@kellyjay said"Faith" in the context of theological discussions on a Spirituality Forum refers to belief in and worship of supernatural beings as portrayed in various religious narratives/mythologies. You're trying to use other applications of the word as a rhetorical gimmick. Don't be so disingenuous.
It is not my definition of faith you can look at the words origin, it’s about fidelity and trust. Only of late has a redefinition of the word has it changed into something religious only.
@kellyjay saidYour personal opinion about the universe does not create any moral or existential dilemma for people who don't share your religious beliefs.
Why do you trust your own opinions if unguided mindlessness is the root cause of them?
Your personal opinion about the universe ~ and your faith ~ do not create something in answer to which other people must conjure up and offer some kind of equivalent faith [about unprovable supernatural things] that competes with your faith in the God of Abraham.
@kellyjay saidYes, well let's not get tied up with definitions of 'faith', we know what we're talking about, and faith isn't only applied to religion.
It is not my definition of faith you can look at the words origin, it’s about fidelity and trust. Only of late has a redefinition of the word has it changed into something religious only.
Why do you trust your own opinions if unguided mindlessness is the root cause of of them? If its all determined by chemical reactions without any reason why would one mind be more trustw ...[text shortened]... an old story that you reject. If the story is false why would that make unguided mindlessness true?
Why should I not trust my own opinions, regardless of where they came from? Do you think your god gives you your opinions, in which case what's the point in having them? I have never said that one mind is essentially or inherently more trustworthy than another; we all have brains, it's what we do with them that counts.
I have never rejected any possibilities, and still don't, all I've done is look at the evidence and come to an informed decision, (something which you should try sometime) and nothing that you or anyone else has written during these discussions has done anything to alter my thinking, quite the opposite in fact.
@indonesia-phil saidIf you believe your opinions were generated from your mind, and the mind is the
Yes, well let's not get tied up with definitions of 'faith', we know what we're talking about, and faith isn't only applied to religion.
Why should I not trust my own opinions, regardless of where they came from? Do you think your god gives you your opinions, in which case what's the point in having them? I have never said that one mind is essentially or inherently ...[text shortened]... written during these discussions has done anything to alter my thinking, quite the opposite in fact.
end product of a mindless, goalless, process that neither cared for or understood
success and failure in its results, why would you trust it? If all you are is the end
product of such a series of chemical reactions, then everything about you would be
the end product of a very deterministic conclusion nothing more, even your
thoughts would not be free of this at the end of the day.
@kellyjay saidThis presupposes that, if the consciousness of human beings evolved naturally as we evolved from a species that was a more primitive evolutionary predecessor, then we still wouldn't be able to create and perceive purpose in life without the existence of your anthropomorphized creator entity "caring for us".
If you believe your opinions were generated from your mind, and the mind is the
end product of a mindless, goalless, process that neither cared for or understood
success and failure in its results, why would you trust it? If all you are is the end
product of such a series of chemical reactions, then everything about you would be
the end product of a very deterministic conclusion nothing more, even your
thoughts would not be free of this at the end of the day.
Mmm. You got loads of speculation heaped upon speculation going on there. And you still can't free yourself from the pong of your own misanthropy even when you are NOT reciting doctrine.
@indonesia-phil saidJust so we are on the same page, I can give evidence for what I believe, the whole
Yes, well let's not get tied up with definitions of 'faith', we know what we're talking about, and faith isn't only applied to religion.
Why should I not trust my own opinions, regardless of where they came from? Do you think your god gives you your opinions, in which case what's the point in having them? I have never said that one mind is essentially or inherently ...[text shortened]... written during these discussions has done anything to alter my thinking, quite the opposite in fact.
universe is evidence as well as life. The information driving all of the specified work
in life is evidence, can you show me what evidence you have that mindlessness
or nothing is the root cause of all of this?
@kellyjay saidOn the contrary, a mind free from the shackles of religious indoctrination and conditioning is far more 'trustworthy' than one which relies upon inherited beliefs, since it begins all thought from a position of neutrality. Your thought processes all begin with a false assumption, around which everything must fit, however unreasoned your assumptions. How's that for a 'deterministic conclusion'?
If you believe your opinions were generated from your mind, and the mind is the
end product of a mindless, goalless, process that neither cared for or understood
success and failure in its results, why would you trust it? If all you are is the end
product of such a series of chemical reactions, then everything about you would be
the end product of a very deterministic conclusion nothing more, even your
thoughts would not be free of this at the end of the day.
@kellyjay saidIf I ever thought we were 'on the same page' , I would get quickly depressed....'The universe as well as life' isn't evidence for your belief, unless you believe it to be evidence for your belief. Nature needs no divine guidance, if you wish to impose your beliefs upon this simple fact, it's up to you to prove it, which so far you have proved quite unable to do.
Just so we are on the same page, I can give evidence for what I believe, the whole
universe is evidence as well as life. The information driving all of the specified work
in life is evidence, can you show me what evidence you have that mindlessness
or nothing is the root cause of all of this?
@indonesia-phil saidI don't think you are thinking these things through, shackles according to your
On the contrary, a mind free from the shackles of religious indoctrination and conditioning is far more 'trustworthy' than one which relies upon inherited beliefs, since it begins all thought from a position of neutrality. Your thought processes all begin with a false assumption, around which everything must fit, however unreasoned your assumptions. How's that for a 'deterministic conclusion'?
belief system is bottom-up determination due to chemical reactions taking place,
there are no choices here only A followed by B followed by C and so on. You mind
would simply be the end result of all the reactions that brought you here, nothing
more, a different reaction a different you, nothing about you could avoid that.
@indonesia-phil saidI'm fine saying that the universe is fine-tuned to support life, I'm fine with saying
If I ever thought we were 'on the same page' , I would get quickly depressed....'The universe as well as life' isn't evidence for your belief, unless you believe it to be evidence for your belief. Nature needs no divine guidance, if you wish to impose your beliefs upon this simple fact, it's up to you to prove it, which so far you have proved quite unable to do.
that the functionally complex systems that direct life's processes are by design. I'm
fine with saying that an uncaused, cause that transcends space, time, matter, and
energy created space, time, matter, and energy they did not create themselves. Do
you have an explanation, or must you punt, hoping someday someone will come
up with one?
@kellyjay saidGood for you if your preferred explanation quenches your curiosity.
Do
you have an explanation, or must you punt, hoping someday someone will come
up with one?
You have admitted that you believed in Genesis first and then made your perception of the universe fit it.
Science creates an ever-advancing frontier of human knowledge of the universe - and of the nature of a possible creator entity - while theology does not do that. Theology is akin to a lark's tongue in aspic.
"Does it mean, if you don't understand something, and the community of physicists don't understand it, that means God did it?… If that's how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on."
~ Neil DeGrasse Tyson
@kellyjay saidI'm fine saying [X]... I'm fine saying [Y]... I'm fine saying [Z]...
I'm fine saying that the universe is fine-tuned to support life, I'm fine with saying
that the functionally complex systems that direct life's processes are by design. I'm
fine with saying that an uncaused, cause that transcends space, time, matter, and
energy created space, time, matter, and energy they did not create themselves.
And what moral or ideological or philosophical imperatives do you think your statements about what are "fine with saying" create for those around you?