Originally posted by NordlysBoth the athesit and the theist can provide peices of evidence to back their respective positions. The theist, however, recognizes through humility that he is incapable of knowing all the evidence and equally incapable of proving it using that evidence. The atheist, however, through his finite intellect believes he can grasp the infinite totality of reality and thereby debunking the possiblity of God.
So you can say "yes, I believe in God" without having any interest in proving it, but if you say "no, I believe God doesn't exist", you need to be able to prove it?
Originally posted by whodeyDo you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
I am not saying that faith is blind. Indeed, faith has a basis and/or evidence on which it is based. Look at creatiion/evolution or whatever term you care to throw in. It exists and you exist within its constructs, thus, you are part of a greater whole or the totality of reality. Thorugh observation you reach these conclusions and is not based on the abse ...[text shortened]... . This evidence, however, is just that, it is only evidence. There is no "proving" anything.
Originally posted by whodeyThis is rubbish. The atheist does not do this at all. Any atheist worth his salt does not debunk the possibility of god, but instead says that due to a lack of evidence to support belief he remains in a state of denial towards the notion of god. This does not mean that he discounts the possibility of god at all.
Both the athesit and the theist can provide peices of evidence to back their respective positions. The theist, however, recognizes through humility that he is incapable of knowing all the evidence and equally incapable of proving it using that evidence. The atheist, however, through his finite intellect believes he can grasp the infinite totality of reality and thereby debunking the possiblity of God.
Even if we acknowledge the finite aspect of the human mind we get no further towards your position. To have a belief in an infinite being using your finite mind is an untenable position if you then attempt to apply a finite view of that being, this being the only view a finite mind can have.
There is a further option when asked "Does God exist?" One can simply say: I can attach no meaning to the concept of 'God' as described - a being who is omnipresent in the physical world, who also exists outside the physical world, who can do anything that is not logically contradictory, etc. etc.
Originally posted by StarrmanThus faith is necessary to accept God. However, faith is also required to accpet the atheist position. Neither is provable and therefore both are untenable in terms of proving either position. I think we can agree with this. However, the theist position is that he is capable of embracing the totality of reality via God as where the atheist requires complete understanding to embrace the totality of reality which negates such an attempt due to his finite status.
This is rubbish. The atheist does not do this at all. Any atheist worth his salt does not debunk the possibility of god, but instead says that due to a lack of evidence to support belief he remains in a state of denial towards the notion of god. This does not mean that he discounts the possibility of god at all.
Even if we acknowledge the finite aspec ...[text shortened]... n attempt to apply a finite view of that being, this being the only view a finite mind can have.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThis is the more in line with the atheist mind set. The belief is that everything is fathomable or it does not exist. However, I used a toddler as an example and not a 9 year old. There is quite a developmental differeance, don't you think?
It is often reported that Newton was so mathematically advanced that he took calculus when he was 9 years old, and was the best in his class of students twice his age.
Originally posted by whodeyI'm pretty sure that an elephant is not currently flattening my house. I have no immediate way of checking.
Thus faith is necessary to accept God. However, faith is also required to accpet the atheist position. Neither is provable and therefore both are untenable in terms of proving either position. I think we can agree with this. However, the theist position is that he is capable of embracing the totality of reality via God as where the atheist requires comple ...[text shortened]... nding to embrace the totality of reality which negates such an attempt due to his finite status.
Is this an example of "faith"?
Is it on an equivalent footing to my believing (despite having no reason at all to believe) that there IS an elephant currently flattening my house?
Originally posted by dottewellTrue. Thus begins the search for that God or totality of reality. However, whatever God there is, approaching that God must require faith. AFter all, he is greater because he is the totality of reality and you are merely a peice of the puzzle.
There is a further option when asked "Does God exist?" One can simply say: I can attach no meaning to the concept of 'God' as described - a being who is omnipresent in the physical world, who also exists outside the physical world, who can do anything that is not logically contradictory, etc. etc.
Originally posted by whodeyEssentially you are believing in something you don't understand?
True. Thus begins the search for that God or totality of reality. However, whatever God there is, approaching that God must require faith. AFter all, he is greater because he is the totality of reality and you are merely a peice of the puzzle.
Originally posted by dottewellYes. You see, we all walk in a certain degree of faith. The question then becomes,, "Faith in what?" This is necessary because you are not the totality of reality. If you were the totality of reality, you would know what is happening to your house.
I'm pretty sure that an elephant is not currently flattening my house. I have no immediate way of checking.
Is this an example of "faith"?
Is it on an equivalent footing to my believing (despite having no reason at all to believe) that there IS an elephant currently flattening my house?
Originally posted by whodeyWhich position? The belief that there is no god, but that we cannot grasp the infinite totality of reality? No, I don't find that untenable or foolish. I would find it foolish if someone (theist or atheist) believed that we can grasp the infinite totality of reality.
Do you not find this position untenable or should I say foolish?
1 edit
Originally posted by dottewellYes and no. You will never fully understand the totality of reality, but you can come to know it. What we do understand are peices of it or a better way of putting it, what the totality of reality chooses to reveal to you that you are capable of understanding. You are then faced with the option of placing faith in it or not.
Essentially you are believing in something you don't understand?
Originally posted by NordlysI never said that the theist can grasp the totality of reality. After all, it is untenable. I would hope that the atheist would also recognize this. That is what I find untenable.
Which position? The belief that there is no god, but that we cannot grasp the infinite totality of reality? No, I don't find that untenable or foolish. I would find it foolish if someone (theist or atheist) believed that we can grasp the infinite totality of reality.