Is faith a reliable path to reality?

[Angry Ukulele Girl]

Hi there!

This is my first post
This is according to Hebrews 11:1
How exactly can "confidence in what we hope for"
and an "assurance about what we do not see"
be a reliable path to reality?
For example,
Would it be advisable to approach my bank account balance in such a way?

Thanks!

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #166]

If you can argue that something is impossible, then I suspect that it won't go well for theism no matter how carefully you try to word it. Most theistic apologetic arguments absolutely rely on anything being possible. I'll be curious to see how things work out for you once we start eliminating things from that set.

You keep returning to your belief about the impossibility of the supernatural, but you have yet to prove that it is impossible. What has been proved impossible repeatedly is matter existing outside this universe. Material cannot exist apart from being contained in this universe. Before you could logically say that the supernatural is impossible, you would first have to establish that something material or even something that was not God existed outside of this universe, which is impossible.

Yet again, the basic inability to accept that gaps for a god do not make evidence for a god. Assuming for sake of argument that a god is not impossible, the burden of proof still falls on the god - claimant or creationists to show supporting evidence for any god, let alone any specific one, or its' religion.

[Difflugia]

If you can argue that something is impossible, then I suspect that it won't go well for theism no matter how carefully you try to word it. Most theistic apologetic arguments absolutely rely on anything being possible. I'll be curious to see how things work out for you once we start eliminating things from that set.

You keep returning to your belief about the impossibility of the supernatural, but you have yet to prove that it is impossible.

I haven't said that. I've agreed that anything's possible and gods are exactly as probable as all the other stuff that's made up. So far, you're the only one that's declared that some things are impossible. Your argument seems to rely on most made-up stuff being impossible, but gods being possible and that's going to be a tough row to hoe.

What has been proved impossible repeatedly is matter existing outside this universe. Material cannot exist apart from being contained in this universe. Before you could logically say that the supernatural is impossible, you would first have to establish that something material or even something that was not God existed outside of this universe, which is impossible.

I'm not sure what you think you've proven or what that has to do with this discussion. The journey we're on started with you not liking my definition of "divinity" for some reason that you haven't been able to adequately explain. From there, you tried to claim that Jesus defies statistical analysis because the scientific method doesn't work. Now you're claiming that the gods are collectively one of only two cosmological explanations that aren't impossible, but it's somehow up to me to prove that gods are impossible. Honestly, it just looks to me like you're baiting hooks with nonsense to see if I'll bite on something.

Here's where my current engagement is at: right now, you want to declare that some things are impossible, but not others. As far as I'm concerned with this discussion, anything's possible. If you're going to declare that something is impossible, you at least need to define the criteria you're using to declare this. This entertains me because I don't think you can do so in a way that keeps gods in the running, but eliminates enough other made-up stuff that the probability of gods seems appreciably above zero.

[Difflugia]

I agree with you here Difflugia, in as much as I see no reason why anything has to be outside of the nature of the physical but then when folk either side of the argument agree that consciousness/mindfulness is to be regarded as a non-physical thing (happening within a physical thing) the temptation to call mindfulness "supernatural" sock-puppets its way to the surface...with further complications added to the mix as in some mindfulness is natural and some is supernatural and on it goes.

"Mindfulness" here is just another made-up thing. You've declared (I think) that it's "a non-physical thing," but also seem reluctant to accept it as supernatural.

When you can define mindfulness in the first place, maybe we can discuss whether it's physical, nonphysical, natural, or supernatural.

I think along the line that if mindfulness is involved and this universe was created, then we should regard that creative mindfulness as "Natural" (because it came before and is the reason for) and therein either think of the creation as an extension of that natural mindfulness.
I understand that many Christians have a problem with that idea, yet they do not have any notable reason as to why we should refer to such a creative mindfulness as "supernatural" other than to differentiate mindfulness from matter.

Sure. When you have evidence that the universe was created and "mindfulness is involved," then we can discuss it.

There appears to be no good reason offered as to why we have to accept that a natural enough mindfulness which created the nature of the universe need be thought of as somehow "supernatural". There is mud in the water re that idea, imo.

If you can find evidence of such a mindfulness, we can discuss the nature of the evidence. Otherwise, you can call it whatever you want and throw it in the stack of infinite possibilities.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #171]

Yet again, the basic inability to accept that gaps for a god do not make evidence for a god. Assuming for sake of argument that a god is not impossible, the burden of proof still falls on the god - claimant or creationists to show supporting evidence for any god, let alone any specific one, or its' religion.

The burden of proof lies with those who believe that anything material can exist outside this universe, a concept that is contradicted by the laws of physics. This leaves us with the realm of the supernatural. However, if we are to dismiss a possibility, we must have clear criteria for doing so. If our criteria for dismissal is the non-material nature of the entity, then we are left with a paradox-all possibilities are eliminated because the material cannot exist outside of this universe. This paradox leads to a logical fallacy, as we clearly exist within the universe. Anything that is non-material would be beyond the reach of our senses, making it impossible to logically rule out a supernatural creator.

According to the laws of physics in this universe, God is the only possible explanation for filling the gap in creation.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #172]

Here's where my current engagement is at: right now, you want to declare that some things are impossible, but not others. As far as I'm concerned with this discussion, anything's possible. If you're going to declare that something is impossible, you at least need to define the criteria you're using to declare this. This entertains me because I don't think you can do so in a way that keeps gods in the running, but eliminates enough other made-up stuff that the probability of gods seems appreciably above zero.

You are the one who said that God does not exist, or at least that the probability of God's existence is essentially zero. The physical laws of this universe tell us what attributes God must have to exist outside of this universe. God must be non-material, must be all-powerful to create the universe, must be unchanging, and to be unchanging God has to be omnipresent and omniscient.

[fredonly]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #166]
You keep returning to your belief about the impossibility of the supernatural, but you have yet to prove that it is impossible. What has been proved impossible repeatedly is matter existing outside this universe. Material cannot exist apart from being contained in this universe.

This reflects multiple inconsistencies. Neither the supernatural, nor extra-universe matter, is provably impossible. Therefore both are (logically) possible.

A belief is rational if it can be justified. The mere fact that some belief is possible is not justification for that belief.

A theist may justify belief in the supernatural (for example) based on his prior belief in god(s). Then he'd need to justify that prior belief in god(s).

A naturalist may justify belief in extra-universe matter (for example) by his prior belief in a multiverse. Then he'd need to justify belief in the multiverse.

Claiming only one side has a "burden of proof" entails treating his own view as the default - not requiring justification. That makes no sense.

[Difflugia]

You are the one who said that God does not exist, or at least that the probability of God's existence is essentially zero.

I did say that, yes.

The physical laws of this universe tell us what attributes God must have to exist outside of this universe. God must be non-material, must be all-powerful to create the universe, must be unchanging, and to be unchanging God has to be omnipresent and omniscient.

If you say so. We have no evidence for the existence of such a god, so she goes in the pile of all the other competing things for which we also have no evidence.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to fredonly in post #176]

This reflects multiple inconsistencies. Neither the supernatural, nor extra-universe matter, is provably impossible. Therefore both are (logically) possible.

A belief is rational if it can be justified. The mere fact that some belief is possible is not justification for that belief.

A theist may justify belief in the supernatural (for example) based on his prior belief in god(s). Then he'd need to justify that prior belief in god(s).

A naturalist may justify belief in extra-universe matter (for example) by his prior belief in a multiverse. Then he'd need to justify belief in the multiverse.

Claiming only one side has a "burden of proof" entails treating his own view as the default - not requiring justification. That makes no sense.

I do not have a problem with the basic concept of what you have written. But how does matter exist outside of this universe and yet still hold to Einstien's theory of relativity or are you saying that relativity is incorrect?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #177]

If you say so. We have no evidence for the existence of such a god, so she goes in the pile of all the other competing things for which we also have no evidence.

'Claiming only one side has a "burden of proof" entails treating his own view as the default - not requiring justification. That makes no sense." fredonly I thought you liked this quote.

So where is your evidence for matter outside of this universe?

[William]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #173]

I see no reason why anything has to be outside of the nature of the physical but then when folk either side of the argument agree that consciousness/mindfulness is to be regarded as a non-physical thing (happening within a physical thing) the temptation to call mindfulness "supernatural" sock-puppets its way to the surface...

When you can define mindfulness in the first place, maybe we can discuss whether it's physical, nonphysical, natural, or supernatural.

What do you think "the mind" is?
Physical? Nonphysical? Natural? Supernatural? Non-existing?
Do you know if there is evidence to support the existence of mind/mindfulness/consciousness?

In terms of the broader argument (we exist/don't exist in a created thing) those (like myself) who understand that the overall evidence so far collected leads to the probability that we do - "mindfulness" is really what is being observed therein.

When theists attribute this mindfulness to being "God(s)" that is what they are saying. An entity/entities responsible for the created thing (universe) at the very least, must have mindfulness.