to be perfect. But in all three Abrahamic religions, the "holy books" (Tora, Bible and Quran) are full of contradictions. Conclusion: All three Abrahamic religions fail to make a case why they are supposedly the only true religion. So if they insist on only one true religion existing while all others are false, then they themselves fail the test. Q.E.D. It’s possible there is a God (an intelligent something that created the universe) but it’s also possible no religion has their description of it right. There’s also the possibility there is no intelligent creator behind the universe.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Oct 5, 2019 7:28:39 GMT
Theorem: Any brand of Christianity, Judaism and Islam that claims to be the only true religion, is a false religion. Proof: There are thousands of theistic religion in the world; past and present. So if only one of them is true, the a-priory probability of it being true is less than one in a thousand. Even less; because it's possible that all theistic religions are false (which is the case if God doesn't exist; but that hypothesis is not needed for my proof). Therefore, any theistic religion that claims to be the only true religion is a-priori almost certainly false. Now, in order for one theistic religion to be true while all others are false, it should provide evidence why it is so. Theistic religions all rely on prophets. Meaning: People who claim to communicate with and from the Gods the theistic religions worship. One possibility for a religion to make a case why its prophets speak for God and the others don't: Its prophets are exclusive and only used for that religion. This is not true for either of the Abrahamic religions. They all share prophets. Next possibility for a theistic religion to be true: The messages received from their Gods are free of contradictions. In Abrahamic religions, God is supposed to be perfect. But in all three Abrahamic religions, the "holy books" (Tora, Bible and Quran) are full of contradictions. Conclusion: All three Abrahamic religions fail to make a case why they are supposedly the only true religion. So if they insist on only one true religion existing while all others are false, then they themselves fail the test. Q.E.D. Okay then, how about Scientology? or better still, the Prince Philip movement? I am not familiar with either of them. Do they claim to be the only true religion? If they do: Are they free of contradictions?
|
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Oct 5, 2019 15:46:45 GMT
Okay then, how about Scientology? or better still, the Prince Philip movement? I am not familiar with either of them. Do they claim to be the only true religion? If they do: Are they free of contradictions? The Prince Philip Movement is a cargo cult from Vanuatu that worships Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh & Queen Elizabeth's husband, as an actual god. I believe that Scientology claims to be the true religion & free of contradictions.
|
|
