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!

[John17_3]

[Replying to fredonly in post #276]

As for Theism, I don't know of any presumptions theism starts withCan you give me one or two, please?

Ill give 5:
1. "why is there something rather than nothing" depends on the presumption that nothingness should be expected, by default, in the absence of a cause or explanation.
2. The argument from contingency assumes "necessity" is a de re property that some existent can have
3. Aquinas argument depends on his metaphysical theory (including a robust essentialism)
4. The Kalam Cosmological Argument assumes something can "begin to exist" even when there is no time at which it did not exist.
5. The argument for God based on objective moral values, depends on the assumption objective moral values exist transcendently

I do not go by any of these, so perhaps I should ask for presumptions made by me, rather than theism that is commonly known.
I have never seen these given as a starting point to investigating the existence of God though. Whom did you speak to. Children?
I'm just kidding, but seriously. No one uses these as a basis of investigation.

Naturalism, on the other hand presumes that there is no purpose to nature; there are no spirits; etc.
Question though, who told you that something can begin to exist even when there is no time at which it did not exist? What argument were they making?

The form of naturalism I hold to starts only with the properly basic belief (PBB) that there is an actual, natural world external to ourself that we perceive in a functionally accurate way. A PBB is not an assumption, it is a warranted belief. Beyond that, I embrace new beliefs IFF they have adequate warrant. For example, provisional belief in accepted science is warranted, because its developed with a valid epistemological approach (abductive reasoning). As an example of non-scientific beliefs, I embrace the truthmaker theory of truth (a form of correspondence theory) because I judge it the best account of truth that Ive encountered (it addresses the fundamental issue of what truth means, has a demonstrated relation to reality, and is parsimonious). I judge supernaturalism to lack sufficient warrant, and Ive done my deontological duty to test that by examining every theistic argument Ive encountered and Im open to considering new ones if they are brought to my attention.

I'll get back to you on this, if I need to.

You said, "Faith goes beyond belief. It demonstrates belief." That sounds like an entailment: faith in x entails belief in x. Did I misunderstand? My questions pertained to this.

You sure did misunderstand. Unless I am misunderstanding you.

Faith demonstrates belief, means that one that has faith will act, on what they believe.
It means that what one hopes for, or that which cannot be seen, one's faith demonstrates that the person is convinced of it.
In other words, faith is not like a passive belief. Faith is shown by works, and thus demonstrates what one's convictions.
How about strong belief requires faith, which is a demonstration of what is hoped for, or not seen.

I don't know how faith can exist if there is nothing that one has faith in.
The definition tell us, it is the substance - the assurance, of what we hope for and the evidence - proof, or certainty of what we do not see.
What we hope for, or do not see has to be believed in. How else could we look forward to it?

You'll have to help me work out what you are getting at with the "faith in x entails belief in x".
I'm sure you are not trying to confuse me.

The "faith I have in mind" is your definition of faith, and relating it to your claim that your Christian belief is justified. I was asking if I was correct in saying "if you have faith in X, then X is a justified beliief [of yours)".

Yes, I understood that, but it sounded like (for you) faith entails belief.

I wasnt trying to trick you, I was trying to dig deeper into your definition of "faith" and how it relates to justifying ones Christian beliefs. As noted above, I inferred from your comments that faith entails belief, but its more than belief. The "more than" part seems entirely personal and seems to have no bearing on justifying the belief (important though it may be to you). I was testing this understanding by asking those 2 questions.

Would you like me to repeat the answer to your question 1?
Would that help you? Which part do you not understand?
Do you understand the part that says:

Does this sound confusing to you? I understand.
I'm sorry, we cannot help that. "These things we also speak, not in words which mans wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. For "who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?" But we have the mind of Christ." 1 Corinthians 2:13-16

If you do not yet understand, you'll have to wait until if you get the "sensus divinitatus".

That is probably the easiest, considering that you are still asking this question.

[fredonly]

[Replying to fredonly in post #276]

As for Theism, I don't know of any presumptions theism starts withCan you give me one or two, please?

Ill give 5:...

I do not go by any of these, so perhaps I should ask for presumptions made by me, rather than theism that is commonly known.
I have never seen these given as a starting point to investigating the existence of God though. ...No one uses these as a basis of investigation.

They are some of the arguments William Lane Craig (a Christian philosopher/apologist) presents to make a case for God. But absolutely - make your case, and I'll look for the presumptions.

Naturalism, on the other hand presumes that there is no purpose to nature; there are no spirits; etc.

Nope. I form beliefs on the basis of evidence and reasoning. Is there evidence and arguments for purpose or spirits, or do you think we should just believe every possible thing exists unless proven otherwise?

Question though, who told you that something can begin to exist even when there is no time at which it did not exist? What argument were they making?

William Lane Craig implies this, in his defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. But since you don't rely on this argument, it's moot to our discussion.

The form of naturalism I hold to ...

I'll get back to you on this, if I need to.

You should have referred to it, instead of erroneously asserting that I "presume" ~purpose and ~spirits.

You sure did misunderstand. Unless I am misunderstanding you.

It's possible I don't understand you, but I wonder if you understand the meanings of "belief" and "entail".

Entail = logical necessity. In a deductive argument, the premises entail the conclusion. In general,
A entails B means:
if A is true then B is necessarily true
and
If A exists then B necessarily exists

Faith demonstrates belief, means that one that has faith will act, on what they believe.

I understand that, but consider your phrase "what they believe". What they believe, is a belief (which may be a conjunction of many beliefs).

It means that what one hopes for, or that which cannot be seen, one's faith demonstrates that the person is convinced of it.

If you are convinced of X, then you believe X.

So...if you hope for being with God in Heaven, you must believe God and heaven exist.

In other words, faith is not like a passive belief.

An active belief is still a belief.

I don't know how faith can exist if there is nothing that one has faith in.

If you have faith in God, then you necessarily have the belief "God exists". That's an entailment.

The definition tell us, it is the substance - the assurance, of what we hope for and the evidence - proof, or certainty of what we do not see.

Are you saying that the fact that you have faith in God proves that God exists? That's problematic, but for now I'll just point out that it still means you believe God exists

You seemed to jokingly refer to sensus divinitatus. Do you believe you have this, and God has told you all your religious beliefs are true?

[William]

[Replying to fredonly in post #280]

Do you agree that "always" means existing at all times?

I see no reason to agree with that.

Then your previous statement, "The material can be thought of as having always existed" is inapplicable to a finite past.

Define "all times". How does "all times" fit with a timeless state?

No state can have "always existed" if the past is finite, unless you use the definition you rejected.

Explain how a timeless state can be finite or have a past.

Can we just agree that nothing should be assumed?

I think things can be assumed as long as they are categorized as such.

Re that, "initial" also implies time, and we are discussing states which might have been, before the time of this universe's beginning.

It's self-contradictory to speak of a "time before there was time".

I agree. That is why I am exploring the possibility that there was a timeless state from which the universe derived and which we may be able to agree could be thought of as the default state.

The state could simply be described as "timeless", and "timeless could be agreed as the "default" state.

That could work, but it's making an assumption.

Yes. It would be categorized as an Unjustified Fact (UF) while being critiqued. If it works, it could then be categorized as a Justified Fact (JF)

Critique if you can. Simply stating something is so, does not make it so or help in any constructive way toward reasonable rational discussion.

It would take too much work, and then you'd argue every point. Not worth it. I'm responding to enough other things that aren't so problematic.

Then I will treat the statement as one of unsupported opinion.

Assuming for the sake of argument this might be the case, we could imagine the universe in a glass container in a laboratory, and any consciousness walking it and viewing it as it currently is, may well observe no movement and think it is timeless.

However, we within it cannot pretend that it is timeless, since everything is moving around us constantly so we would have to say that any hypothetical viewpoint which thinks the universe is timeless, would be an incorrect assumption based upon a misleading point of view.

This ignores special relativity: time is relative to a reference frame, and no reference frame is the correct one. The implication is that it is both temporal and timeless.

I am unaware that the theory includes the perspective of a hypothetical observer outside of time.
Can you show where this is the case, and expand on what you think this means re a hypothetical observer?

[fredonly]

[Replying to William in post #283]
Are you arguing for the KCA's soundness?

[William]

[Replying to William in post #283]
Are you arguing for the KCA's soundness?

No. I am undecided on that issue as there appear to be more than one interpretation as to what it means.

Re.
Categories used in the following.
Unjustified Fact (UF) example - belief (of any sort) based on personal subjective experience. (Belief-based belief)
Justified Fact (JF) Example, The Earth is spherical in shape. (Knowledge-based belief)
Irrefutable Fact (IF) Example Humans in general experience some level of self-awareness. (Knowledge-based knowledge)

I think it is sound enough that "The Universe began to exist" is a Justified Fact (JF).

Re that, Time began to exist so one could agree with the idea that the universe is some sort of time mechanism.

This would signify that a Hypothetical Outside Observer (HOO) could see and utilize the universe as some type of clock and if the HOO were also the creator of the timepiece...we are left wondering the hypothetical intentions of the clockmaker.

[fredonly]

[Replying to William in post #283]
Are you arguing for the KCA's soundness?

No. I am undecided on that issue as there appear to be more than one interpretation as to what it means.

Then the discussion is aimless. Consider starting new topics for specific issues you'd like to discuss. That way you can get multiple points of view.

[William]

[Replying to fredonly in post #286]

Then the discussion is aimless.

Are you suggesting that what I am bringing into the subject is not related to the question of whether faith is a reliable path to reality?
Is so, I disagree (from my perspective) but understand if you want to withdraw from discussion.

Not to forget that it was your claim (4. The Kalam Cosmological Argument assumes something can "begin to exist" even when there is no time at which it did not exist.) that brought me into the discussion.

Consider starting new topics for specific issues you'd like to discuss. That way you can get multiple points of view.

Folk are free to jump in if they want to. It is your point of view I am investigating. Do you want to withdraw your point of view or discuss further?

[fredonly]

[Replying to fredonly in post #286]

Then the discussion is aimless.

Are you suggesting that what I am bringing into the subject is not related to the question of whether faith is a reliable path to reality?

You had responded to my post about the KCA. If you have something more general to say on the reliability of faith, post it directly, instead of as a reply to me.

[William]

[Replying to fredonly in post #286]

Then the discussion is aimless.

Are you suggesting that what I am bringing into the subject is not related to the question of whether faith is a reliable path to reality?

You had responded to my post about the KCA. If you have something more general to say on the reliability of faith, post it directly, instead of as a reply to me.

Your claim-statement (4. The Kalam Cosmological Argument assumes something can "begin to exist" even when there is no time at which it did not exist.) has what to do with the question asked re faith?

[fredonly]

[Replying to William in post #289]
No, it doesn't. I posted it in answer to a question, to back up an assertion I had made. I didn't intend to dwell on it.