Saving bunny and RJT

[David Sklansky]

I've been pondering this subject quite a bit and I believe that I can demonstrate fairly persuasively, though not prove rigorously, that a certain type of "assuming" is essentially identical to a certain type of "having faith".

Before going further let me make clear that the arguments I will present apply to any subject that may or may not be true, not just religion. It just so happens that if my thought processes are not flawed it means that bunny and RJT will definitely NOT burn in hell. But please don't let that influence you in evaluating my points.

First, it is important to understand that there are two types of faith and two types of assuming. (They are not mutually exclusive.) There is faith in something largely because of the evidence (I have faith OJ killed Nicole) and faith in something where you acknowledge that an objective observer is reasonable if he claims that the evidence isn't sufficient to back up your claims of "certainty" (I have complete faith that my husband was true to me during his month long tip to Amsterdam). It is this second type of faith I will be discussing here.

As for assuming, one type involves assigning a high enough probability so that the action you take is the same as if you were certain. (I assume he wouldn't make such a large raise without aces or kings so I'm folding my queens.) The other type of assuming occurs in situations where it is not necessarily true that what you assume is also what you think has the highest probability. Rather you make the assumption because no other assumption will do you any good anyway. (I assume that the player on my right has the queen of hearts because if he doesn't they will make five clubs no matter what I do. I bought stock duing the Cuban missile crisis under the assumption that the depressed prices would bounce back if there was no nuclear war because if there was, I'd be dead anyway.) This second type of assuming is the one I am disussing here.

The thing is to an outside observer the second type of faith and the second type of assuming look the same. Both people pick actions consistent with being sure of something. Actions that in many cases look wrong to others. Furthermore both people if asked if it seems odd that others would pick a different action would admit that it doesn't. (Notice that txaq doesn't fit into this category nor do many rabbis. Because their contention is that a purely intellectual understanding of their religion is enough to persuade someone of its truth. Basically faith of the first kind.)

Put another way suppose the Lakers are playing the Knicks and the Knicks are six point favorites. But for some reason you have to bet straight up, no points. And you are no expert handicapper.

If this were to happen there are only two reasons you could possibly bet on the Lakers. Either you have some otherwordly "feeling" that the Lakers will win. Or your life would be so worthless if the Lakers lost that the money would be irrelevant. Meanwhile you BOTH fully acknowledge that others will, and from their standpoint should, bet the other way.

In the above example say the second guy, the assumer, will be miserable soley because he loves the Lakers so much. The first guy, the one with faith, is only OK with them. Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that the Lakers would want to win more for the second guy than for the first guy? And that they would also want to win for that guy than expert handicapper who bet on them because it made sense to. Unless that handicapper also loved them as much. In other words shouldn't love trump belief? Even if the lover is only assuming. But I am straying a bit.

My basic contention is that the person who proclaims faith in something when the evidence is admittedly not there, is almost exactly equivalent, logically, to the person who assumes something that he objectively knows is not certain because he wants desperately for it to be true. In other words he would love it to be true. And that the reason that the equivalence is not admitted is mainly because it is the first guy who is scared to admit that he is for all intents and purposes the second guy. RJT and bunny are the braver ones.

[John21]

How would your scenario play out when it wasn't evidence pointing against a certain outcome, but lack of evidence indicating a contrary conclusion?

As a very crude example: say I believe the Broncos will win the Superbowl in 2010. Wouldn't this be simply an issue of faith since there is no foundation to assume it will happen?

[cambraceres]

I think there is a difference in these two types of believers. If we make a scale, and label the horizontal axis "Belief"and the vertical Axis as "Faith", my point can soon be illustrated. Consider a line on this graph that is perfectly horizontal, and at some arbitrary vertical position.
In this example, I consider faith to be the overall assuredness of a certain event's inevitability. I consider belief to be the rational portion, the objective determination of what the outcome of some system or situation will be.

Consider the aforementioned line, it, being horizontal, indicates a steady level of faith from one side to the other of the rational belief scale(the horizontal axis). This means, in analysis of this fictitious graph, that on one side of the scale, we have those who believe something on rational grounds, and have no need for non rational belief. On the other side, are those who have no rational component to their belief in something, it just is they would say. This is the home of blind faith, or belief without objective justification. Now so far they seem equivalent, but the difference lies in the way they believe what they do. People are not so black and white, and they would fall somewhere in the middle of this scale probably, but we will deal with superlatives for now so as to maintain a simplistic feel to this concept.

What I mean by the difference being in the way these believers think, I mean that the non rational believer needs to rationalize his belief, where as the objective believer has no need, as his conclusion follows in a neat and tidy way form the laws of existence and logic.

I happen to believe that the way you think about an existent changes it, the same with a situation. In other words, there is a natural law of complementarity. You cannot define an existent except in terms of the apprehending rationality. If you and I both see one thing immediately in front of us, say a cathedral, it is a totally different building that I see, it may look the same though.

Because of this complementarity, rationalization changes the mind of the apprehending individual, which then causes actual change in the state of the subject existent.

Cam

[David Sklansky]

Its the same thing. Evidence for, evidence against, no evidence at all. They combine to form a probability that objective observers will tend to agree on. In the Broncos case its about 3%.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
Its the same thing. Evidence for, evidence against, no evidence at all . They combine to form a probability that objective observers will tend to agree on. In the Broncos case its about 3%.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm failing to see how any level of probability can be reached in an information void.

i.e. what is the probability that your answer to the following question will be correct: 2+y=?

[David Sklansky]

If there is no information the probability is equally distributed among the various competing answers.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
My basic contention is that the person who proclaims faith in something when the evidence is admittedly not there, is almost exactly equivalent, logically, to the person who assumes something that he objectively knows is not certain because he wants desperately for it to be true. In other words he would love it to be true. And that the reason that the equivalence is not admitted is mainly because it is the first guy who is scared to admit that he is for all intents and purposes the second guy. RJT and bunny are the braver ones.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good stuff but its not bravery its politics. You can't tell someone they must behave in the way you want because you deperately want there to be a god who says they must behave that way.

It can be evolved politics, non-political religons aren't so fit. Often its just nasty infliction of will upon others.

chez

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
If there is no information the probability is equally distributed among the various competing answers.

[/ QUOTE ]

An infinite set of answers divided equally. Seems weak somehow. But, yeah, ok. So the summation of probability can be either odd or even. Sigh.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
If there is no information the probability is equally distributed among the various competing answers.

[/ QUOTE ]

That means that if there is an infinite range of answers, the probability of any given answer is 0. You realize this, right David?

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
If this were to happen there are only two reasons you could possibly bet on the Lakers. Either you have some otherwordly "feeling" that the Lakers will win. Or your life would be so worthless if the Lakers lost that the money would be irrelevant. Meanwhile you BOTH fully acknowledge that others will, and from their standpoint should, bet the other way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Relating this to Christianity: A believer holds that this "otherworldly feeling" is accessible to everyone. He calls it The Holy Spirit, and he says that before an individual is saved, this Spirit convicts the unbeliever.

But there are people who will swear that they've never felt this pull, and a Christian might argue the following:

1. Yes you have. You've hardened your heart against it.
2. You already had a hard heart, and therefore, it didn't penetrate your consciousness.

There might be other arguments, but these are the main ones I think, and the second of which may be used by either a free will advocate or a Calvinist.

At this point, the believer and the unbeliever are at a standstill. The pervasive influence of The Holy Spirit is purely an article of faith for the believer, since he can't know the heart of the unbeliever. But the unbeliever is unmoved by this reasoning because it sounds hokey, mystical, and convoluted. But mostly because he has no response for those who say that he ought to have felt something which he, in all honesty, did not feel. What can he do but shrug his shoulders? Moreover, he will point out, quite rightly, that this doesn't meet the standard of falsifiability, and unbelievers f'n love Popper, so this a biggy.

The believer must realize that the unbeliever's rejection of god is wholly reasonable if he truly did not feel this impulse. And the unbeliever must realize that once the believer trusts this instinct, then he is proceeding upon a logical, if unparcimonious, course of action by believing.

[ QUOTE ]
In the above example say the second guy, the assumer, will be miserable soley because he loves the Lakers so much. The first guy, the one with faith, is only OK with them. Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that the Lakers would want to win more for the second guy than for the first guy? And that they would also want to win for that guy than expert handicapper who bet on them because it made sense to. Unless that handicapper also loved them as much. In other words shouldn't love trump belief? Even if the lover is only assuming. But I am straying a bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you make a very good point here, but as you well know, the personalities of these two bettors usually overlap when we apply it to the question of religion. The believer is deeply convinced of God's presence, and he also feels genuine love for the Being to whom he ascribes this conviction. Basically, he believes it to be true, and he needs it to be true.

The first guy IS the second guy, but there is no shame in this. I've always said to those who claim religion is a crutch that this is a good thing; Crutches prop up fragile limbs. I think fragility is inherent to mankind.

If there is a god, why should it seem strange that there would be a psychological need for him? The presence of this psychological need is probably a poor argument for his existence, but there is no need for the believer to lie about feeling this way; it's also a poor argument against his existence.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
And you are no expert handicapper.

[/ QUOTE ]


This stipulation logically also includes one having no inside information relevant to the situation that either you can't share, or can share but can't prove. Like a having a friend who is a physical therapist for the Knicks call you before each game with the physical condition of the players, and who tells you that although the news hasn't been released yet, the starting center won't be able to play this game.

Which is similar to those believers who assert that the experience of their faith (and maybe personal "miracles" that can't be proved) gives them additional evidence for belief, though admittedly which wouldn't persuade an outside evaluator most likely. You have stated in the past that our relying on this type of evidence in the overall equation of faith/probability is correct, as long as we don't maintain that outside evaluators should be expected to accept it.

Your post does bring out a valid point, and one that many non-believing posters here constantly harp on, which is that lots of people without the intellect to really grasp theology and have such reasons to believe, simply do so for psychological reasons of needing a faith or belief system to give their lives meaning, or because of lack of scientific knowledge or superstition. However even such a scientifically ingnorant psychological need to believe isn't bad as long as one believes in the right thing that is in fact true, even if not provably so.

As far as RJT or bunny or any other non-believer being saved, which I have said that Catholic theology teaches is possible, I think a lot of what will determine that ability to be saved without fully believing or believing at all, is not only whether the conduct of their lives conforms to the minimal demands of the natural law which I have discussed extensively in the past here, but also whether since there is no proof and never can be that God doesn't exist, their minds are nonetheless open to the possibility that He does, which includes being willing to accept the evidence of a personal miracle or revelation that isn't overwhelmingly certain.

By that last statement I mean whether a non-believer would give any credence to a highly unlikely series of coincidences that would seem to imply God not only exists but is calling that person to belief, as opposed to an angel appearing before him and giving him a message and where he was certain he wasn't dreaming or delusional.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Notice that txaq doesn't fit into this category nor do many rabbis. Because their contention is that a purely intellectual understanding of their religion is enough to persuade someone of its truth.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not my contention.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
it is important to understand that there are two types of faith and two types of assuming. (They are not mutually exclusive.)
<font color="white">. </font>
There is faith in something largely because of the evidence (I have faith OJ killed Nicole) and faith in something where you acknowledge that an objective observer is reasonable if he claims that the evidence isn't sufficient to back up your claims of "certainty" (I have complete faith that my husband was true to me during his month long tip to Amsterdam).

[/ QUOTE ]To me the two are practically identical.

The latter is simply the former without the faithful person (aka the person making an estimate of certainty) having the ability to articulate the reasons for his estimate or his extent of certainty. (The articulate person would say, I have faith that my husband was true to me during his month-long tip to Amsterdam, because he was with my brother the whole time / he probably would not cheat only one month after our honeymoon / he has this established intense aversion to whores so that leaves only casual acquaintances / etc.) Notice that when intelligence rears its head and the handicapper in your second category articulates his reasons, his certainty should be affected, and probably in the direction opposite to his original choice. (I.e. if the evidence for his original choice was as evident as his certainty implies it would've been produced, as in the OJ example.)

I don't like your insertion of "complete" in the case of Amsterdam. (Do you have complete faith that OJ killed Nicole?)

Mickey Brausch

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
First, it is important to understand that there are two types of faith and two types of assuming. (They are not mutually exclusive.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't we call these premises/assumptions in the past. So essentially the argument goes
IF there are two types of faith as I define them AND there are two types of assuming as I define them, THEN what I'm claiming will be valid.
so, your argument may be fine but have no relationship to the real world.

luckyme

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
If there is no information the probability is equally distributed among the various competing answers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet, if one were to choose an answer anyway, would that be an act of faith, assumption, or interchangable as you're describing it?

I am calling that faith. A guess if you will, but a necessary one in that it is often better than having no belief at all. So hopefully, we're just arguing semantics.

[David Sklansky]

"Notice that txaq doesn't fit into this category nor do many rabbis. Because their contention is that a purely intellectual understanding of their religion is enough to persuade someone of its truth."


"That's not my contention."



So all your arguments are simply to show that the existence of God is merely reasonable? That an objective observer would assign it a non zero probability. Maybe even above 50%. Why bother? Almost everybody agrees God is not impossible. But you contend someone must beleive in him with certainty. NOT just assume he exists. So arguments that make him only more beleivable are pretty much a waste of time by your standards. Unless of course you want rethink your position on assumers (which thus far all the Christian regulars here seem to be disagreeing with, Not Ready not ready to weigh in.)

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Notice that txaq doesn't fit into this category nor do many rabbis. Because their contention is that a purely intellectual understanding of their religion is enough to persuade someone of its truth.

[/ QUOTE ]
Pure intellectual understanding of what christians believe is not enough to persuade anyone to become a follower of Christ. It takes the Holy Spirit telling you that it's true before you can come to Christ. At that point, you can either accept Him or reject Him. Those are your only two choices.

[nextgenneo]

you are a strange man david sklansky, you should post more poker strategy / try to become a huge winner live or online instead of wasting your time

[David Sklansky]

"Pure intellectual understanding of what christians believe is not enough to persuade anyone to become a follower of Christ. It takes the Holy Spirit telling you that it's true before you can come to Christ. At that point, you can either accept Him or reject Him. Those are your only two choices."

So why bother pointing out the intelectual reasons then?

Also accepting doesn't logically imply believing with certainty. It only implies the same "assuming" that I've been talking about. And it seems that most Christians here basically agree with me. (Not Ready is still probably figuring out his position on the matter.)

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

So why bother pointing out the intelectual reasons then?


[/ QUOTE ]

Several reasons, the main one being that we are told to "defend the faith" and to "give an account of the hope that is in us." I think it's important to answer the charge of irrationality even if the message never gets through.

[ QUOTE ]

Not Ready is still probably figuring out his position on the matter.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't make judgments about any individual's status before God.

As far as it goes what you say about assuming and faith is reasonable. For a picture of what the Bible says is saving faith see Hebrews 11 and the book of James.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So why bother pointing out the intelectual reasons then?


[/ QUOTE ]

Several reasons, the main one being that we are told to "defend the faith" and to "give an account of the hope that is in us." I think it's important to answer the charge of irrationality even if the message never gets through.


[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. And because God can use the intellectual reasons to convict a person that the Bible is true.

[FortunaMaximus]

I'm really sure you meant to say convince instead of convict there, txag, but carry on.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

~FM

[David Sklansky]

But even NOT READY just agreed with my concept of assuming, along with the strong desire for it to be true, is a reasonable way to define faith. As did all regular Christian posters here. Why not think about changing your mind on this?

[David Sklansky]

"I think it's important to answer the charge of irrationality even if the message never gets through."

What's the definition of irrationality here? There used to be a poster here called Kopefire that reminded me of you and made it clear that his belief only be logically defended to the point where the truth of them was obviously not an impossibility. He did't feel it was necessary that he need show through argument that his beliefs were likely, let alone highly probable or certain. Just that they were far from impossible. Do you agree?

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm really sure you meant to say convince instead of convict there, txag, but carry on.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

~FM

[/ QUOTE ]
No. I meant to say convict.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
But even NOT READY just agreed with my concept of assuming, along with the strong desire for it to be true, is a reasonable way to define faith. As did all regular Christian posters here. Why not think about changing your mind on this?

[/ QUOTE ]
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. Hebrews 11:1

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

But even NOT READY just agreed with my concept of assuming, along with the strong desire for it to be true, is a reasonable way to define faith.


[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot to mention I also said "as far as it goes". The Biblical quotes were meant to indicate your definition doesn't go very far.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

He did't feel it was necessary that he need show through argument that his beliefs were likely, let alone highly probable or certain. Just that they were far from impossible. Do you agree?


[/ QUOTE ]

No, not even close. My basic approach to apologetics is
taken from a theologian who felt the argument for Christian theism was certain and that Christianity is the only rational worldview. I believe he overstated the case as to objective, demonstrable certainty, but at least in philosophical, not mathematical terms, Christianity is highly likely to be true, far more so than any other worldview.

[ QUOTE ]

What's the definition of irrationality here?


[/ QUOTE ]

I wish I knew. The charge is thrown out but never explained or justified. There's usually a lot of irrational content included, such as mindless references to the flying spaghetti monster, unicorns or santa claus. So I just present both positive and negative arguments till the opponent starts insulting and/or cursing me, then I go on to the next one.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
What's the definition of irrationality here? There used to be a poster here called Kopefire that reminded me of you and made it clear that his belief only be logically defended to the point where the truth of them was obviously not an impossibility. He did't feel it was necessary that he need show through argument that his beliefs were likely, let alone highly probable or certain. Just that they were far from impossible. Do you agree?

[/ QUOTE ]

In my opinion, the only thing required of a belief in God is that it is consistent with reality. Arguing the likelihood of his existence is just sport, and it's likely a fool's errand, since faith might then be rendered moot.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion, the only thing required of a belief in God is that it is consistent with reality. Arguing the likelihood of his existence is just sport, and it's likely a fool's errand, since faith would then be rendered moot.


[/ QUOTE ]

Strike one for a non-loving god given the human condition as it is in reality (suffering of innocents due to natural causes, etc., etc.).

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
Strike one for a non-loving god given the human condition as it is in reality (suffering of innocents due to natural causes, etc., etc.).

[/ QUOTE ]

What a Copernican insight! This kind of sophistication might just win you Employee of The Month!

[David Sklansky]

Strike two for a god who answers prayers or performs miracles, at least while we are alive. Notice that Not Ready isn't willing to come out and say that some modern day miracles actually occur. He doesn't need that to be true so why gamble and be proven wrong. But he also avoids admitting that the miracles the Church claimed happened, probably didn't. Because he knows that the typical weekend Christian depends on such nonsense.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
Strike two for a god who answers prayers or performs miracles, at least while we are alive.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've already decided the matter, or your just unconvinced? It would be quite a shock to find out that your strike zone was even bigger than MidGe's.

[IronUnkind]

David:

Where does NotReady rank on your list?

[David Sklansky]

It's tough to rank theists. It is like trying to rate someone as an explainer, mereley from watching his college debate, where he was assigned the side where the best arguments are in the hands of the opposition.

Since my rankings basically have to do with how well someone explains a true concept, its a big extrapolation when almost all my observations of them involve him defending a position that was preassigned to him.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Notice that Not Ready isn't willing to come out and say that some modern day miracles actually occur


[/ QUOTE ]

Modern day mircles actually occur if by miracle you mean God's activity. The reason I place more emphasis on miracle in Scripture is the events are identified as being done by God. That isn't the case since the closing of the canon. As far as I know, no miracle since the 1st century has been accompanied by God's Word.

[ QUOTE ]

He doesn't need that to be true so why gamble and be proven wrong


[/ QUOTE ]

How could you ever prove that God wasn't involved in an event? But I can't identify an event as specifically a miracle except those of Scripture.

[ QUOTE ]

Because he knows that the typical weekend Christian depends on such nonsense.


[/ QUOTE ]

Where did this come from? I don't even know what kind of "Christian" you're talking about, but if you mean someone who isn't really a Christian, why would I care that he depends on nonsense? I know no one who I consider a genuine Christian who depends on modern day miracles for his faith. They depend on prayer, Bible reading, fellowship and the strength God provides through the Holy Spirit. What you call miracle is rarely if ever a factor.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Where does NotReady rank on your list?


[/ QUOTE ]

99 1/2, dropping, and proud of it. Oops, pride is a sin, oh well.

[David Sklansky]

"How could you ever prove that God wasn't involved in an event? But I can't identify an event as specifically a miracle except those of Scripture."

But you could practically prove he was involved if the event was far afield of the laws of physics. Like the sun standing still in the old days.

"Where did this come from? I don't even know what kind of "Christian" you're talking about, but if you mean someone who isn't really a Christian, why would I care that he depends on nonsense? I know no one who I consider a genuine Christian who depends on modern day miracles for his faith."

Maybe you don't care, but the pope does. Most Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe that God can and does do serious interventions during a persons life that basically involves suspending the laws of physics or statistics. Especially if someone prays for it. You are OK with it if he doesn't. As long as he steps in after death. I don't think most religous people would be.

[IronUnkind]

I see what you're saying, and it might surprise you that I agree in principle. Anyway, you seem to mention him by name more than anyone else, so it would surprise me if you thought he rated higher than, say, BluffThis!

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
Strike one for a non-loving god given the human condition as it is in reality (suffering of innocents due to natural causes, etc., etc.).

[/ QUOTE ]I have already suggested that the Christian God being actually The Supreme Sadist satisfies all the previously mentioned conditions for a God. It also addresses the questions raised about the many and serious sufferings of those humans who could not possibly be aware of the possibility of the Christian God, yet they are still made to suffer. (Something which otherwise confounds christians arguments about God putting us through "trials and tribulations", etc.)

Mickey Brausch

[FortunaMaximus]

That's a copout, Mickey, unless you're suggesting a Marquis trending towards benevolence, at least for the masses. To head off RJT and his claims on my elitism...

The bigger the intellect, the more difficult the challenges he may devise. I mean, not every individual can hit a curveball for two-baggers consistently. And rarer still is the opposite-field hitter that can put up 20 triples a year.

Still, you can be sure he's no masochist.

~FM

[StregaChess]

[ QUOTE ]
First, it is important to understand that there are two types of faith and two types of assuming. (They are not mutually exclusive.) There is faith in something largely because of the evidence (I have faith OJ killed Nicole) and faith in something where you acknowledge that an objective observer is reasonable if he claims that the evidence isn't sufficient to back up your claims of "certainty" (I have complete faith that my husband was true to me during his month long tip to Amsterdam). It is this second type of faith I will be discussing here.


[/ QUOTE ]


Interesting example, I’m making the guess that you used the “religious sacrament of marriage” to further stir the pot with those that are set in their ways.

I had a theology professor once that would always tell his students “Hold on to your ignorance as long as you can.” He was viewed as a heretic, however I think the core of this message was hold on to what you believe as deeply and as logically as you can, fight for it with everything you have and once you become convinced of something new you’ll know it is truth.

Discussing theology or philosophy is a dangerous thing, you need to be willing to accept something new or else you are just wasting your time.

[bigpooch]

I like what your professor had to say. Whether one is a
theist, an agnostic, an empiricist or a postmodernist
(gasp!), you are still entitled to hold on to your beliefs
until you have serious doubts or are convinced otherwise.
When one's beliefs encroach significantly on others in a
"hateful" or "threatening" manner, one should have some
serious doubts.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have already suggested that the Christian God being actually The Supreme Sadist satisfies all the previously mentioned conditions for a God.

[/ QUOTE ] That's a copout, unless you're suggesting a Marquis [De Sade] trending towards benevolence, at least for the masses.

[/ QUOTE ]Where's the benevolence? Musta missed it.

Mickey Brausch

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have already suggested that the Christian God being actually The Supreme Sadist satisfies all the previously mentioned conditions for a God.

[/ QUOTE ] That's a copout, unless you're suggesting a Marquis [De Sade] trending towards benevolence, at least for the masses.

[/ QUOTE ]Where's the benevolence? Musta missed it.

Mickey Brausch

[/ QUOTE ]

MOST little babies get warm beds.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have already suggested that the Christian God being actually The Supreme Sadist satisfies all the previously mentioned conditions for a God.

[/ QUOTE ] That's a copout, unless you're suggesting a Marquis [De Sade] trending towards benevolence, at least for the masses.

[/ QUOTE ]Where's the benevolence? Musta missed it.

Mickey Brausch

[/ QUOTE ]

The benevolence is in allowing the Universe to unfold. To not interfere with the natural processes of growth. Everything's a quantum singularity, ripples in an æther. He may be able to override every principle of the Universe. Except the QM effects. All he can do is surf them like we do. Because whatever effect he undertakes invariably has multiple effects. Throw a negative in, oops, it slides across the integer scale and becomes positive.

So, I suppose you're right, he's not benevolent. He's just a valence. So is She. &lt;chuckles&gt;

[vhawk01]

Sounds a lot like apathy.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds a lot like apathy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty much, [censored] it, let it happen away, sort out the results later.

As for me, personally, a friend comes to me, asks for help, it's violent, fine. I can deal with the moral consequences. So I take venegance while walking around on earth. I always have that option. So I can create causative effects too. My requirements for this sequence of events is rather extreme. Rape and exploiting the weaker in an abusive fashion qualify for that criteria.

&lt;shrugs&gt; There are perks when you assume the responsibilities of an archangel. Would you have it otherwise?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Where's the benevolence? Musta missed it.


[/ QUOTE ]

You did.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Where's the benevolence? Musta missed it.


[/ QUOTE ]

You did.

[/ QUOTE ]

JUSTICE!

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where's the benevolence? Musta missed it.


[/ QUOTE ] You did.

[/ QUOTE ] I suspect the crumbs are accidental. But the Oliver Twists will get up and ask for more.

[ QUOTE ]
The benevolence is in allowing the Universe to unfold.

[/ QUOTE ] Is He the house? Or the wheel spinner? (Or the wheel?)
[ QUOTE ]
MOST little babies get warm beds.

[/ QUOTE ]Good fortune means good world. But "I felt the nine coming."

Mickey Brausch

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I suspect the crumbs are accidental.


[/ QUOTE ]

Some think eternal life is a bit more than a crumb.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where's the benevolence? Musta missed it.


[/ QUOTE ] You did.

[/ QUOTE ] I suspect the crumbs are accidental. But the Oliver Twists will get up and ask for more.

[ QUOTE ]
The benevolence is in allowing the Universe to unfold.

[/ QUOTE ] Is He the house? Or the wheel spinner? (Or the wheel?)
[ QUOTE ]
MOST little babies get warm beds.

[/ QUOTE ]Good fortune means good world. But "I felt the nine coming."

Mickey Brausch

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, well, if we're talking rivers, how hard can it be to be right 2%ish of the time? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Well, dude, you know what, in the end, whether his actual existence is a precondition is an individual choice.

I'd rather err on the side of caution and do my part just in case He doesn't. So if I'm wrong, it's going to be a nice surprise, eh.

Kristopher.

Edit: lol @ the title changes in-thread. Almost had me. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
…In other words shouldn't love trump belief?…

[/ QUOTE ]

That thought ranks up there - -really high up as far as questions that matter, I think.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But even NOT READY just agreed with my concept of assuming, along with the strong desire for it to be true, is a reasonable way to define faith. As did all regular Christian posters here. Why not think about changing your mind on this?

[/ QUOTE ]
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. Hebrews 11:1

[/ QUOTE ]

hi txag. as long as we're going to be all literal about that verse, how is it possible to hope for something of which you are "sure"?

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
hi txag. as long as we're going to be all literal about that verse, how is it possible to hope for something of which you are "sure"?

[/ QUOTE ]

He wasn't quoting the verse. It actually says:

"Faith is the assurance/substance (hupostasis) of things hoped for, the evidence/conviction (elegchos) of things unseen."

It is not saying that faith gives hope in that which is sure. It is saying that faith gives certainty to that which is hoped for. Put another way, for an unobservable x:

Without faith, x is hopefully a reality.
With faith, x is probably a reality.

[Sephus]

for me, your analysis of your translation of the verse doesn't fit your translation.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
for me, your analysis of your translation of the verse doesn't fit your translation.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? What would be a proper interpretation?

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
My basic contention is that the person who proclaims faith in something when the evidence is admittedly not there, is almost exactly equivalent, logically, to the person who assumes something that he objectively knows is not certain because he wants desperately for it to be true. In other words he would love it to be true. And that the reason that the equivalence is not admitted is mainly because it is the first guy who is scared to admit that he is for all intents and purposes the second guy. RJT and bunny are the braver ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem comes from the Christian doctrines, all of which teach a)an all-knowing god and b)faith as the #1 criteria for salvation. This combination almost forces, through threat of eternal torture, those who just "want it to be true", to delude themselves into becoming "those who KNOW it is true." It is a bit of psychological trickery that enables the assumer to live free of fear, as a believer.

That's why it's hard to find Christians who are willing to admit that there is a good chance god doesn't exist (though they have decided to live as if he does anyway). God can read their minds, and he demands faith, not hope, in his existence. So they need to make themselves believe, not just assume, to live up to god's standards.

This does not mean that the assumer is not brave as you say (this probably makes them even braver as they are admitting doubt even in the face of eternal torment), or that the assumer is not identical to the believer for all intents and purposes. But an assumer who thinks he will go to hell for only assuming, will find a way to turn himself into a true believer. My theory is that many of these are the people personally visited by the "holy spirit".

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I suspect the crumbs are accidental.


[/ QUOTE ]

Some think eternal life is a bit more than a crumb.

[/ QUOTE ]Well, it is the hardest bit to swallow.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But even NOT READY just agreed with my concept of assuming, along with the strong desire for it to be true, is a reasonable way to define faith. As did all regular Christian posters here. Why not think about changing your mind on this?

[/ QUOTE ]
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. Hebrews 11:1

[/ QUOTE ]

hi txag. as long as we're going to be all literal about that verse, how is it possible to hope for something of which you are "sure"?

[/ QUOTE ]
hope:
1. to cherish a desire with anticipation
2. to desire with expectation of obtainment
3. to expect with confidence

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
...delude themselves...psychological trickery...That's why it's hard to find Christians who are willing to admit that there is a good chance god doesn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why? Because the resurrection actually occurring just isn't a possibility, is it?

Christianity is not just about avoiding eternal torture. It's about knowing God today!

[StregaChess]

[ QUOTE ]
Why? Because the resurrection actually occurring just isn't a possibility, is it?

Christianity is not just about avoiding eternal torture. It's about knowing God today!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm afraid this is basically the core problem. Those that claim they strictly apply logic regarding a “Christian God” can’t expand their criticisms to objectivity consider anything that contains miracles. So we believe what Plato existed in 400 B.C. and in his writings are valid however we have no original autographs and earliest copies are from 900 A.D. We discount the New Testament that was penned from 50 to 90 A.D. with the earliest copies being 130 A.D. So we have a difference of 1,200 year gap and a 30 year gap and thousands fold more copies of NT documents as apposed to Plato but we put no validity in the NT. If you accept the NT as being an accurate record of what Jesus said than you have to follow that to its logical conclusion and objectively judge him on his own words. If you follow due diligence in that regard you will not come to the conclusion that he was a “good man” trying to teach the world a lesson, what you are left with when it’s all stripped away is that he was either a raving lunatic or the Son of God.

I’m sure this post will be ceremonially dismissed with a wave of the arm and a huff and puff as being simplistic dribble, if that allows you to sleep better, that’s fine but you still have that small doubt and you know it.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Why? Because the resurrection actually occurring just isn't a possibility, is it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well I don't think it is... but I was talking about the person who has doubts that it is possible, but wishes it to be true. These are the ones who are most likely to try and convince themselves it definitely happened. To erase the doubts that they fear god frowns on.


[ QUOTE ]
Christianity is not just about avoiding eternal torture. It's about knowing God today!

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is true at all. Christianity is constantly preaching how this life is a meaningless split second compared to infinity after death. In fact that's how they rationalize the terrible things that happen on earth (like children drowning in a tsunami for ex.) - drowning to death as a child means nothing when you get to spend eternity with god! The entire purpose of the Christian life is to achieve heaven after death. A relationship with god, during our infinitesimal lifespan on earth, is simply a means to that end.

So yes, I think there is a great incentive for a doubter to convince himself he truly believes, if he fears his doubts might make the difference between eternal bliss or eternal torture.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
It is not saying that faith gives hope in that which is sure. It is saying that faith gives certainty to that which is hoped for. Put another way, for an unobservable x:
<font color="white"> . </font>
Without faith, x is hopefully a reality.
With faith, x is probably a reality.

[/ QUOTE ]Are you sure you are using those terms the right way? I mean, "certainly" is not the same as "probably". (It can barely be "most probably".)

When I claim that the Lakers are certain to win their next game, how should this translate in percentage terms?

Mickey Brausch

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you sure you are using those terms the right way? I mean, "certainly" is not the same as "probably". (It can barely be "most probably".)

When I claim that the Lakers are certain to win their next game, how should this translate in percentage terms?

Mickey Brausch

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for mentioning this. I probably shouldn't have said certainly if it created this confusion. To use your example, when a sportscaster says that the Lakers are certain to win tonight, it's pretty clear that he is actually saying that he is confident that they will. This is what I meant.

But basically, it depends on the author's usage of the word hupostasis, which is a compound of hupo (by or under) and histemi (to establish, make stand, to uphold).

Hupostasis, in this verse, is usually translated either as "substance" or "assurance." Whereas the former implies established reality (certainly), the latter implies an unspecified, though presumably high, degree of confidence (probably). I was trying to accomodate both alternatives.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is not saying that faith gives hope in that which is sure. It is saying that faith gives certainty to that which is hoped for. Put another way, for an unobservable x:
<font color="white"> . </font>
Without faith, x is hopefully a reality.
With faith, x is probably a reality.

[/ QUOTE ]Are you sure you are using those terms the right way? I mean, "certainly" is not the same as "probably". (It can barely be "most probably".)

When I claim that the Lakers are certain to win their next game, how should this translate in percentage terms?

Mickey Brausch

[/ QUOTE ]

It's something that'd take multiple variables to gauge accurately. Head to head, home record, blah blah.

Sometimes you watch them play their last two games, get a great feel for their form, and see an upcoming opponent who you know this form is capable of turning to mush.

Raptors in the East, 50+ wins, and I'm just guessing here. That's because I've followed their evolution since the birth of the franchise. And 'cause I'm from Toronto. How do you account for that variable?