Faith and reason

[Sculptor]

Faith and reason are mutually exclusive as faith becomes meaningless if there is a reason for God. God however said in Hebrews 11:6: "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." This means that there is no reason for the existence of God.

No it does not mean there is no reason. It means god requires faith. That does not preclude a reason, it just suggests you might not need one.

[Age]

Here's what you did: you restated opinions you have stated time after time

So what?

As I have also stated, again and again, I can back up and support what I say, state, and claim.

So, what this means is that an opinion I state, and/or re-state I can back up and support.

And, by the way, to an extent that it could not be refuted.

And, no matter what other presume or believe.

Here's what you didn't do: actually engage with my posts. You did not engage with any of the assumptions I had pointed out were implicit in Bahman's conclusions. You did not demonstrate how to prove those assumptions.

But I have already questioned you about, Why do you keep having assumptions, which may well not be true nor right to begin with? you, however, have not engaged with these questions, and thus in these discussions, by just answering these questions.

When you say that I did not engage with any of the assumptions that you had pointed out, what are you wanting me to do exactly?

If what you are pointing out another cannot see nor recognize, then do you want me to back up and support you in some way?

Also, how to prove something is true, I have already explained, partly.

Furthermore, I have no reason to demonstrate how to prove, nor how to disprove, 'those assumptions'.

You did not in any way show how you reached all the conclusions about me and the universe in your post without assuming anything.

Absolutely no one has made any inquiries how I reached all the conclusions about you and the Universe in my post without assuming anything.

you, obviously, did not make any inquiries nor asked absolutely any clarifying questions, correct?

Most of the assumptions I pointed out are implicit in your post also.

If you would now like to make a very generalized claim or accusation about me here, then I wonder if you will engage here and clarify, exactly, where I have supposedly made implicit assumptions?

I would also like to check with you whether you are still aware that what you consider or perceive to be 'implicit assumptions' made by me could be a False or Wrong perception you had, have, or are holding on to here?

But you made no effort to work with that in any way.

I, supposedly, made no effort at all to work with 'what', exactly, in any way?

you have also, obviously, made no effort at all to work with that as well.

So, you used my post as an excuse to use a number of pejoratives and make abstract statements.

If this is what you have concluded and believed is true, without obviously firstly seeking out and gaining actual clarification first, then 'this' must be absolutely true, right?

Also, is one not allowed to just show and/or express disapproval of what you say and write here?

Or, do you seek out and want 'approval' all of the time?

So, you are still, at the time this is being written, just making noises and restating his positions.

All ego.

Who is 'he'?

'All ego', may well be exactly what is happening and occurring here.

'We' will now see just how 'engaged' 'you' really are, and really want to be here.

Or, if you were just 'making noises', as some say, and just restating some of your views and positions held, here.

[Atla]

See, here is another example of when these people are asked to provide 'things', exactly, they make up things to try to detract or deflect.

This one claims that I was challenged to prove some 'thing', but when challenged on 'what' and 'where' that 'thing' is supposed to be, exactly, instead of just providing the 'actual clarity', it claims more 'things', which if asked to provide clarity for, would, obviously, not do this either. As could be very easily and simply proved irrefutably True, again.

That is; if one could even be bothered to, again.

When was roughly the first time you saw the nick "Atla"? Don't look it up just say what you remember.

I am not asking you to just remember some thing 'out of the blue', as some might say here.

Look, you made the claim;
You were challenged to prove otherwise and completely failed to no one's surprise

Now, I will, once again, suggest that if absolutely anyone comes to a philosophy forum and wants to claim things, then it would, for them, best if they had actual proof of 'their claim' before they express 'their claim' in an open forum.

And, as I have already expressed previously, that way they would not come across as being so Wrong, so often.

Exactly like you are again here "atla"

I dont't have to prove something you should remember. I could but, it's your fault for not remembering it.

And again you evade having to prove your claim about the mind, just like last time, because you can't. We know you're the biggest hypocrite here. You come to a philosophy forum and always fail to prove any of your major claims.

[bahman]

If reality is intelligible and coherent then everything can be proven otherwise we are going to have problems with the assumptions we make.

1) those are assumptions: intelligible and coherent.

Yes, those are assumptions. My claim is however right.

2) No, I don't assume we can prove everything that is true. There could be things we lack and perhaps will always lack the ability to perceive or even deduce, given limitations in our minds for conceiving of things, senses for experiencing, technology to enhance the first two in the list. And then, in the present, there may be all sorts of things we cannot prove. (and by the way, requiring proof is too much, I think. We can do proofs in math and symbolic logic, but dealing with empirical issues, we don't get proof, but we can get very strong evidence. But further at this time, and we are always at this time, there are things that are true that we cannot demonstrate well with a lot of evidence. And I see no reason to assume this won't continue to be the case. But if you can somehow prove that anything true can be proven, let's see.

I didn't say that we, humans, can. We have all sorts of limitations we are aware of.

Can you deny that you exist? Can you deny that change exists?

Many philosophers have argued the latter, that change exists. And if it's a block universe, well, they may well be right. As for denying that I exist, we'd have to figure out what that means, both I and exist for starters. But let's say I could deny that those two things exist...that doesn't IN ANY WAY counter the fact that we have assumptions, all of us. Even if those are good ones. I say, if. I'm not sure why you are bringing up assumptions that I did not mention.

Well, I can prove that the mind exists if change exists. I can prove that there are at least two persons, you and another being, therefore solipsism is wrong.

What do you mean?

That your sense of what the words mean, the scope of those meanings and the connection to the things they refer to (that might be worded differently depending on your ontology and philosophy of language)

I think we have a good common understanding. Don't we?

in your sense that you have done correct deductive work,

Unless otherwise is shown I have done correct deductive work.

No, that's not how that works. It's not 'I am right unless someone else can prove me wrong.'

So, we have to discuss the issue further. What I said that in your opinion is wrong?

in your sense that language relates to reality and how it does that,

Language seems functional when it comes to explaining things.

The word 'seems' ought to be a hint that you are assuming things.

Sorry I should have said "is" instead of "seems".

If reality is intelligible and coherent then the language can explain it as well.

Well there you go, a couple of ifs right from the start. And which language and which user of language?

Any language with comprehensive vocabulary does the job.

(even if you are right) And then how do you demonstrate this without language?

We cannot demonstrate complicated subjects without language.

in your assumption/sense that reality is intelligible,

It seems so. We cannot know for sure until we find the truth or formulation that describes reality well.

Seems--->assumption.

The reality is intelligible and coherent in many cases. Your cup of tea is where you left it so you know where to look at it. We however are not sure about many other things such as the real color of objects, if there is such a thing, whether there are more than two persons in reality (see above), what is the final theory of physics,...

in your sense that the past directly relates to the present (iow you can make general rules about what must be through time),

What do you mean?

Many of your conclusions are timeless. Maybe some were true, but aren't now.

Well, the truth is timeless. Isn't it?

in your sense that you interpreted the Bible correctly and that one can do this,

Yes, I interpret the Bible literally.

1) there's a real question about whether there is a hard line between literal and metaphorical. Our sense of the world is very metaphorical, given that we interpret via primate brains with particular senses and adapted the motor cortex when creating language. But beyond that, it doesn't matter if you interpret it literally, your sense that your interpretation is correct is potentially false. You are assuming things about language, your abilities, your memory of whatever steps in the process via which you arrived at your interpretation and so on.

So tell me what does that verse mean otherwise?

in your own memory of the steps you took when working this out.

It seems that my memory works well, otherwise we could not communicate.

Seems again.

We make assumptions or we received assumptions when we were born and we work with them. All of us. We can't prove they are all true, because in fact we would have to use those assumptions to justify whatever processes we would use to demonstrate our assumptions are true.

Sorry again, I should have said "is" instead of "seems"!

[bahman]

To you how many possible 'worlds' are there?

First I have to correct my sentence. A possible should be added.

So, just 'one possible world' right?

If yes, or if no, then how many 'possible words' are there, to you?

No, there could be an unlimited number of possible worlds. We cannot tell for sure.

From Wiki: A possible world is a complete and consistent way the world is or could have been.

Maybe if 'we' start with you explaining what the words 'the world' means and/or is referring to, to you, exactly, first?

The particular region or group of things.

From Oxford reference: A possible world is here considered to be a complete state of affairs or one in which every proposition under consideration has a definite truth value.

I do not know what this means. Do you?

if yes, then will you explain or elaborate here?

If no, then why not?

This is very abstract. I cannot help you unless you tell me which part of the statement you cannot understand. Let me know and we can work on it. Perhaps we can discard it as the definition of Wiki does the job.

How many possible worlds are there?

This all depends on what the word 'world' means and/or refers to, exactly?

See, for example, 'the world' that you adult human beings are 'creating' here could be in another way, if you adults just changed 'your ways'. Or, 'the world' could refer to the Universe, Itself, and every and all things under consideration, for example. Of which, obviously, there could not possibly any 'other world'.

By possible world, I mean the group of things that are causally related.

Who knows!? There are set causally unrelated worlds.

How do you know that there are so-called 'set causally unrelated worlds'?

We cannot for sure.

[bahman]

Faith and reason are mutually exclusive as faith becomes meaningless if there is a reason for God. God however said in Hebrews 11:6: "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." This means that there is no reason for the existence of God.

No it does not mean there is no reason. It means god requires faith. That does not preclude a reason, it just suggests you might not need one.

It precludes reason if the only way to please God! It is nonsensical to have faith if you have reason.

[Age]

When was roughly the first time you saw the nick "Atla"? Don't look it up just say what you remember.

I am not asking you to just remember some thing 'out of the blue', as some might say here.

Look, you made the claim;
You were challenged to prove otherwise and completely failed to no one's surprise

Now, I will, once again, suggest that if absolutely anyone comes to a philosophy forum and wants to claim things, then it would, for them, best if they had actual proof of 'their claim' before they express 'their claim' in an open forum.

And, as I have already expressed previously, that way they would not come across as being so Wrong, so often.

Exactly like you are again here "atla"

I dont't have to prove something you should remember. I could but, it's your fault for not remembering it.

Okay. If this is what you believe and want to claim here, then this is perfectly fine with me.

What you said here also removes you from actually having to do or show absolutely anything here as well, right?

And again you evade having to prove your claim about the mind, just like last time, because you can't.

What was I, supposedly, 'meant' to be proving here, exactly?

We know you're the biggest hypocrite here.

Okay, and who is that 'we', exactly?

You come to a philosophy forum and always fail to prove any of your major claims.

What are my so-called 'major claims', exactly?

[Age]

If reality is intelligible and coherent then everything can be proven otherwise we are going to have problems with the assumptions we make.

1) those are assumptions: intelligible and coherent.

Yes, those are assumptions. My claim is however right.

2) No, I don't assume we can prove everything that is true. There could be things we lack and perhaps will always lack the ability to perceive or even deduce, given limitations in our minds for conceiving of things, senses for experiencing, technology to enhance the first two in the list. And then, in the present, there may be all sorts of things we cannot prove. (and by the way, requiring proof is too much, I think. We can do proofs in math and symbolic logic, but dealing with empirical issues, we don't get proof, but we can get very strong evidence. But further at this time, and we are always at this time, there are things that are true that we cannot demonstrate well with a lot of evidence. And I see no reason to assume this won't continue to be the case. But if you can somehow prove that anything true can be proven, let's see.

I didn't say that we, humans, can. We have all sorts of limitations we are aware of.

Can you deny that you exist? Can you deny that change exists?

Many philosophers have argued the latter, that change exists. And if it's a block universe, well, they may well be right. As for denying that I exist, we'd have to figure out what that means, both I and exist for starters. But let's say I could deny that those two things exist...that doesn't IN ANY WAY counter the fact that we have assumptions, all of us. Even if those are good ones. I say, if. I'm not sure why you are bringing up assumptions that I did not mention.

Well, I can prove that the mind exists if change exists. I can prove that there are at least two persons, you and another being, therefore solipsism is wrong.

What do you mean?

That your sense of what the words mean, the scope of those meanings and the connection to the things they refer to (that might be worded differently depending on your ontology and philosophy of language)

I think we have a good common understanding. Don't we?

in your sense that you have done correct deductive work,

Unless otherwise is shown I have done correct deductive work.

No, that's not how that works. It's not 'I am right unless someone else can prove me wrong.'

So, we have to discuss the issue further. What I said that in your opinion is wrong?

in your sense that language relates to reality and how it does that,

Language seems functional when it comes to explaining things.

The word 'seems' ought to be a hint that you are assuming things.

Sorry I should have said "is" instead of "seems".

If reality is intelligible and coherent then the language can explain it as well.

Well there you go, a couple of ifs right from the start. And which language and which user of language?

Any language with comprehensive vocabulary does the job.

(even if you are right) And then how do you demonstrate this without language?

We cannot demonstrate complicated subjects without language.

in your assumption/sense that reality is intelligible,

It seems so. We cannot know for sure until we find the truth or formulation that describes reality well.

Seems--->assumption.

The reality is intelligible and coherent in many cases. Your cup of tea is where you left it so you know where to look at it. We however are not sure about many other things such as the real color of objects, if there is such a thing, whether there are more than two persons in reality (see above), what is the final theory of physics,...

in your sense that the past directly relates to the present (iow you can make general rules about what must be through time),

What do you mean?

Many of your conclusions are timeless. Maybe some were true, but aren't now.

Well, the truth is timeless. Isn't it?

in your sense that you interpreted the Bible correctly and that one can do this,

Yes, I interpret the Bible literally.

1) there's a real question about whether there is a hard line between literal and metaphorical. Our sense of the world is very metaphorical, given that we interpret via primate brains with particular senses and adapted the motor cortex when creating language. But beyond that, it doesn't matter if you interpret it literally, your sense that your interpretation is correct is potentially false. You are assuming things about language, your abilities, your memory of whatever steps in the process via which you arrived at your interpretation and so on.

So tell me what does that verse mean otherwise?

in your own memory of the steps you took when working this out.

It seems that my memory works well, otherwise we could not communicate.

Seems again.

We make assumptions or we received assumptions when we were born and we work with them. All of us. We can't prove they are all true, because in fact we would have to use those assumptions to justify whatever processes we would use to demonstrate our assumptions are true.

Sorry again, I should have said "is" instead of "seems"!

Will you show me here how you can prove there are at least two people?

And, why can you and the other person not be sure whether there are more than two of you, or not?

Also, what can you two people not decide upon, agree upon, and just accept the so-called 'real color' of things?

By the way, the so-called final theory, that is; the GUTOE, of physics is already known. So, why are you two not yet sure about IT?

[Age]

First I have to correct my sentence. A possible should be added.

So, just 'one possible world' right?

If yes, or if no, then how many 'possible words' are there, to you?

No, there could be an unlimited number of possible worlds. We cannot tell for sure.

you, and that one other person, might not yet be able to tell for sure, but 'we' have already discovered and found the actual irrefutable proof what could possibly exist.

From Wiki: A possible world is a complete and consistent way the world is or could have been.

Maybe if 'we' start with you explaining what the words 'the world' means and/or is referring to, to you, exactly, first?

The particular region or group of things.

So, the group of oranges, to "bahman", is 'the world'. And,

'The world' is also an area one mile square in the middle of the atlantic ocean.

Well this clears a lot up here now right "bahman"?

From Oxford reference: A possible world is here considered to be a complete state of affairs or one in which every proposition under consideration has a definite truth value.

I do not know what this means. Do you?

if yes, then will you explain or elaborate here?

If no, then why not?

This is very abstract. I cannot help you unless you tell me which part of the statement you cannot understand.

The whole lot, from the first letter, to the full stop.

Let me know and we can work on it.

Okay, i just did.

Perhaps we can discard it as the definition of Wiki does the job.

We most certainly could. But you said that you could help me if I tell you which part of the statement that I did not yet understand.

So, let us continue on with this claim of yours.

How many possible worlds are there?

This all depends on what the word 'world' means and/or refers to, exactly?

See, for example, 'the world' that you adult human beings are 'creating' here could be in another way, if you adults just changed 'your ways'. Or, 'the world' could refer to the Universe, Itself, and every and all things under consideration, for example. Of which, obviously, there could not possibly any 'other world'.

By possible world, I mean the group of things that are causally related.

So, the group of red motor cars that are together in the particular downtown car park at midday on friday is a 'possible world', right?

Who knows!? There are set causally unrelated worlds.

How do you know that there are so-called 'set causally unrelated worlds'?

We cannot for sure.

So, why say and claim that there is?

[Age]

Faith and reason are mutually exclusive as faith becomes meaningless if there is a reason for God. God however said in Hebrews 11:6: "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." This means that there is no reason for the existence of God.

No it does not mean there is no reason. It means god requires faith. That does not preclude a reason, it just suggests you might not need one.

It precludes reason if the only way to please God! It is nonsensical to have faith if you have reason.

After having 'the reason' something exists it would be nonsensical to then start 'having faith' that 'that thing' exists, just like it is completely nonsensical to 'already know' something is true, and then start 'to believe' that 'that thing' is true.

There is absolutely no logical nor rational reason to 'have faith' nor 'to believe' in these circumstances.

However, the times when 'faith' and 'belief' are Truly necessary and warranted, and which are alluded to in the bible, are perfectly rational and are able to be perfectly logically reasoned.

[Atla]

I am not asking you to just remember some thing 'out of the blue', as some might say here.

Look, you made the claim;
You were challenged to prove otherwise and completely failed to no one's surprise

Now, I will, once again, suggest that if absolutely anyone comes to a philosophy forum and wants to claim things, then it would, for them, best if they had actual proof of 'their claim' before they express 'their claim' in an open forum.

And, as I have already expressed previously, that way they would not come across as being so Wrong, so often.

Exactly like you are again here "atla"

I dont't have to prove something you should remember. I could but, it's your fault for not remembering it.

Okay. If this is what you believe and want to claim here, then this is perfectly fine with me.

What you said here also removes you from actually having to do or show absolutely anything here as well, right?

And again you evade having to prove your claim about the mind, just like last time, because you can't.

What was I, supposedly, 'meant' to be proving here, exactly?

We know you're the biggest hypocrite here.

Okay, and who is that 'we', exactly?

You come to a philosophy forum and always fail to prove any of your major claims.

What are my so-called 'major claims', exactly?

Still zero proof for your mind claim.

[Age]

I dont't have to prove something you should remember. I could but, it's your fault for not remembering it.

Okay. If this is what you believe and want to claim here, then this is perfectly fine with me.

What you said here also removes you from actually having to do or show absolutely anything here as well, right?

And again you evade having to prove your claim about the mind, just like last time, because you can't.

What was I, supposedly, 'meant' to be proving here, exactly?

We know you're the biggest hypocrite here.

Okay, and who is that 'we', exactly?

You come to a philosophy forum and always fail to prove any of your major claims.

What are my so-called 'major claims', exactly?

Still zero proof for your mind claim.

And still no clarity from you of what you think or believe is my so-called mind claim, exactly?

Obviously, one cannot begin to prove what one does not yet know what the other is expecting one to prove.

[Atla]

Okay. If this is what you believe and want to claim here, then this is perfectly fine with me.

What you said here also removes you from actually having to do or show absolutely anything here as well, right?


What was I, supposedly, 'meant' to be proving here, exactly?



Okay, and who is that 'we', exactly?



What are my so-called 'major claims', exactly?

Still zero proof for your mind claim.

And still no clarity from you of what you think or believe is my so-called mind claim, exactly?

Obviously, one cannot begin to prove what one does not yet know what the other is expecting one to prove.

Still zero proof for your mind claim, just dishonest evasion.

[Age]

Still zero proof for your mind claim.

And still no clarity from you of what you think or believe is my so-called mind claim, exactly?

Obviously, one cannot begin to prove what one does not yet know what the other is expecting one to prove.

Still zero proof for your mind claim, just dishonest evasion.

Nothing dishonest here.

The proof in regards to the 'mind claim' exists within a part of the brain, obviously.

Even you said so "yourself" here "atla".

[Atla]

And still no clarity from you of what you think or believe is my so-called mind claim, exactly?

Obviously, one cannot begin to prove what one does not yet know what the other is expecting one to prove.

Still zero proof for your mind claim, just dishonest evasion.

Nothing dishonest here.

The proof in regards to the 'mind claim' exists within a part of the brain, obviously.

Even you said so "yourself" here "atla".

Still zero proof for your mind claim, just dishonest evasion.