An analogy of Faith

Originally posted by telerion
You quoted the wrong post, Coletti. My previous one would fit better.

Would you mind clarifying what you mean by all that I believe is an illusion? Are you saying that the universe is an illusion? Are you saying that specific beliefs that I hold are an illusion?

I get the point you are trying to make. Just wondering about the turn of phrase.

...[text shortened]... with this philosophy in mind.

Until you reply, I'll just keep enjoying the lovely water.

Yes, I was thinking about your earlier post.

I'm saying that simply saying somone is in thier "own little imaginary world" is easy to dispute. It's like the calling someone crazy becaue they don't see the same pink elephants you do. Who's little world is imaginary and who's isn't.

Well I do design on the faith I have that the strength tables for to steel are correct, even though I never tested them. And I can only hope that the contractor will build things the way I design them. I have to use some faith in lue of testing every detail and fact.

Originally posted by Coletti
Yes, I was thinking about your earlier post.

I'm saying that simply saying somone is in thier "own little imaginary world" is easy to dispute. It's like the calling someone crazy becaue they don't see the same pink elephants you do. Who's little world is imaginary and who's isn't.

Well I do design on the faith I have that the strength tables ...[text shortened]... things the way I design them. I have to use some faith in lue of testing every detail and fact.

I would contend that the "faith" that you use when utilizing a strength table is different from the sort of "faith" that a religious person employs to make arbitrary claims about the things "outside" of the universe.

Originally posted by Coletti
Yes, I was thinking about your earlier post.

I'm saying that simply saying somone is in thier "own little imaginary world" is easy to dispute. It's like the calling someone crazy becaue they don't see the same pink elephants you do. Who's little world is imaginary and who's isn't.

Well I do design on the faith I have that the strength tables ...[text shortened]... things the way I design them. I have to use some faith in lue of testing every detail and fact.

Remind me never to use a structure that you have built!

When you look at the strength of steel in a table you know you could reproduce the test results using the method described by the authors. I could reproduce the same test results. It may take us both a long time to learn the techniques but 'everyman' could do the test. If we both look at the table we will both reach the same conclusion on whether a particular grade of steel in adequate for the purpose in mind. The test results in the table do not vary for each reader

When I look at the jesus cult bible I am unable to draw the same conclusions as you do. Each and every reader is likely to come to a different conclusion.

If you plan your life according to your reading of the bible that is faith. If you plan your building according to the reading of strength tables that is skill.

Originally posted by telerion
I would contend that the "faith" that you use when utilizing a strength table is different from the sort of "faith" that a religious person employs to make arbitrary claims about the things "outside" of the universe.

Not totally. I have do not prove all things I believe are correct as an engineer - that would be a waste of time. I do it on the evidence and the faith I have in the authors of different texts. Similarly there we have evidence to base Christian faith, as well as trust in the author of the Bible for matter of the spiritual. A fleeing Devil is evidence of the rightness of faith in Christ. A 100 year old bridge is evidence of the rightness of faith in engineering. Neither is a perfect proof. Both call for faith. The main difference is one applies to the only to the natural world and one to the natural and spiritual world.

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
Remind me never to use a structure that you have built!

When you look at the strength of steel in a table you know you could reproduce the test results using the method described by the authors. I could reproduce the same test results. It may take us both a long time to learn the techniques but 'everyman' could do the test. If we both look at the ...[text shortened]... t is faith. If you plan your building according to the reading of strength tables that is skill.

Steel strengths are nothing more than statistic averages. Just to make sure things are safe, we use a safety factor. So even though the strength tables say things a perfectly safe, we still don't trust them completely. We assume that the strength is 1/4 or the loads are 10 times greater. We hedge our bets. So even the faith I have in the steel tables is not very strong - not enough to bet someone's life on!

I should say then that I do not extend my suppositions so far as you. I work of the assumption that the external world exists. I assume you do as well, since this is consistent with Christian theology. In fact, nearly every person operates upon such an assumption (note: this is not faith). If we accept that external world exists, then the time-tested bridge is excellent support (no pun intended) for the strength table. It is important however to note that a standing bridge is by no means evidence for the existence of the external world, but rather for the strength table.

Now the fleeing Devil is entirely contingent upon the faith-based belief that such a character exists. Essentially dj2 begs the question when he justifies God-belief with Devil-belief since Devil-belief is only valid once we establish God-belief.

Please note here that "God" and "Devil" are proper nouns, and thus I am referring to the specific personalities God and Devil in dj2becker's belief system.

Accepting such ridiculous standards of evidence completely eviscerates our ability to discern truth from falsehood.

According to your position, it would be just as reasonable for me to claim that I know that I rode the Invisible Pink Unicorn yesterday because it left its sparkling moondust tracks along the Starry Path.
Utter nonsense.

Originally posted by telerion
I should say then that I do not extend my suppositions so far as you. I work of the assumption that the external world exists. I assume you do as well, since this is consistent with Christian theology. In fact, nearly every person operates upon such an assumption (note: this is not faith). If we accept that external world exists, then the time-tested br ...[text shortened]... erday because it left its sparkling moondust tracks along the Starry Path.
Utter nonsense.

What evidence did I give that was false? What part was not real? You can only assert that my evidence is false if you first assert my evidence is false. The evidence is valid. If you believe that reality is only what you can perceive, then that is by faith alone. The very existence of the natural world is evidence of the spiritual - you can only deny this with absude reasoning. That is a poor basis for your faith.

Originally posted by Coletti
What evidence did I give that was false? What part was not real? You can only assert that my evidence is false if you first assert my evidence is false. The evidence is valid. If you believe that reality is only what you can perceive, then that is by faith alone. The very existence of the natural world is evidence of the spiritual - you can only deny this with absude reasoning. That is a poor basis for your faith.

So then Coletti how's this.

By faith, I know Muffy exists. Muffy created your God. Muffy is a super-spirit. Your God is part of the spiritual realm, but Muffy is part of the super-spiritual realm. The natural world is evidence of the supernatural which evidence of the super-spiritual.

Thus your God is Muffy's little slave.

How is this any more absurd then what you and dj2 are babbling?

Originally posted by telerion
So then Coletti how's this.

By faith, I know Muffy exists. Muffy created your God. Muffy is a super-spirit. Your God is part of the spiritual realm, but Muffy is part of the super-spiritual realm. The natural world is evidence of the supernatural which evidence of the super-spiritual.

Thus your God is Muffy's little slave.

How is this any more absurd then what you and dj2 are babbling?

What is your evidence that Muffy is super-spirit? By what do you justify you faith in Muffy.

Despite what you'd like to think, I don't just pull things out of my hat. It's not fantasy or make believe. And since I don't think you are an idiot, my only choice is to believe you are being disingenuous about this issue. And it's hard to have a rational discussion with someone when they are not being straight forward.

Originally posted by Coletti
What is your evidence that Muffy is super-spirit? By what do you justify you faith in Muffy.

Despite what you'd like to think, I don't just pull things out of my hat. It's not fantasy or make believe. And since I don't think you a ...[text shortened]... iscussion with someone when they are not being straight forward.

First off, I thought that I was clearly offering up an example. You and I both know that I don't believe in Muffy. This however is beside the point. You've claimed that the natural is evidence of the supernatural. Since you have not demonstrated how this is so, choosing rather to appeal to faith, I don't see how my "belief" in Muffy the God-maker, Lord of the super-spiritual, should be dismissed out of hand, while I am expected to entertain you and dj's faith-based claims of a supernatural.

Moreover, how can you accuse me of not being straight-forward for using a hypothetical example, and yet, in the same thread, deliberately muddle the thread with appeals to some sort of pseudo-existentialism when you and I both know you do not believe it?

Oh yeah, and like I said, the natural is evidence of a supernatural which itself is evidence of a super-spiritual.

My final evidence of Muffy: God exists.

Again how is Muffy and the super-spiritual any more ridiculous than God and the supernatural?

Originally posted by Coletti
Wrong.

Only if you change the definitions of accepted English words. If this is considered 'wrong', I don't want to be right.

Originally posted by telerion
Dude, you're in your own little imaginary world.

Well I suppose you are also in your own little imaginary world as well. Well there are billions of people that have lived in my 'imaginary' world. There are even many other people that have tried to destroy our 'imaginary' world. One specific atheist comes to mind. The French atheistic philsopher Voltaire is one of many. He announced that within a hundred years of his life the Bible will be destroyed by his philosophical teachings. His sole purpose in life was to destroy the Bible. Ironically, however, one hundred years after his death his own house was a Bible printing press. When he died he died such a fearful death, that the nurse that was taking care of him later said that she would not like to witness a death such as his for all the money in Europe. His last words as he died, while screaming were, "What a fool I have been!". I suppose that a clear difference can be seen when between a believer and a non-believer die. The fear of death is ever so evident when a non-believer dies. I suppose that alone speaks volumes. But I suppose the non-believer will have to wait for "after death" to see whether the believer was right or wrong. I personally would regard taking such a risk as being ignorance of the worst kind.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Well I suppose you are also in your own little imaginary world as well. Well there are billions of people that have lived in my 'imaginary' world. There are even many other people that have tried to destroy our 'imaginary' world. One specific atheist comes to mind. The French atheistic philsopher Voltaire is one of many. He announced that within a hund ...[text shortened]... ht or wrong. I personally would regard taking such a risk as being ignorance of the worst kind.

Voltaire died a freethinker, there are no eyewitness accounts of this invented recantation, nor any signed confessions etc. The church even tried to stop his remains being interred. The eye witness account of his death has him saying goodbye to his friend despite being in great pain. This is, as with Darwin, another attempt at belittling a man's stance with no evidence to back it up.

Originally posted by Starrman
Voltaire died a freethinker, there are no eyewitness accounts of this invented recantation, nor any signed confessions etc. The church even tried to stop his remains being interred. The eye witness account of his death has him saying goodbye to his friend despite being in great pain. This is, as with Darwin, another attempt at belittling a man's stance with no evidence to back it up.

Well, you may disagree as much as you like, but the fact that Voltaire's house has become a major printing facility for Bibles speaks Volumes.

http://www.bibletoday.com/htstb/lostbible_text.htm

Originally posted by dj2becker
Well, you may disagree as much as you like, but the fact that Voltaire's house has become a major printing facility for Bibles speaks Volumes.

http://www.bibletoday.com/htstb/lostbible_text.htm

So they turned a house into a printing press, big deal. This shows absolutely nothing.

There is a mosque in Cordoba (in the south of Spain) which the Catholics have built a Cathedral in the middle of, what does this speak volumes about?