St. Michael, Why Won't You Respond to This?

todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
St. Michael, Why Won't You Respond to This?

I've been posting and reposting these points for weeks, but St. Michael refuses to respond.

Now, some might ask why I don't just let it pass.

 

Because St. Michael is currently emailing me on a daily basis, demanding that I debate him on these issues.

 

Yet, the reality is that the debate has been here for weeks, and Mike refuses to even acknowledge it, let alone respond.

I maintain the obvious here: that the reason Michael doesn't respond is because he can't respond - he's already refuted himself here. There's nothing he can do but fall to more bizarre rationalizations (and have the board point this out to him yet again), or concede that he's conceded that faith is ungrounded assumption.

 

StMichael wrote:

Quote:
I've shown you that YOU define faith as unjustified assumption, but you're unable to follow the ramifications of your own claims.

I have not done so.

Yes, you have. Let's review:

A few examples:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/3674

"An Epistemological Account of Faith, by me. First, some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason without divine aid."

Your 'epistemological account' begins with an unjustifiable assumption. This is begging the question. You begin by holding that there is some 'truth' that cannot be known by natural reason WITHOUT DIVINE AID.

So you begin by assuming, from a conceded position of necessary ignorance the supernatural, and the existence of the divine! You give a bizarre argument below that 'faith does not enter the process until step 3", but this merely begs the question that steps 1 and 2 are not begging the question in the first place!

Pretty funny!

More:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/3809?page=2

Faith does not beg the question of God's existence. We assume God exists, yes, but it does not properly beg the question. Faith assumes God exists, but does not properly deal with the fact that He exists.

So, it doesn't beg the question, but it assumes?

You keep using that word. Perhaps it does not mean what you think it means?

More here:

- because it proceeds from Truth itself and hence cannot be untruthful.

A classic, textbook example of circular logic! You assume the existence of Truth itself - i.e a divine truth by begging the question of it's existence, and then use this begged 'truth' as a guarentee of its truthfulness! Unbelievable! And yet you still deny that this is begging the question?

Here's another example:

It is a type of knowledge, but as a type of knowledge it has a proper name: "faith." It is likewise not a rejection of epistemology, but an acknowledgement of proper epistemology that the human reason, acting on its own power, cannot discover certain truths. Thus, acting on a superior authority, we accept these precepts as true.

Again, you argue from ignorance that there is something specific beyond the limits of reason (again, all ignorance can really tell you is that you don't know) and then you beg the question of a particular 'truth' - a divine truth. In other words, your argument holds that since knowledge has limits, I will take from my ignorance that there is something beyond it that allows me to shore up the weakness of reason, through some divine power.

This is the same error as demonstrated in your first error above.

And it's just flat out embarrassing at this point.

Here a fifth example:

St. Michael wrote:

First, because it doesn't intend to prove anything, but is merely an outline of how faith proceeds.

Second, it assumes,

It doesn't set out to prove, it assumes.

QED

Quote:

and I quote, "some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason without divine aid."


This is necessary for faith to exist at all. Otherwise, there is no reason for faith to exist.



Here you not only concede that faith is begging the question, you concede that otherwise there is no reason for faith to exist.


Here's a sixth:

St. Michael wrote:
- because it proceeds from Truth itself and hence cannot be untruthful.


And here, yet again, you start out by assuming that there is some truth from a conceded limit of ignorance. All ignorance can actually tell you is that you don't know, but instead of accepting this rational reality, you go on to assume that there is some truth behind the ignorance, and that this truth guarentees the validity of any claim you make about it... this is all question begging.

Quote:
Colloquial usages of faith that equate faith with trust or probability have to do with experiences. These are natural processes. They therefore can have no relation to faith in the supernatural.

st. Mike wrote:

I see no reason why they cannot.

Because you yourself concede that reason has limits. Reason cannot be used in regards to the supernatural, as the supernatural is defined as beyond nature, ergo beyond natural processes like reason.

This is tautological.


Quote:
Faith does not require reasons, if it did, you couldn't hold belief in the supernatural at all.

Quote:

Absolutely and entirely false.

So you assert, yet again. However, the problem here is that this is a ramificaiton of your own claims, that follow, now:

Quote:

You keep claiming that I hold to a statement of unjustified belief in the following:

Quote:
"An Epistemological Account of Faith, by me. First, some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason without divine aid."

Quote:

This is not a statement of what faith holds. This is an ontological statement about REALITY ITSELF.

Right, we're talking metaphysics. And your 'ontology' starts out of the gate with an argument from ignorance an begging the question of god's existence.

You see, the limits of reason only tell us that reason is limited. It doesn't grant us an epistemological right to believe that there are things beyond reason, let alone a specific entity. Yet you beg the question of a particular truth: the existence of Truth, and of a Divine Aid that allows you access to Truth.

This is where you argue from ignorance, and beg the question of a god.

Your explication of theological 'faith' rests upon this 'ontology', ergo you have conceded that your faith begs the question.

QED

Quote:

What I said was that: A TRUTH EXISTS WHICH REASON CANNOT GRASP ALONE, not that faith assumes that such truth is true a priori.

But this is the assumption in question! A particular truth that a divine aid grants you! You begin by begging the question that a particular truth exists which is known through DIVINE AID, despite the fact that it can't be known by reason.

This is begging the question of 'god's exisetnce.

Q E D

Quote:

Put this in context with the rest of what I said:

An Epistemological Account of Faith, by me. First, some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason without divine aid. Second, God says, "Gee, it might be good if man knew this."

You've just highlighed yet again how you do in fact beg the question. You argue from ignorance for particular facts beyond reason, including a divine aid, which is god. You move from arguing from ignorance and begging the question of a divine aid, to actually speaking of this divine aid, 'god'.

QED Again.

Quote:

Faith, as this account clearly shows, presumes no such thing. In fact, faith does not actually begin to exist until the third point.

To say that is to again beg the question!

Please note how this sums up all your 'arguments'... you assert something, thinking it makes a distinction, but it ends up a distinction without any difference.

Here's your problem: you are talking about the grounds for your faith in 1 and 2. So it is begging the question itself to assume that faith begins at step 3, because this would lead to assuming that steps 1 and 2 are 'simply true'!

The reality is that your account of faith begins with step 1 with your ontology! Faith simply assumes that steps 1 and 2 occur, by arguing from ignorance and begging the question!

So your attempt to run away from the problem in this way is just bizarre. But that's precisely how all your arguments go: you begin by begging the question, or special pleading, or arguing from ignorance. Then, when you're nailed on this, you either re-assert what has already been refuted, or you naysay the conclusion of the argument before you (while ignoring the premises) or you run to some sematic game that in no way actually changes the situation in the slightest.

It is therefore very tiring to bother with your arguments, but seeing as you continue to lie in email about me 'running from your arguments' I was forced to respond.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
bump

bump


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
bump.   Odd that you'd

bump.

 

Odd that you'd waste my time in another thread, with your basic inability to even read an argument correctly, and not post here when you've been asking for a 'debate' in email. 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
StRepetitive reminds me

StRepetitive reminds me of... oh... what was that dude's name...

Dmitri something...

 His way to "win" arguments was to redefine words, subtly at first, then blatantly when cornered.  If "begging the question" only means begging the question when it means it, then when it doesn't mean it, it's not begging the question, and since I'm not begging the question, it doesn't mean begging the question...

I've long since given up arguing with StMichael, for exactly the same reasons I gave up on Dmitri.  He's either too deluded to see what he's doing or too dishonest to admit his mistake.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

StRepetitive reminds me of... oh... what was that dude's name...

Dmitri something...

Thanks for making this observation. He asserts, and then reasserts, even when the original assertion is refuted.

 

What's worse, half of the time he hasn't even read what he's responding to properly! Take a look at my 'god the iron worker' page, and look at his posts.... he continually gets my argument wrong, - then after about 25 corrections, he says "oh, this is an argument"!

Meanwhile I had only repeated the argument for him 25 times by then!

Quote:

 His way to "win" arguments was to redefine words, subtly at first, then blatantly when cornered. If "begging the question" only means begging the question when it means it, then when it doesn't mean it, it's not begging the question, and since I'm not begging the question, it doesn't mean begging the question...

Precisely. He also loves to make distinctions without a difference. Supernatural is not "non natural, it's ABOVE NATURE. He even puts his assertions in all caps like that.

When you ask him how it differs, how 'above nature' is not 'not nature', he remains silent.  And he must - because either he steals from naturalism and refutese himself, or he is forced to concede that there is no difference.

 

Quote:

 I've long since given up arguing with StMichael, for exactly the same reasons I gave up on Dmitri. He's either too deluded to see what he's doing or too dishonest to admit his mistake.

 

 

Yes. I have made the same decision, but he keeps polluting my 'god the iron worker' thread, and now he keeps emailing me to demand a debate!

Which is pretty ironic, considering that there's one right here......   

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I followed that iron worker

I followed that iron worker thread with great interest.  I'm the first to admit that I had to stop reading all of StMichael's posts.  I got so tired of reading the same thing over and over that I just stopped reading his rebuttals.  Unlike Mike, though, I had the internal fortitude to stop responding when I didn't want to read any more.

Ever had a girl call you fifteen times in a day?  That's a sign of something, isn't it?

 What is that word, now...

seems like I've called people this word before...

when they just won't stop pestering you even when you've told them to stop calling...

and they are just SURE that if you just listen to them one more time, you'll get back together with them...

...

What is that word again?

 

Oh, yeah.

DESPERATE.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
tick tock, tick tock,

tick tock, tick tock, Michael

 

 


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
I was going to say, "This

I was going to say, "This ought to be good," but you know what?  If St.Michael does respond it will be more of the same.  The same post I've read about a hundred times.

hambydammit, I had to stop reading St.Michael, too.  His posts are huge, but contain no content...kinda like...what's that word I'm looking for?  His posts are like "fiber."  There's a lot of content, no vitamins to speak of, but it keeps the mail flowing.  It's just most of us have stopped reading the mail and skipped on down to the loo (Wow, talk about a mixed metaphor--or three!) :D 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Iruka Naminori wrote: I

Iruka Naminori wrote:

I was going to say, "This ought to be good," but you know what? If St.Michael does respond it will be more of the same.

Of course. Which makes a mockery of his claim that I've failed to respond to his posts.

Quote:
 

The same post I've read about a hundred times.

Yes.

Quote:
 

hambydammit, I had to stop reading St.Michael, too. His posts are huge, but contain no content...kinda like...what's that word I'm looking for? His posts are like "fiber." There's a lot of content, no vitamins to speak of, but it keeps the mail flowing. It's just most of us have stopped reading the mail and skipped on down to the loo (Wow, talk about a mixed metaphor--or three!) Laughing out loud

PRECISELY. His posts are nothing more than long winded naked assertions. 

By the way, he emailed me three times demanding that I respond to him.

Well, where is he?

Let's go, Mike. 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
I can always attempt to

I can always attempt to defend his positions. Smiling


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote: I can

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
I can always attempt to defend his positions. Smiling

 What assylum are you typing from?

 

Seriously, this guy wrote me 3 emails today demanding that I respond to his points.  Well, here we are Mike.  Tick tock, tick tock. You've come online and written me 3 emails, and you've wasted my time getting my 'god the iron worker' argument dead wrong, so you've had the time....

So you must be missing something else... 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
The assylum in Western

The assylum in Western Chersterville. They didn't believe me when I told them I'd been framed by Heinsburgs Uncertainity Principal (sp?). Blast it all.

I'm not saying I would be able to defend his positions for very long, just attempt.

As for him not responding to this post.. perhaps he's just given up and perhaps perceives an futility of trying to convince someone of something when there is no want.

Just a thought,

Rhad.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:The

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

The assylum in Western Chersterville.

How's the weather there?

 

Quote:
They didn't believe me when I told them I'd been framed by Heinsburgs Uncertainity Principal (sp?). Blast it all.

Unless you are claiming that the head of his grammar school was uncertain, I'm guessing that you intend to say "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. "

Quote:

I'm not saying I would be able to defend his positions for very long, just attempt.

Thanks for the offer, I shall wait for Michael's failure to appear instead.

Quote:

As for him not responding to this post.. perhaps he's just given up and perhaps perceives an futility of trying to convince someone of something when there is no want.

Just a thought,

Rhad.

Not a well considered one, unfortunately. More of a self gratifying, biased way of skewing things, I'd say.

The sole futility expressed in our exchanges in Michael's inability to avoid refuting himself. Take a look.

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1210
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
I think St. Michael's

I think St. Michael's preferred tactic is the method of exhaustion - just keep debating with whatever casuistry the moment allows, and eventually your opponents will give up in frustration, allowing you to consider yourself victor.  Some people like todangst have the energy to stay with him, and actually call him on his fallacies. 

 I would actually say his argumentation has improved of late.  He makes a lot more sense when he doesn't post anything at all.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote: I

zarathustra wrote:

I would actually say his argumentation has improved of late. He makes a lot more sense when he doesn't post anything at all.

ROTF

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
That was cruel.

That was cruel. Sticking out tongue


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
American Atheist

American Atheist wrote:
That was cruel. :p

 

It's not even cruel in a joking sense.... the guy has it coming.... 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10540
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I actually got him to bow

I actually got him to bow out of an argument, though as of logging in today I find he's restarted it on the same bs as he was running with before. Funny how he thinks a paper on a wall with letters that I can't read is evidence of a miracle. Laughing out loud

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: I actually

Vastet wrote:
I actually got him to bow out of an argument, though as of logging in today I find he's restarted it on the same bs as he was running with before.

That's him in a nutshell

 


Hey Mike, you emailed me three times to get a debate going.... I've been challenging you on these points for quite some time now, so you'd think that if you were so eager to debate, you'd answer.

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
When will he respond? The

When will he respond? The suspense is unbearable.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
MrRage wrote:When will he

MrRage wrote:
When will he respond? The suspense is unbearable.

 

Again, he wrote 3 emails demanding a debate. He also had the audacity to assert "faith is not unjustified belief' and the sheer gall to lie that I have not argued my point (!)  in another thread, while this one was up.

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/freethinking_anonymous/4481?page=2

 

I call that gutless and dishonest.

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
This is utterly dishonest.

This is utterly dishonest. You are just talking about me behind my back. Only just recently has todangst told me this thread even existed.

On the topic of what I am arguing, I have responded to todangsts questions, these here and others, throughout other forums. He just keeps posting the exact same posts irregardless of my answers, here and elsewhere. It is getting old. If you want to debate or argue, you need to engage your opponent, not hide in a corner.

Quote:
His way to "win" arguments was to redefine words, subtly at first, then blatantly when cornered. If "begging the question" only means begging the question when it means it, then when it doesn't mean it, it's not begging the question, and since I'm not begging the question, it doesn't mean begging the question...

I do not redefine words when it suits me. I clarify the senses with which we use them. If you ignore that a "can" can be either a toilet or a can of preserves, you are far worse off than I am.

Quote:
He's either too deluded to see what he's doing or too dishonest to admit his mistake.

Answer my rebuttals, or don't call me dishonest. If you just ignore what I say and claim I am deluded, that is an ad hominem attack and cannot be claimed rational. I have consistently responded to your and other people's questions and posts. What I have gotten in response is dismissal because I am "deluded" and "irrational." Who is the irrational one, when my posts are merely written off? If you can't answer them, you are the one who needs to evaluate your positions, not me.

Quote:
I maintain the obvious here: that the reason Michael doesn't respond is because he can't respond - he's already refuted himself here. There's nothing he can do but fall to more bizarre rationalizations (and have the board point this out to him yet again), or concede that he's conceded that faith is ungrounded assumption.

You still have not shown why faith is an ungrounded assumption. You can't even do that, regardless, because faith is MY term. If you just define it according to your preconcieved notions, it is not valid. I am the one who possesses faith, and I am the one who gets to define my position. If you want to claim MY faith is irrational, you must use MY defintion of what faith is, otherwise you are arguing with no one.

Quote:

"An Epistemological Account of Faith, by me. First, some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason without divine aid."

Your 'epistemological account' begins with an unjustifiable assumption. This is begging the question. You begin by holding that there is some 'truth' that cannot be known by natural reason WITHOUT DIVINE AID.


It is not unjustified and it is not an assumption of faith. It does not prove that faith is unjustified at all. Further, faith assumes this, because we already can know it through natural reason, We don't need faith to know that God exists. Grace presupposes nature. We know by nature that God exists, and faith presupposes this when it reveals some truth.

Quote:
So you begin by assuming, from a conceded position of necessary ignorance the supernatural, and the existence of the divine! You give a bizarre argument below that 'faith does not enter the process until step 3", but this merely begs the question that steps 1 and 2 are not begging the question in the first place!

1 and 2 are not begging the question because they do not enter into faith. Then what you are arguing is that my outline is unjustified in parts 1 and 2 and not that faith itself is unjustified.

Quote:

Faith does not beg the question of God's existence. We assume God exists, yes, but it does not properly beg the question. Faith assumes God exists, but does not properly deal with the fact that He exists.

So, it doesn't beg the question, but it assumes?


It does not beg the question. Begging the question is when you assume what you prove. You, for example, in your argument that I am "begging the question" assume that the term "begging the question" is a logical fallacy. You would say, "But it is and can be shown so." And, likewise, your argument does not intend to show that begging the question is a logical fallacy. This is the same with faith. Faith assumes something it does not prove. It builds on what is known naturally. This is what I mean when I say it assumes the existence of God but does not beg the question.

Quote:

- because it proceeds from Truth itself and hence cannot be untruthful.

A classic, textbook example of circular logic! You assume the existence of Truth itself - i.e a divine truth by begging the question of it's existence, and then use this begged 'truth' as a guarentee of its truthfulness! Unbelievable! And yet you still deny that this is begging the question?


I do not beg the question. Faith itself is not proving that this truth exists, but assumes it. And it assumes it from what we know naturally. We can know naturally that truth exists and that God exists. We don't need faith, and faith assumes this when it reveals something further about God.
Reason is "that" God; Faith is "about" God.

Quote:

Here's another example:

It is a type of knowledge, but as a type of knowledge it has a proper name: "faith." It is likewise not a rejection of epistemology, but an acknowledgement of proper epistemology that the human reason, acting on its own power, cannot discover certain truths. Thus, acting on a superior authority, we accept these precepts as true.

Again, you argue from ignorance that there is something specific beyond the limits of reason (again, all ignorance can really tell you is that you don't know) and then you beg the question of a particular 'truth' - a divine truth. In other words, your argument holds that since knowledge has limits, I will take from my ignorance that there is something beyond it that allows me to shore up the weakness of reason, through some divine power.


No, that is not my argument. Strawman much? My argument is that human reason knows that God exists and that something could be said about His essence, but knows that it cannot know that. It likewise knows that the only way it can attain this knowledge of what God is is if God reveals it. Hence, it awaits faith to reveal that further "what" about God.

Quote:

Here a fifth example:

St. Michael wrote:

First, because it doesn't intend to prove anything, but is merely an outline of how faith proceeds.

Second, it assumes,

It doesn't set out to prove, it assumes.

QED


Good thing to quote out of context. Who here is being dishonest?
My claim is that faith proves something different from what it assumes. It assumes something already known, just like you assume that your argument could be true. It is not an unjustified assumption. That is the key issue.

Quote:

and I quote, "some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason without divine aid."

This is necessary for faith to exist at all. Otherwise, there is no reason for faith to exist.

Here you not only concede that faith is begging the question, you concede that otherwise there is no reason for faith to exist.


You are just being dishonest. Read my posts. This assumption of faith is not unjustified. It assumes something already known by reason. That is not an unjustified assumption, any more than assuming that your arguments can be true invalidates your arguments.

Quote:

Here's a sixth:

St. Michael wrote:
because it proceeds from Truth itself and hence cannot be untruthful.

And here, yet again, you start out by assuming that there is some truth from a conceded limit of ignorance. All ignorance can actually tell you is that you don't know, but instead of accepting this rational reality, you go on to assume that there is some truth behind the ignorance, and that this truth guarentees the validity of any claim you make about it... this is all question begging.


It is not just from ignorance. I never just said, "We don't know some things" hence, "We must know them through faith." No, I said clearly, as above, that we cannot know what God is in Himself, but we likewise know that we can know this, and that the only way we can is if God reveals it. This is all natural knowledge, not revealed knowledge.

Quote:

Colloquial usages of faith that equate faith with trust or probability have to do with experiences. These are natural processes. They therefore can have no relation to faith in the supernatural.

st. Mike wrote:
I see no reason why they cannot.

Because you yourself concede that reason has limits. Reason cannot be used in regards to the supernatural, as the supernatural is defined as beyond nature, ergo beyond natural processes like reason.
This is tautological.


It is not tautological. I concede that reason has limits, but knowledge that God exists is not one of them. You merely assume that supernatural means "beyond reason," which is unjustified. Supernatural is above nature as its cause. It thus DOES have a relationship to nature. Using this relationship, things can be said about God. It is not the absolute antithesis of nature.

Quote:

Right, we're talking metaphysics. And your 'ontology' starts out of the gate with an argument from ignorance an begging the question of god's existence.

No, it does not. It is not an argument from ignorance. We can know from natural reason that God exists. I have the five proofs posted on my blog. This is the ground of the ontology of faith, which is from natural reason. We already know what faith assumes we know.

Quote:
You see, the limits of reason only tell us that reason is limited. It doesn't grant us an epistemological right to believe that there are things beyond reason, let alone a specific entity.

I never claim the bare fact that we cannot know certain things means that they exist. And God's existence is not in that realm. God's existence can be positively proven; it is not an argument negatively from ignorance at all. We know things exist and we know that dependent beings must have a cause. Hence, there is some first cause that is necessary of itself: God. This is what reason knows.

Quote:
Quote:
What I said was that: A TRUTH EXISTS WHICH REASON CANNOT GRASP ALONE, not that faith assumes that such truth is true a priori.

But this is the assumption in question! A particular truth that a divine aid grants you! You begin by begging the question that a particular truth exists which is known through DIVINE AID, despite the fact that it can't be known by reason.

This is begging the question of 'god's exisetnce.

Q E D

It does not beg the question if God's existence is justified by reason.

Quote:

Here's your problem: you are talking about the grounds for your faith in 1 and 2. So it is begging the question itself to assume that faith begins at step 3, because this would lead to assuming that steps 1 and 2 are 'simply true'!

The reality is that your account of faith begins with step 1 with your ontology! Faith simply assumes that steps 1 and 2 occur, by arguing from ignorance and begging the question!


But faith does not assume them unjustifiedly. We KNOW step 1 naturally. Step 2 is God's action and does not apply in this context at all. Faith assumes that some truth exists beyond natural reason, because natural reason can know that with certainty.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
The proof is in the

The proof is in the pudding.  Same replies, no answers, and a new way to say "redefining words to fit the argument."

And "irregardless" isn't a word.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: I am the

StMichael wrote:
I am the one who possesses faith, and I am the one who gets to define my position. If you want to claim MY faith is irrational, you must use MY defintion of what faith is, otherwise you are arguing with no one.

Hmmm...maybe we really are arguing with no one. <insert eery music of choice> 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10540
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I know Todangst will rip

I know Todangst will rip this apart, but I might beat him to it. Smiling

StMichael wrote:
This is utterly dishonest. You are just talking about me behind my back. Only just recently has todangst told me this thread even existed.

The topic has been in plain view for awhile now. Maybe you need a bit of help with site navigation. Use this link to see all the new topics and old topics with new responses(most forums have a similar tool):
http://www.rationalresponders.com/tracker

StMichael wrote:
On the topic of what I am arguing, I have responded to todangsts questions, these here and others, throughout other forums. He just keeps posting the exact same posts irregardless of my answers, here and elsewhere.

Responding to a question isn't answering a question. There's a significant difference. One you seem to have missed somehow.

StMichael wrote:
It is getting old. If you want to debate or argue, you need to engage your opponent, not hide in a corner.

I agree. So why do you keep hiding?

StMichael wrote:

Quote:
His way to "win" arguments was to redefine words, subtly at first, then blatantly when cornered. If "begging the question" only means begging the question when it means it, then when it doesn't mean it, it's not begging the question, and since I'm not begging the question, it doesn't mean begging the question...

I do not redefine words when it suits me. I clarify the senses with which we use them. If you ignore that a "can" can be either a toilet or a can of preserves, you are far worse off than I am.

You do in fact redefine words. You've redefined both truth and knowledge in one of our earlier conversations.

StMichael wrote:
Quote:
He's either too deluded to see what he's doing or too dishonest to admit his mistake.

Answer my rebuttals, or don't call me dishonest.

Post a rebuttal for him to answer first, or don't claim you aren't dishonest.

StMichael wrote:
If you just ignore what I say and claim I am deluded, that is an ad hominem attack and cannot be claimed rational.

Unless it also happens to be true. And it is.

StMichael wrote:
I have consistently responded to your and other people's questions and posts. What I have gotten in response is dismissal because I am "deluded" and "irrational."

Because you've never posted any evidence. And you have posted more fallacies than most other people I've encountered on this site.

StMichael wrote:
Who is the irrational one, when my posts are merely written off? If you can't answer them, you are the one who needs to evaluate your positions, not me.

When your posts don't refute anything, your posts are valueless. And just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it isn't a valid one.

StMichael wrote:
You still have not shown why faith is an ungrounded assumption.

Yes, he has. Multiple times. So have I. So has Sapient. So have dozens of people. You haven't proved any of us wrong in any way.

StMichael wrote:
You can't even do that, regardless, because faith is MY term.

More redefining of terms perhaps?

StMichael wrote:
If you just define it according to your preconcieved notions, it is not valid.

I define words according to the dictionary. Which is the only rational way to define a word unless you just made it up. I haven't noticed you using words you made up, so that loophole doesn't apply to you.

StMichael wrote:
I am the one who possesses faith, and I am the one who gets to define my position.

No. You let the church define your position. How many times have you said the church is the ultimate authority on scripture? By letting the church define your position, you allow us to attack your words as if you were the church. Which is remarkably easy.

StMichael wrote:
If you want to claim MY faith is irrational, you must use MY defintion of what faith is, otherwise you are arguing with no one.

More redefining of terms. Faith is faith. Whether you like it or not. If the real definition doesn't apply, use a different word, or make up one and define it for us to apply to you. You can't hijack any word for your own purposes. This is the height of arrogance and irrationality.

StMichael wrote:

It is not unjustified and it is not an assumption of faith. It does not prove that faith is unjustified at all. Further, faith assumes this, because we already can know it through natural reason, We don't need faith to know that God exists. Grace presupposes nature. We know by nature that God exists, and faith presupposes this when it reveals some truth.

Here's more dodging. You didn't show a single reason why his claims are invalid. You go off on a tangent that does nothing to help you.

StMichael wrote:

1 and 2 are not begging the question because they do not enter into faith. Then what you are arguing is that my outline is unjustified in parts 1 and 2 and not that faith itself is unjustified.

At this point I'll leave the rest to Todangst, since he can do a better job than I of justifying his remarks, and I haven't seen any indication of a change of policy from you.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:This is

StMichael wrote:
This is utterly dishonest. You are just talking about me behind my back.

Behind your back? I emailed you earlier today, in response to your email asking for a debate.

One of the emails:

Your refusal to respond to this:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/4640

has led to an entire new thread dedicated to dealing with the fact that you are doding this refutation of your claims about faith.

You've run from these points for weeks, we've had enough.

An earlier email:

"still waiting for you mike:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/4640

These arguments have been there for weeks.

So the truth is: you're the one who is running.

Let's go..."

  You also posted on the site several times while this thread was up.

So where have you been, Mike? Trying to figure out a way to re-assert the same internal contradictions in a new way?

Quote:
Only just recently has todangst told me this thread even existed.

That's simply not true. Here's why:

This thread is dedicated to an argument you said you'd reply to in another thread:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/freethinking_anonymous/4383

So it's days old. And the argument itself, is weeks old.

So these points have been around, with your awareness of them....

Quote:
On the topic of what I am arguing, I have responded to todangsts questions, these here and others, throughout other forums.

No, you have failed to respond. Which is why we are here. You just reassert what has already been refuted, and you ignore my argument.

Quote:
He just keeps posting the exact same posts irregardless of my answers,

Perhaps that's because you never deal with the argument? I repeat the refutations that you do not deal with.

Quote:

here and elsewhere. It is getting old. If you want to debate or argue, you need to engage your opponent, not hide in a corner.

You call this thread hiding in a corner?

Are you really this crazy?

Now, lets look at your 'argument:

todangst wrote:
"An Epistemological Account of Faith, by me. First, some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason without divine aid." Your 'epistemological account' begins with an unjustifiable assumption. This is begging the question. You begin by holding that there is some 'truth' that cannot be known by natural reason WITHOUT DIVINE AID.

st. michael wrote:

It is not unjustified and it is not an assumption of faith.

So you asssert, yet again. More childish naysaying. Deal with the argument. My argument demonstrates that you being by begging the quesiton. Deal with what I have written above.

Quote:

Further, faith assumes this, because we already can know it through natural reason

First, the idea that you've proven god deductively is nonsense.

Even if you have arguments for a first cause that you  hold to be true, you have to beg the question that this 'cause' is the christian god of catholicism. So you're begging the question here, leaving aside the fact that your wrong about having an argument for god in the first place. (Have you ignored the last 3 centuries of philosophy?) 

Second, your own argument for faith concedes that natural reason cannot know god's nature:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/3674

"An Epistemological Account of Faith, by me. First, some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason without divine aid."

Your 'epistemological account' begins with an unjustifiable assumption. This is begging the question. You begin by holding that there is some 'truth' that cannot be known by natural reason WITHOUT DIVINE AID. You then rely on this BEGGED Divine Aid as justication for your faith!

So you begin by assuming, from a conceded position of necessary ignorance the supernatural, and the existence of the divine! You give a bizarre argument below that 'faith does not enter the process until step 3", but this merely begs the question that steps 1 and 2 are not begging the question in the first place!

So you are avoiding the actual argument before you, as you always do.

Quote:
1 and 2 are not begging the question because they do not enter into faith.

Again, first of all, these statements are circular, no matter where you place them in your mind. So that's that.

Next, everyone take note: I have already dealt with this. If you argue that they 'do not enter into faith' then you are begging the question that they are simply 'true', prior to 'using faith.'

So the statements beg the question, and then you beg the question again that they are simply true, prior to faith.


So wherever you 'place it' in your 'view of faith, it leads to a circular logic fallacy.

And this entire argument is ridiculous anyway... whether you call these stages a basic ontology, or part of faith, they are circular, and your 'faith' relies on them.

So stop this silly dodge. It fails.

St Michael wrote:
Faith does not beg the question of God's existence. We assume God exists, yes, but it does not properly beg the question. Faith assumes God exists, but does not properly deal with the fact that He exists.

todangst wrote:

So, it doesn't beg the question, but it assumes?

Quote:

It does not beg the question. Begging the question is when you assume what you prove.

Michael, circular logic occurs whenever you rely on a conclusion as a premise. Leave aside whether you seek to 'prove' 'god' exists, the fact is, you rely on the begged existence of a divine aid, in order to make claims that what follows from 'your faith' is true... this makes your argument circular. It's so classically circular that your denials bring your intelligence into question.

You start out assuming that there is a DIVINE AID which guarentees truth, despite the fact that reason cannot tell you this, and then you rely on this Begged Divine Truth to justify further 'faith' based claims.

That is your circular logic fallacy.

The fact that you think you've proven god deductively is both nonsense, and irrelevant - you yourself concede that your arguments can only take you so far, that they can't give you knowldege concerning 'god' 'himself',

Quote:

Reason is "that" God; Faith is "about" God.

Ergo even in your delusional world where you think you've demonstrated a necessary being, you're still begging the existence of a Divine Aid.

Notice how even taking your claim for an argument as valid, your argument still fails.

Now consider the fact that your supposed proofs for a god are ridiculously false.

Quote:

You, for example, in your argument that I am "begging the question" assume that the term "begging the question" is a logical fallacy.

I don't simply assume begging the question is a logical fallacy. If I simply assumed it, I wouldn't have reasons for holding that it is a logical fallacy.

Instead, I have a rational grounds for holding this to be so. It's the basis for logic itself. Logical arguments exist to demonstrate a proposition. Nothing is demonstrated by merely asserting a conclusion as a premise. This is why begging the question, or circular logic, is an informal logical fallacy.

Quote:

You would say, "But it is and can be shown so." And, likewise, your argument does not intend to show that begging the question is a logical fallacy. This is the same with faith. Faith assumes something it does not prove.

Faith assumes, without any grounds, that there is a Divine Aid beyond reason itself, and then, in turn, relies on this begged assumption as the grounds for faith being "true". This is circular logic. Whether or not 'faith' intends to 'prove "god' exists in your delusional mind is moot, the argument remains circular, because it assumes a Divine Aid, and then relies on this assumed Divine Aid for faith being true.

This is a fucking circle, can you catch a clue?

So even if we take your argument at its word, your explication of faith remains circular. And of course, the idea that you've proven god is preposterous.

Quote:

It builds on what is known naturally.

No, it does not. In fact, you yourself say that it does not:

Again:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/3674

"An Epistemological Account of Faith, by me. First[b], some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason [b]without divine aid."

Your 'epistemological account' begins with an unjustifiable assumption. You begin by holding that there is some 'truth' that cannot be known by natural reason WITHOUT DIVINE AID. You then rely on this Begged Divine Aid to guarentee the truth of this claim.

You are begging the question by doing this.

This is circular.

Whether or not you think you've already 'proven' a necessary being is moot here. And of course, you haven't.

Quote:
St. Michael: because it proceeds from Truth itself and hence cannot be untruthful.

Todangst: A classic, textbook example of circular logic! You assume the existence of Truth itself - i.e a divine truth by begging the question of it's existence, and then use this begged 'truth' as a guarentee of its truthfulness! Unbelievable! And yet you still deny that this is begging the question?

Quote:

I do not beg the question. Faith itself is not proving that this truth exists, but assumes it.

Ah, this is your error again.

The assumption is where it begs the question! Regardless of the motivation for the assumption.

Of course faith proves nothing, it merely asumes. And then it goes on to use this assumption as the grounds for faith being 'true'... It assumes a Divine Aid, without any grounds, and the relies on this begged question as the justification that faith is true.

Begs. The. Question.

Was this really your grounds for denying that you were begging the question? If so, you're really being silly, Mike.

Quote:
. Reason is "that" God; Faith is "about" God.

If 'faith' is 'about god' - i.e. god's 'character', then it must make assumptions without justification. Whether or not 'reason' got you to that there is a god, would be moot, as it would be an unjustified leap from 'a god' to 'god's nature'.

You've even agreed to this, in principle:

Quote:

Reason is "that" God; Faith is "about" God.

...but you prove unable to follow the ramifications of your own assertions.

And again, the idea that you have proofs is absurd.

Quote:

Here's another example: It is a type of knowledge, but as a type of knowledge it has a proper name: "faith." It is likewise not a rejection of epistemology, but an acknowledgement of proper epistemology that the human reason, acting on its own power, cannot discover certain truths. Thus, acting on a superior authority, we accept these precepts as true.

Again, you argue from ignorance that there is something specific beyond the limits of reason (again, all ignorance can really tell you is that you don't know) and then you beg the question of a particular 'truth' - a divine truth. In other words, your argument holds that since knowledge has limits, I will take from my ignorance that there is something beyond it that allows me to shore up the weakness of reason, through some divine power.

Quote:

No, that is not my argument. Strawman much?

Actually, it is your argument. Can't follow the ramifications of your arguments much?

You hold that reason cannot know certain things, and then go on to assume that there is a superior power - a Divine Aid.

You just lack the ability to follow along.

Here, let me help:

This is the same as your first precept.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/3674

"An Epistemological Account of Faith, by me. First[b], some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason [b]without divine aid."

Begs. The. Question.

Quote:

My argument is that human reason knows that God exists

and that something could be said about His essence, but knows that it cannot know that. It likewise knows that the only way it can attain this knowledge of what God is is if God reveals it. Hence, it awaits faith to reveal that further "what" about God.

Hence this begs the question, because 1) even if reason could demonstrate a first cause, this does not demonstrate that it is a Divine Aid, even according to YOU

Quote:

Reason is "that" God; Faith is "about" God.

and 2) so you're still begging the question of a Divine Aid, that you can't know, is somehow magically providing you with knowledge, and then relying on this begged question to justify the whole process as true.

Whether or not reason could hold that there was a first cause would not demonstrate that there was a Divine Aid. So you're equating your 'necessary being' with a Divine Aid, and that's unjustified even according to your own argument...

Quote:

Reason is "that" God; Faith is "about" God.

And again, the idea that you have an argument for a necessary being is ridiculous. What you really have is an inability to see the errors in your arguments. What you have is bad cosmology and bad philosophy.

Quote:
Here a fifth example: St. Michael wrote: First, because it doesn't intend to prove anything, but is merely an outline of how faith proceeds. Second, it assumes, It doesn't set out to prove, it assumes. QED

Quote:

Good thing to quote out of context. Who here is being dishonest?

You, of course. I quote a part of a post at a time, if you think you have some magic context that will save you, post it. Don't whine like a bitch, and then basically do NOTHING to support your whining... Pay heed how nothing changes, and how this demonstrates your own dishonesty.

Quote:

My claim is that faith proves something different from what it assumes.

Sigh. And notice how I've been dealing with this all along, you monstrous liar. You're still begging the question of a Divine Aid, Mike, no matter how you seek to rationalize it.

Quote:

It assumes something already known, just like you assume that your argument could be true.

If it is already known, then there is no need for an assumption.

But your arguments can't get you a Divine Aid, Mike. You yourself have to start out by just begging the question of it's "Divine Aid" nature, and then rely on this begged Divine Aid's nature as your grounds for your claim being true!

That's circular logic.

"An Epistemological Account of Faith, by me. First[b], some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason [b]without divine aid."

Quote:

It is not an unjustified assumption.

It IS an unjustified assumption. You say so:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/3674

"An Epistemological Account of Faith, by me. First[b], some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason [b]without divine aid."
Quote:
and I quote, "some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason without divine aid." This is necessary for faith to exist at all. Otherwise, there is no reason for faith to exist.

 

Here you not only concede that faith is begging the question, you concede that otherwise there is no reason for faith to exist.

Quote:

You are just being dishonest.

No, what I am doing is showing you the ramifications of your own words, and you're unable to follow.

You are conceding that the very point of faith is that it is contra -reason, it exists as an assumption, an assumption of something that cannot be demonstrated by reason.

And that's begging the question.

Quote:
Here's a sixth: St. Michael wrote: because it proceeds from Truth itself and hence cannot be untruthful.

And here, yet again, you start out by assuming that there is some truth from a conceded limit of ignorance. All ignorance can actually tell you is that you don't know, but instead of accepting this rational reality, you go on to assume that there is some truth behind the ignorance, and that this truth guarentees the validity of any claim you make about it... this is all question begging.

Quote:

It is not just from ignorance.

It is from ignorance according to you:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/3674

"An Epistemological Account of Faith, by me. First[b], some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason [b]without divine aid."

Your 'epistemological account' begins with an unjustifiable assumption. You begin by holding that there is some 'truth' that cannot be known by natural reason WITHOUT DIVINE AID.

This is begging the question.

Quote:

I never just said, "We don't know some things" hence, "We must know them through faith."

That's my paraphrase of your illogical process.

Quote:
No, I said clearly, as above, that we cannot know what God is in Himself, but we likewise know that we can know this, and that the only way we can is if God reveals it.

Which of course, you can't know. You have to beg the question of a Divine Aid, and then rely on this begged assumption as the grounds for "knowing it'

This is precisely where you do in fact commit the error I have just described.

Quote:
Colloquial usages of faith that equate faith with trust or probability have to do with experiences. These are natural processes. They therefore can have no relation to faith in the supernatural.

st. Mike wrote: I see no reason why they cannot.

Because you yourself concede that reason has limits. Reason cannot be used in regards to the supernatural, as the supernatural is defined as beyond nature, ergo beyond natural processes like reason. This is tautological.

Quote:

It is not tautological.

Except that it is. The supernatural is defined 'above' nature, ergo no natural process can grasp it, as no natural process can go 'above' nature.

Quote:
. You merely assume that supernatural means "beyond reason," which is unjustified. Supernatural is above nature

No, I don't merely assume it, it's definitional. Supernatural is not natural.

Again, I've asked you to show how 'above' differs from 'not natural'.

Quote:
Right, we're talking metaphysics. And your 'ontology' starts out of the gate with an argument from ignorance an begging the question of god's existence.

Quote:

No, it does not.

Yes, it does.

"An Epistemological Account of Faith, by me. First[b], some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason [b]without divine aid."

Your 'epistemological account' begins with an unjustifiable assumption. This is begging the question. You begin by holding that there is some 'truth' that cannot be known by natural reason WITHOUT DIVINE AID.

Quote:

It is not an argument from ignorance. We can know from natural reason that God exists. I have the five proofs posted on my blog.

That's cute. Did you just cut and paste Aquinas' five ways?

It's moot, however, as those arguments don't get you to a Divine Aid, those arguments cannot get you to 'god's' nature even according to your warped sense of reality ...

Quote:

Reason is "that" God; Faith is "about" God.

And of course, your claim that reason gets you to 'god' is false, even according to your own argument, you can only get to a first cause (and again, you're arguments are wrong), and you have to beg the question that the cause is a god, let alone the christian god.

You must beg the question there, even if you believe you have a reason to believe in a necessary first cause.

So even your 'reason' begs the question!

Pretty funny.

Quote:
You see, the limits of reason only tell us that reason is limited. It doesn't grant us an epistemological right to believe that there are things beyond reason, let alone a specific entity.

Quote:

I never claim the bare fact that we cannot know certain things means that they exist.

How many times must I repost this?

"An Epistemological Account of Faith, by me. First[b], some truth exists which [b]cannot be known by natural human reason without divine aid."

Your 'epistemological account' begins with an unjustifiable assumption. You begin by holding that there is some 'truth' that cannot be known by natural reason WITHOUT DIVINE AID.

Quote:

And God's existence is not in that realm.

Do you ever stop to realize how often you assert things like this?

Quote:

God's existence can be positively proven; it is not an argument negatively from ignorance at all.

If you have reasons, you don't need faith, Mike.

Quote:

We know things exist and we know that dependent beings must have a cause. Hence, there is some first cause that is necessary of itself: God.

The argument for a necessary cause commits several errors Mike. It's based on false assumptions right from the start. In the end, it's just bad cosmology. You need to read something modern in cosmology.

But for our purposes, I'll just say: it's a non sequitur, a leap of faith, to go from 'first cause' to 'god' or "Divine Aid'

So even within your own arguments, you're wrong.

Quote:

This is what reason knows.

Your reasoning doesn't demonstrate a god, mike, it demonstrates your lack of knowledge of cosmology.

Quote:
Quote: What I said was that: A TRUTH EXISTS WHICH REASON CANNOT GRASP ALONE, not that faith assumes that such truth is true a priori.

But this is the assumption in question! A particular truth that a divine aid grants you! You begin by begging the question that a particular truth exists which is known through DIVINE AID, despite the fact that it can't be known by reason. This is begging the question of 'god's exisetnce. Q E D

Quote:

It does not beg the question if God's existence is justified by reason.

Actually, your claim begs the question of a Divine Aid, and then goes on to use this begged assumption as the reason why its true:

"An Epistemological Account of Faith, by me. First[b], some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason [b]without divine aid."

 

Quote:
Here's your problem: you are talking about the grounds for your faith in 1 and 2. So it is begging the question itself to assume that faith begins at step 3, because this would lead to assuming that steps 1 and 2 are 'simply true'! The reality is that your account of faith begins with step 1 with your ontology! Faith simply assumes that steps 1 and 2 occur, by arguing from ignorance and begging the question!

Quote:

But faith does not assume them unjustifiedly. We KNOW step 1 naturally.

No, you don't.

Again, read it again, for the first time:

"An Epistemological Account of Faith, by me. First[b], some truth exists which [b]cannot be known by natural human reason without divine aid."

You concede here that you can't know a Divine Aid by natural reason.

Quote:

Step 2 is God's action

Which begs the question that there is a Divine Aid, acting.

Quote:

and does not apply in this context at all. Faith assumes that some truth exists beyond natural reason, because natural reason can know that with certainty.

Let's review that one again.

It knows some truth exists beyond the limits of reason.

Because natural reason can know it. With certainty?

Mike, I'm betting that even you can see the internal contradiction here.

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: The

Hambydammit wrote:

The proof is in the pudding. Same replies, no answers, and a new way to say "redefining words to fit the argument."

And "irregardless" isn't a word.

 

Yes, more of the same assertions, more of the same dodges of my arguments.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: I know

Vastet wrote:
I know Todangst will rip this apart, but I might beat him to it. Smiling

Yep, you did. 

StMichael wrote:
This is utterly dishonest. You are just talking about me behind my back. Only just recently has todangst told me this thread even existed.

Vastet wrote:

The topic has been in plain view for awhile now. Maybe you need a bit of help with site navigation. 

I emailed him twice, in response to his own emails to me today.

Furthermore, the argument is a reposting from another thread, where he saw it, and stated he would reply to it later.

So his claim is itself dishonest.

The idea that posting on a public board, addressing him by name, and sending him several emails asking him to come here, all of which are in response to his own emails demanding a debate, is somehow 'behind his back', is sorta silly.

 

StMichael wrote:
On the topic of what I am arguing, I have responded to todangsts questions, these here and others, throughout other forums. He just keeps posting the exact same posts irregardless of my answers, here and elsewhere.

 

Vastet wrote:

Responding to a question isn't answering a question. There's a significant difference. One you seem to have missed somehow.

Indeed.

 

StMichael wrote:
 

I do not redefine words when it suits me. I clarify the senses with which we use them. If you ignore that a "can" can be either a toilet or a can of preserves, you are far worse off than I am.

 

Vastet wrote:

You do in fact redefine words. You've redefined both truth and knowledge in one of our earlier conversations.

Yes, I've seen that too.

 

  

StMichael wrote:
I have consistently responded to your and other people's questions and posts. What I have gotten in response is dismissal because I am "deluded" and "irrational."

 

Vastet wrote:
Because you've never posted any evidence. And you have posted more fallacies than most other people I've encountered on this site.

Agreed.  

StMichael wrote:
Who is the irrational one, when my posts are merely written off? If you can't answer them, you are the one who needs to evaluate your positions, not me.

 

Vastet wrote:

When your posts don't refute anything, your posts are valueless. And just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it isn't a valid one.

Worse than that, he often simply refuses to engage the key points of your argument. Just take a look at how often I have repeat my previous arguments, in response even to his NEW arguments.

In my 'god the iron worker' thread, he repeated every error pointed out in the first argument!

 

StMichael wrote:
You still have not shown why faith is an ungrounded assumption.

 

Vastet wrote:

Yes, he has. Multiple times. So have I. So has Sapient. So have dozens of people. You haven't proved any of us wrong in any way.

Correct. And here, we are showing that even St. Michael's claims about faith lead to the obvious conclusion that faith is unjustified belief.

He's just not willing to follow the ramifications of his own words. 

StMichael wrote:
You can't even do that, regardless, because faith is MY term.

 

Vastet wrote:

More redefining of terms perhaps?

Even according to his own definition, faith ends up unjustified belief!

 

 

StMichael wrote:
I am the one who possesses faith, and I am the one who gets to define my position.

 

Vastet wrote:

No. You let the church define your position. How many times have you said the church is the ultimate authority on scripture? By letting the church define your position, you allow us to attack your words as if you were the church. Which is remarkably easy.

Even if we let him define it, he ends up with unjustified belief. 

 

 

StMichael wrote:
1 and 2 are not begging the question because they do not enter into faith. Then what you are arguing is that my outline is unjustified in parts 1 and 2 and not that faith itself is unjustified.

 

Vastet wrote:

At this point I'll leave the rest to Todangst, since he can do a better job than I of justifying his remarks, and I haven't seen any indication of a change of policy from you.

 His argument here is ridiculous.... to argue that 'faith begins at step 3' solves nothing.

First, whether or not 1 and 2 "enter into faith' has no bearing at all on whether they beg the question or not! The question remains: do they beg the question? All we have to do is examine then, and determine if they beg the question. And they do. As I have demonstrated.

Next, we have to ask: if they 'don't enter into faith' then why bring them up? He brings them up because they are the 'reason' for faith, the 'ontology' for faith.... so his delineation is a false one.

At any rate, to simply assume that faith begins at step 3 is to begin by just assuming 1 and 2 are true, and that's begging the question 'regardless'.

 

So his argument here is just bizarre, but these sort of bizarre responses are the rationalizations of the theist mind compelled to actually consider itself. 

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Edger
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-01-14
User is offlineOffline
This is great. Working off

This is great. Working off the original post (which is all I'm responding to), theist use the exact same argument when referrening to the 2nd law of thermodynamics as proof of god. They lack a thorough understanding of the 2nd law and in turn assume it's been violated by the evolution (or "creation" as they contend) of life on Earth. Their end all is (here's the tie): "because we can't understand, the answer is GOD". Put simply: "because I don't know the answer, I know the answer".

 This attempt belies it's self. As for the 2nd law, that's another post. 


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
I'm heading out for the

I'm heading out for the weekend. Mike has been so thoroughly refuted  here that there's nothing else to say... even his arguments for god beg the question, let alone his faith...

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:On the

StMichael wrote:
On the topic of what I am arguing, I have responded to todangsts questions, these here and others, throughout other forums. He just keeps posting the exact same posts irregardless of my answers, here and elsewhere.

Quote:
Responding to a question isn't answering a question. There's a significant difference. One you seem to have missed somehow.

I have engaged every one of his arguments.

Quote:
I agree. So why do you keep hiding?

How/where have I been hiding?

Quote:
You do in fact redefine words. You've redefined both truth and knowledge in one of our earlier conversations.

I do not redefine words. I clarify what they mean. There are multiple senses to words, and sometimes we need to clarify this if we want to debate something. For example, the word “dog” can refer to a good friend or a four-legged animal that barks. Clearly different senses of the same word. To have a debate, we do need to clarify our terms.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:
Quote:
He's either too deluded to see what he's doing or too dishonest to admit his mistake.
Answer my rebuttals, or don't call me dishonest.
Post a rebuttal for him to answer first, or don't claim you aren't dishonest.

Right on it cap’n.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:
If you just ignore what I say and claim I am deluded, that is an ad hominem attack and cannot be claimed rational.
Unless it also happens to be true. And it is.

Even if I was deluded, it doesn’t affect the truth of my arguments. Even a deluded man is right when he claims the grass is green.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:
I have consistently responded to your and other people's questions and posts. What I have gotten in response is dismissal because I am "deluded" and "irrational."
Because you've never posted any evidence. And you have posted more fallacies than most other people I've encountered on this site.

And you still have yet to point these fallacies out in a cogent fashion.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:
Who is the irrational one, when my posts are merely written off? If you can't answer them, you are the one who needs to evaluate your positions, not me.
When your posts don't refute anything, your posts are valueless. And just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it isn't a valid one.

I am not just saying I don’t like it. I am claiming it is wrong for a number of reasons. And I post my reasons. If you have a problem with them, criticize them. Otherwise, they stand.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:
You still have not shown why faith is an ungrounded assumption.
Yes, he has. Multiple times. So have I. So has Sapient. So have dozens of people. You haven't proved any of us wrong in any way.

Your assertion. The jury is still out on that one.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:
If you just define it according to your preconcieved notions, it is not valid.
I define words according to the dictionary. Which is the only rational way to define a word unless you just made it up. I haven't noticed you using words you made up, so that loophole doesn't apply to you.

The dictionary is not a religious authority. It cannot define faith for the Christian. If you assume that faith means accepting unjustified assumptions, that is not an argument. You are working a priori from some definition you made up. My argument is that faith is the accepting of what God has revealed, because God has revealed it. The acceptance of some truth on the authority of God. This is theistic faith, and it is not irrational.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:
I am the one who possesses faith, and I am the one who gets to define my position.
No. You let the church define your position. How many times have you said the church is the ultimate authority on scripture? By letting the church define your position, you allow us to attack your words as if you were the church. Which is remarkably easy.

How are you going to argue Scripture when you don’t accept what Scripture says? You don’t interpret it the same way I do. I accept Catholic doctrine as normative in faith. If you argue as if I were a Protestant, it doesn’t suffice. I take Scripture is an authority, but with the proper interpretation. I am not using Scripture to argue that Scripture is true. I am just saying that you can’t really redefine some article of my belief from your own interpretation of Scripture.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:
If you want to claim MY faith is irrational, you must use MY defintion of what faith is, otherwise you are arguing with no one.
More redefining of terms. Faith is faith. Whether you like it or not. If the real definition doesn't apply, use a different word, or make up one and define it for us to apply to you. You can't hijack any word for your own purposes. This is the height of arrogance and irrationality.

What does faith mean to you? If you just define it as “irrational belief,” you load the dice. Or, as todangst likes to put it, “beg the question.”
I will even provide you a dictionary definition: “confidence or trust in a person or thing.”

Quote:

StMichael wrote:
This is utterly dishonest. You are just talking about me behind my back.
Behind your back? I emailed you earlier today, in response to your email asking for a debate.
One of the emails:
Your refusal to respond to this:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/4640
has led to an entire new thread dedicated to dealing with the fact that you are doding this refutation of your claims about faith.
You've run from these points for weeks, we've had enough.
An earlier email:
"still waiting for you mike:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/4640
These arguments have been there for weeks.
So the truth is: you're the one who is running.
Let's go..."
You also posted on the site several times while this thread was up.
So where have you been, Mike? Trying to figure out a way to re-assert the same internal contradictions in a new way?

I didn’t get around to reading your e-mails for a while. Why is that a crime? Calm the heck down and stop calling me dishonest because I didn’t respond within three minutes to your claim. I am trying to keep up with the large amount of posts I have to do on this site.

Quote:

Quote:
Only just recently has todangst told me this thread even existed.
That's simply not true. Here's why:
This thread is dedicated to an argument you said you'd reply to in another thread:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/freethinking_anonymous/4383
So it's days old. And the argument itself, is weeks old.
So these points have been around, with your awareness of them....

The “points” might have existed on the site, but you unfairly assume that I was informed of their presence.

Quote:

todangst wrote:
"An Epistemological Account of Faith, by me. First, some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason without divine aid." Your 'epistemological account' begins with an unjustifiable assumption. This is begging the question. You begin by holding that there is some 'truth' that cannot be known by natural reason WITHOUT DIVINE AID.
st. michael wrote:
It is not unjustified and it is not an assumption of faith.
So you asssert, yet again. More childish naysaying. Deal with the argument. My argument demonstrates that you being by begging the quesiton. Deal with what I have written above.

I do. I said that faith DOES NOT ASSUME that in an unjustified manner. Faith builds on what reason knows without revelation. Reason knows that these truths about God that faith reveals can only be known if God were to reveal them. It knows this because it deduces this from the fact of God’s existence (likewise provable) that “what” God is cannot be known naturally and that God, being an intelligent and perfect being (likewise following from natural knowledge of God), can likewise reveal to man what He is in Himself. It is not unjustified, even though faith assumes it. I have been saying this all over. Why don’t you respond to my arguments without childish naysaying? How is this argument wrong?
Quote:

Quote:
Further, faith assumes this, because we already can know it through natural reason
First, the idea that you've proven god deductively is nonsense.

So you assert. Yet again. More childish naysaying. Deal with the argument. Deal with what I have written above.

Quote:

Even if you have arguments for a first cause that you hold to be true, you have to beg the question that this 'cause' is the christian god of catholicism. So you're begging the question here, leaving aside the fact that your wrong about having an argument for god in the first place. (Have you ignored the last 3 centuries of philosophy?)

No, faith provides the move between the naturally known God and the God of Catholicism. So reason wouldn’t by itself know this God of faith and has no need to prove it in the proof for God’s existence. Faith reveals this correspondence, not reason.
Also, I am not leaving aside the history of philosophy. I am arguing that they are wrong.

Quote:

Second, your own argument for faith concedes that natural reason cannot know god's nature:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/3674
"An Epistemological Account of Faith, by me. First, some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason without divine aid."

Natural reason cannot know what God is in Himself, but it can know clearly the fact that He exists and certain truths which follow from that, like that fact that God is one, omnipotent, omniscient, and the like.

Quote:

Your 'epistemological account' begins with an unjustifiable assumption. This is begging the question. You begin by holding that there is some 'truth' that cannot be known by natural reason WITHOUT DIVINE AID. You then rely on this BEGGED Divine Aid as justication for your faith!

No. This is an assumption of faith, but it is proven in natural reason. Faith assumes the proof in reason.

Quote:

So you begin by assuming, from a conceded position of necessary ignorance the supernatural, and the existence of the divine! You give a bizarre argument below that 'faith does not enter the process until step 3", but this merely begs the question that steps 1 and 2 are not begging the question in the first place!

I am not ignoring your arguments and have addressed them. Just to specifically mark it out for you as you seem to miss these things:
1. “Necessary ignorance proves the supernatural”
a. No, I never claim that necessary existence proves the existence of the supernatural. We have a natural knowledge that the supernatural exists through the proof that God exists (which is the only real supernatural entity). We know from this proof that it follows that God cannot be naturally known as He is in Himself, and this likewise can be known, but only if God Himself reveals it. Faith picks up here and is God revealing Himself to us.
2. “The existence of God”
a. Proved from natural reason in five ways. I have given them elsewhere on my blog: http://www.rationalresponders.com/just_for_reference
3. “If faith does not enter the outline until step 3, that merely begs the question that steps 1 and 2 are not begging the question in the first place.”
a. Then faith does not beg the question. My outline, you are claiming, contains two unjustified premises: step 1 and 2. So faith itself is not unjustified, but the premises given on the outline are. That is different.
b. The first thing to notice is the difference here: faith is not unjustified knowledge, as it assumes the natural knowledge that we can have to support step 1.
c. Step 2, however, is part of faith and not provable; it is an action of God that we only know about through faith. But it is necessary for anything to be revealed. Hence, faith does not assume it unjustifiedly, as faith is the revelation of God.
d. The second thing to notice is that step 1 is provable by reason. I have been proving it from the first answer on this thread. It follows from the fact that we know that God exists naturally and we likewise know that He cannot be naturally known as He is in Himself, but only as He reveals Himself. Hence, that truth exists and can be revealed, but only requires God’s initiative to do so. Faith is the response to this initiative on God’s part.

Quote:

Quote:
1 and 2 are not begging the question because they do not enter into faith.
Again, first of all, these statements are circular, no matter where you place them in your mind. So that's that.


Stop the childish naysaying and address my arguments. Deal with them. Deal with what I have written.

Quote:

Next, everyone take note: I have already dealt with this. If you argue that they 'do not enter into faith' then you are begging the question that they are simply 'true', prior to 'using faith.'

No, it does not beg the question. They are logically prior to faith, but they are likewise justified by natural reason. So the truth of the proposition is proven naturally and assumed in faith. So stop this silly dodge. It fails.

Quote:

So the statements beg the question, and then you beg the question again that they are simply true, prior to faith. So wherever you 'place it' in your 'view of faith, it leads to a circular logic fallacy.

Again, they do not beg the question, because while their truth is prior to faith, the truth of the propositions is known naturally.
Quote:

And this entire argument is ridiculous anyway... whether you call these stages a basic ontology, or part of faith, they are circular, and your 'faith' relies on them.

My faith does not rely on these in an unjustified manner. The bare fact it relies on them does not mean that it begs the question. It assumes justified knowledge of these propositions. And we do know it naturally, as I said above.

Quote:

St Michael wrote:
Faith does not beg the question of God's existence. We assume God exists, yes, but it does not properly beg the question. Faith assumes God exists, but does not properly deal with the fact that He exists.
todangst wrote:
So, it doesn't beg the question, but it assumes?
Quote:
It does not beg the question. Begging the question is when you assume what you prove.
Michael, circular logic occurs whenever you rely on a conclusion as a premise. Leave aside whether you seek to 'prove' 'god' exists, the fact is, you rely on the begged existence of a divine aid, in order to make claims that what follows from 'your faith' is true... this makes your argument circular. It's so classically circular that your denials bring your intelligence into question.
You start out assuming that there is a DIVINE AID which guarentees truth, despite the fact that reason cannot tell you this, and then you rely on this Begged Divine Truth to justify further 'faith' based claims.
That is your circular logic fallacy.


But that is precisely wrong. Faith does not prove that there is some truth that cannot be known without divine aid, it proves the truth itself. That is the basic problem with your argument. Just to highlight this point, again, Faith does not prove that there is some truth that cannot be known without divine aid, it proves the truth itself which is revealed.
Second, as it seems that your claim has now switched to whether the divine aid itself is assumed, I refer you to my post two below this one which talks about this specifically.

Quote:
The fact that you think you've proven god deductively is both nonsense, and irrelevant - you yourself concede that your arguments can only take you so far, that they can't give you knowldege concerning 'god' 'himself',

First, my proofs for God’s existence stand. Stop your childish naysaying. Deal with my arguments. Deal with what I have written. Stop this silly dodge. It fails.
Second, it is directly relevant because this natural knowledge is logically prior to faith.
Third, the arguments for God’s existence do tell us about God, but they do not give us a complete picture. The “complete picture” of what God is in Himself is given by faith, and completely in the Beatific Vision.

Quote:

Quote:
Reason is "that" God; Faith is "about" God.
Ergo even in your delusional world where you think you've demonstrated a necessary being, you're still begging the existence of a Divine Aid.

No I am not. The divine aid is precisely the revelation itself. It is the cause of faith. So, God reveals something and we believe it as revealed. The revelation itself is the act in which we believe, and not “assumed” in the argument. So, for example, Christ says, “I forgive sins,” and to prove it raises the paralytic. This is the exterior divine aid that leads to belief. The interior aid, on the other hand, is that which, by grace, enables and moves the will to believe. This is the motive of belief in the first place. Faith does not assume this, but this forms the basic reason why faith exists. Because we acknowledge some miracle in the world, we accept the authority of the one revealing. Then, faith begins in that person’s authority as speaking for/as God.

Quote:
Now consider the fact that your supposed proofs for a god are ridiculously false.

Stop your childish naysaying. Deal with my arguments. Deal with what I have written. Stop this silly dodge. It fails.

Quote:

Quote:
You, for example, in your argument that I am "begging the question" assume that the term "begging the question" is a logical fallacy.
I don't simply assume begging the question is a logical fallacy. If I simply assumed it, I wouldn't have reasons for holding that it is a logical fallacy.
Instead, I have a rational grounds for holding this to be so. It's the basis for logic itself. Logical arguments exist to demonstrate a proposition. Nothing is demonstrated by merely asserting a conclusion as a premise. This is why begging the question, or circular logic, is an informal logical fallacy.

Which is exactly the case with faith. The knowledge that there exists a truth that can be known only by divine aid is likewise supported on rational grounds. They exist logically prior to faith itself, as your understanding of “begging the argument is a logical fallacy” is prior to “if this argument is begging the question, it is false.” But the conclusion assumes the prior, but does not do so unjustifiedly.

Quote:

Quote:
You would say, "But it is and can be shown so." And, likewise, your argument does not intend to show that begging the question is a logical fallacy. This is the same with faith. Faith assumes something it does not prove.
Faith assumes, without any grounds, that there is a Divine Aid beyond reason itself,

Not in an unjustified manner. Read my posts above.
Quote:

and then, in turn, relies on this begged assumption as the grounds for faith being "true". This is circular logic. Whether or not 'faith' intends to 'prove "god' exists in your delusional mind is moot, the argument remains circular, because it assumes a Divine Aid, and then relies on this assumed Divine Aid for faith being true.

Again, faith does not unjustifiedly assume that truth exists which cannot be known without divine aid. The argument fails. Further, it seems you are arguing a different point than just the truth being not known without divine aid. The motive of faith is the divine aid, by miracles or grace, as I said above.

Quote:

So even if we take your argument at its word, your explication of faith remains circular. And of course, the idea that you've proven god is preposterous.

Stop the childish naysaying. Deal with my arguments. Deal with what I have written. Stop this silly dodge. It fails.

Quote:

Quote:
It builds on what is known naturally.
No, it does not. In fact, you yourself say that it does not:
Again:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/3674
"An Epistemological Account of Faith, by me. First[b], some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason [b]without divine aid."
Your 'epistemological account' begins with an unjustifiable assumption. You begin by holding that there is some 'truth' that cannot be known by natural reason WITHOUT DIVINE AID. You then rely on this Begged Divine Aid to guarentee the truth of this claim.
You are begging the question by doing this.
This is circular.

No, as above, the premise is justified and is assumed as justified according to natural reason. The argument is not circular.

Quote:

Whether or not you think you've already 'proven' a necessary being is moot here. And of course, you haven't.

Stop the childish naysaying. Deal with my arguments. Deal with what I have written. Stop this silly dodge. It fails.

Quote:

Quote:
St. Michael: because it proceeds from Truth itself and hence cannot be untruthful.
Todangst: A classic, textbook example of circular logic! You assume the existence of Truth itself - i.e a divine truth by begging the question of it's existence, and then use this begged 'truth' as a guarentee of its truthfulness! Unbelievable! And yet you still deny that this is begging the question?
Quote:
I do not beg the question. Faith itself is not proving that this truth exists, but assumes it.
Ah, this is your error again.
The assumption is where it begs the question! Regardless of the motivation for the assumption.
Of course faith proves nothing, it merely asumes. And then it goes on to use this assumption as the grounds for faith being 'true'... It assumes a Divine Aid, without any grounds, and the relies on this begged question as the justification that faith is true.

The divine aid by miracles and grace serves as the motive for accepting some article of faith as true. It is not the object of faith, but the cause. Thus, no begging of questions has occurred.

Quote:

Quote:
. Reason is "that" God; Faith is "about" God.
If 'faith' is 'about god' - i.e. god's 'character', then it must make assumptions without justification. Whether or not 'reason' got you to that there is a god, would be moot, as it would be an unjustified leap from 'a god' to 'god's nature'.

No, it assumes in the sense that the natural truth is logically prior, but justified. Refer to the above post where I show that. I further see no reason why the faith would make an “unjustified” leap from God to God’s nature. That is the entire act of faith – a justification for that leap to acknowledging that some truth about God is true.

Quote:
You've even agreed to this, in principle:
Quote:
Reason is "that" God; Faith is "about" God.
...but you prove unable to follow the ramifications of your own assertions.
And again, the idea that you have proofs is absurd.

Stop this childish naysaying. Deal with my arguments. Deal with what I have written. Stop this silly dodge. It fails.

Quote:

Quote:
Here's another example: It is a type of knowledge, but as a type of knowledge it has a proper name: "faith." It is likewise not a rejection of epistemology, but an acknowledgement of proper epistemology that the human reason, acting on its own power, cannot discover certain truths. Thus, acting on a superior authority, we accept these precepts as true.
Again, you argue from ignorance that there is something specific beyond the limits of reason (again, all ignorance can really tell you is that you don't know) and then you beg the question of a particular 'truth' - a divine truth. In other words, your argument holds that since knowledge has limits, I will take from my ignorance that there is something beyond it that allows me to shore up the weakness of reason, through some divine power.
Quote:
No, that is not my argument. Strawman much?
Actually, it is your argument. Can't follow the ramifications of your arguments much?
You hold that reason cannot know certain things, and then go on to assume that there is a superior power - a Divine Aid.

No, that is not what I claim. I do not assume the existence of divine aid. Divine aid is the cause of faith, not what it proves. Further, the strawman is precisely that you depict me as moving from the mere fact that reason cannot know certain things that a divinely revealed truth must exist. This is not my claim. I am saying that one can naturally know that God exists, that some truth can be known about His nature, and that this truth can only be known if it is revealed by God Himself. All of these things reason knows on its own natural power.

Quote:

Here, let me help:
This is the same as your first precept.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/3674
"An Epistemological Account of Faith, by me. First[b], some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason [b]without divine aid."
Begs. The. Question.

No it is not. I again point out that while this is logically prior to faith, it does not assume it in an unjustified manner.

Quote:

Quote:
My argument is that human reason knows that God exists
and that something could be said about His essence, but knows that it cannot know that. It likewise knows that the only way it can attain this knowledge of what God is is if God reveals it. Hence, it awaits faith to reveal that further "what" about God.
Hence this begs the question, because 1) even if reason could demonstrate a first cause, this does not demonstrate that it is a Divine Aid, even according to YOU

I never claimed that demonstrating a first cause immediately resulted in belief in revealed things. We know that a first cause exists, that some truth exists of what God in Himself, and that the only way we could know it is if God revealed it to us. The action on God’s part in the world as revealing is what leads to faith – the accepting that this revelation is from God.

Quote:
Quote:
Reason is "that" God; Faith is "about" God.
and 2) so you're still begging the question of a Divine Aid, that you can't know, is somehow magically providing you with knowledge, and then relying on this begged question to justify the whole process as true.
Whether or not reason could hold that there was a first cause would not demonstrate that there was a Divine Aid. So you're equating your 'necessary being' with a Divine Aid, and that's unjustified even according to your own argument...

OK, this is a more clearly stated position compared to your earlier ones. I am not saying, again, that God magically provides me with revealed knowledge.
To make the steps perfectly clear:
We know naturally that God exists.
We know naturally that we cannot naturally know what God is like in Himself.
We know naturally that the only way we can know these things is if God revealed them.
Some revelation happens in the world (Christ claims to be God) and is supported by credible evidence – miracles, prophecies, and the like.
We assess the credibility of the revelation according to these miracles.
We assess the internal coherence of this revelation.
We can then place faith in this revealer if these are credible.
We assent to the revealed truth that Christ reveals (here, grace works in the soul).
Thus, we assent to this truth and have supernatural knowledge that Christ can forgive sins as God, and the like.

Quote:

Quote:
Reason is "that" God; Faith is "about" God.
And again, the idea that you have an argument for a necessary being is ridiculous. What you really have is an inability to see the errors in your arguments. What you have is bad cosmology and bad philosophy.

Stop the childish naysaying. Deal with my arguments. Deal with what I have written. Stop the silly dodge. It fails.

Quote:

Quote:
Here a fifth example: St. Michael wrote: First, because it doesn't intend to prove anything, but is merely an outline of how faith proceeds. Second, it assumes, It doesn't set out to prove, it assumes. QED
Quote:
Good thing to quote out of context. Who here is being dishonest?
You, of course. I quote a part of a post at a time, if you think you have some magic context that will save you, post it. Don't whine like a bitch, and then basically do NOTHING to support your whining... Pay heed how nothing changes, and how this demonstrates your own dishonesty.

Quoting just the first half of the point skews what I say and makes you look dishonest.

Quote:

Quote:
It assumes something already known, just like you assume that your argument could be true.
If it is already known, then there is no need for an assumption.

It is logically prior to faith and hence must be accepted before faith can prove anything. This is not a proper assumption, as your assumption that begging the question is a logical fallacy is not a proper assumption, because it is justified assumption.

Quote:

Quote:
It is not an unjustified assumption.
It IS an unjustified assumption. You say so:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/3674
"An Epistemological Account of Faith, by me. First[b], some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason [b]without divine aid."

You keep ignoring my points. I never claim it is an unjustified assumption, nor have I refused to explicate what I meant. Stop the childish naysaying.

Quote:

You are conceding that the very point of faith is that it is contra -reason, it exists as an assumption, an assumption of something that cannot be demonstrated by reason.

I have not conceded or claimed at all that faith is contra-reason. The premise you quote can be demonstrated by reason. That is the whole point of why I am claiming it is justified.

Quote:

Quote:
Here's a sixth: St. Michael wrote: because it proceeds from Truth itself and hence cannot be untruthful.
And here, yet again, you start out by assuming that there is some truth from a conceded limit of ignorance. All ignorance can actually tell you is that you don't know, but instead of accepting this rational reality, you go on to assume that there is some truth behind the ignorance, and that this truth guarentees the validity of any claim you make about it... this is all question begging.
Quote:
It is not just from ignorance.
It is from ignorance according to you:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/3674
"An Epistemological Account of Faith, by me. First[b], some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason [b]without divine aid."
Your 'epistemological account' begins with an unjustifiable assumption. You begin by holding that there is some 'truth' that cannot be known by natural reason WITHOUT DIVINE AID.
This is begging the question.

There is no ignorance involved. The knowledge that this truth exists in a manner that can only be known if God reveals it is provable according to natural reason. It is not begging the question because it is not unjustified.

Quote:
Quote:
No, I said clearly, as above, that we cannot know what God is in Himself, but we likewise know that we can know this, and that the only way we can is if God reveals it.
Which of course, you can't know. You have to beg the question of a Divine Aid, and then rely on this begged assumption as the grounds for "knowing it'
This is precisely where you do in fact commit the error I have just described.

Faith is the knowledge that God reveals something – it is the assent to that revelation as revealed. Its motives for belief – its cause – gives the reason for why we assent to it.

Quote:

Quote:
Colloquial usages of faith that equate faith with trust or probability have to do with experiences. These are natural processes. They therefore can have no relation to faith in the supernatural.
st. Mike wrote: I see no reason why they cannot.
Because you yourself concede that reason has limits. Reason cannot be used in regards to the supernatural, as the supernatural is defined as beyond nature, ergo beyond natural processes like reason. This is tautological.
Quote:
It is not tautological.
Except that it is. The supernatural is defined 'above' nature, ergo no natural process can grasp it, as no natural process can go 'above' nature.

Stop the childish naysaying. Deal with my arguments. Deal with what I have written. Stop the silly dodge. It fails.
Also, the leap you make from the fact that supernatural being above nature to the conclusion that no natural process is unjustified. I am claiming that such a leap is possible because the supernatural is tied to nature by a cause-effect relationship. You also seem to misapply what supernatural is. Supernatural is not the denial of all natural attributes, or their exact opposite, which would be “non-being.” Supernatural is “super-natural” as its cause.

Quote:

Quote:
. You merely assume that supernatural means "beyond reason," which is unjustified. Supernatural is above nature
No, I don't merely assume it, it's definitional. Supernatural is not natural.
Again, I've asked you to show how 'above' differs from 'not natural'.

Read the above. Supernatural is not purely “anti-natural” or “non-existent” but “above-natural” or “super-natural.” It exists in relationship to the natural as a cause to and effect.

Quote:

Quote:
It is not an argument from ignorance. We can know from natural reason that God exists. I have the five proofs posted on my blog.
That's cute. Did you just cut and paste Aquinas' five ways?

Yes, I did.

Quote:
It's moot, however, as those arguments don't get you to a Divine Aid, those arguments cannot get you to 'god's' nature even according to your warped sense of reality ...

They cannot tell me about what God is in Himself, but they can tell me about God – that He is, is one, that He is omniscient, omnipotent, and the like. Further, as I said, God’s aid by miracles and grace is the cause of faith and is not assumed in any way.

Quote:

Quote:
Reason is "that" God; Faith is "about" God.
And of course, your claim that reason gets you to 'god' is false, even according to your own argument, you can only get to a first cause (and again, you're arguments are wrong), and you have to beg the question that the cause is a god, let alone the christian god.
You must beg the question there, even if you believe you have a reason to believe in a necessary first cause.

It depends on your definition of a god. I think most people would call the omniscient, omnipotent, all-loving, perfect, and eternal being which creates all things God, or the most proper thing to which the term “God” could be applied.
The move from this to the Christian God is the move of faith. Faith is what proves those things about God which make Him properly “Christian,” like the Trinity, telling us those things which human reason cannot know about God.

Quote:

Quote:
You see, the limits of reason only tell us that reason is limited. It doesn't grant us an epistemological right to believe that there are things beyond reason, let alone a specific entity.
Quote:
I never claim the bare fact that we cannot know certain things means that they exist.
How many times must I repost this?
"An Epistemological Account of Faith, by me. First[b], some truth exists which [b]cannot be known by natural human reason without divine aid."
Your 'epistemological account' begins with an unjustifiable assumption. You begin by holding that there is some 'truth' that cannot be known by natural reason WITHOUT DIVINE AID.

How many times must I point to the fact that you don’t understand my argument? It is not an unjustified assumption. It is logically prior to faith, but is known by natural reason before faith begins.

Quote:

Quote:
God's existence can be positively proven; it is not an argument negatively from ignorance at all.
If you have reasons, you don't need faith, Mike.

God’s existence is not a matter of faith. It is logically prior to faith and proven naturally. Faith is the acceptance of supernatural truths like the Trinity which cannot be known naturally, but this acceptance is not done contrary to reason because it has proof from miracles, prophecies, and the like which give credibility to revelation.

Quote:

Quote:
We know things exist and we know that dependent beings must have a cause. Hence, there is some first cause that is necessary of itself: God.
The argument for a necessary cause commits several errors Mike. It's based on false assumptions right from the start. In the end, it's just bad cosmology. You need to read something modern in cosmology.

I would argue that it does not conflict with any modern cosmology.

Quote:

But for our purposes, I'll just say: it's a non sequitur, a leap of faith, to go from 'first cause' to 'god' or "Divine Aid'

No it isn’t. Further, as I said, divine aid is the cause of faith, not something faith proves. Faith believes that God has revealed something and so accepts it as true. But it does not do so for no reason at all. It believes that God has revealed something because of the miracles and the like which accompany said truth, which are motives to assent to that truth. And, the movement to the Christian God is the movement of faith, not of natural reason (because natural reason does not, by definition, have any knowledge of revelation).

Quote:

Quote:
This is what reason knows.
Your reasoning doesn't demonstrate a god, mike, it demonstrates your lack of knowledge of cosmology.

Stop the childish naysaying. Deal with my arguments. Deal with what I have written. Stop the silly dodge. It fails.

Quote:

Quote:
Quote: What I said was that: A TRUTH EXISTS WHICH REASON CANNOT GRASP ALONE, not that faith assumes that such truth is true a priori.
But this is the assumption in question! A particular truth that a divine aid grants you! You begin by begging the question that a particular truth exists which is known through DIVINE AID, despite the fact that it can't be known by reason. This is begging the question of 'god's exisetnce. Q E D
Quote:
It does not beg the question if God's existence is justified by reason.
Actually, your claim begs the question of a Divine Aid, and then goes on to use this begged assumption as the reason why its true:
"An Epistemological Account of Faith, by me. First[b], some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason [b]without divine aid."

The fact that God causes a miracle is precisely the point of faith. It does not assume that God does so; it is the assent acknowledging that God is the revealer.

Quote:

Quote:
Here's your problem: you are talking about the grounds for your faith in 1 and 2. So it is begging the question itself to assume that faith begins at step 3, because this would lead to assuming that steps 1 and 2 are 'simply true'! The reality is that your account of faith begins with step 1 with your ontology! Faith simply assumes that steps 1 and 2 occur, by arguing from ignorance and begging the question!
Quote:
But faith does not assume them unjustifiedly. We KNOW step 1 naturally.
No, you don't.
Again, read it again, for the first time:
"An Epistemological Account of Faith, by me. First[b], some truth exists which [b]cannot be known by natural human reason without divine aid."
You concede here that you can't know a Divine Aid by natural reason.

No I do not concede that. That is not what my phrase means at all. My phrase indicates that we cannot know what God in Himself by natural reason, not that natural reason cannot know this fact without revelation (which would just be a vicious circle). Natural reason knows that certain truth exists which it cannot know. It only can know these if God reveals them. The assent to a revelation of God is faith.

Quote:

Quote:
Step 2 is God's action
Which begs the question that there is a Divine Aid, acting.

That is only an objective account of faith, assuming a real revelation. In reality, faith is the assent which acknowledges that God has so acted.

Quote:

Quote:
and does not apply in this context at all. Faith assumes that some truth exists beyond natural reason, because natural reason can know that with certainty.
Let's review that one again.
It knows some truth exists beyond the limits of reason.
Because natural reason can know it. With certainty?

Yes. Faith has prior to it the natural knowledge that some truth can only be known if God reveals it (what God is in Himself). It “assumes” this knowledge.

Quote:

I emailed him twice, in response to his own emails to me today.
Furthermore, the argument is a reposting from another thread, where he saw it, and stated he would reply to it later.
So his claim is itself dishonest.
The idea that posting on a public board, addressing him by name, and sending him several emails asking him to come here, all of which are in response to his own emails demanding a debate, is somehow 'behind his back', is sorta silly.

He was not giving me multiple e-mails to come here. He sent me three in one day, the last of which asked why I never responded to a post he had going somewhere else.

I reproduce the entire series to clarify our correspondence:

StMichael wrote 2007-02-07 19:23:
Dear Sir,
Why don't we discuss our problems in a debate on a forum thread somewhere? That way we can openly resolve our issues. Sound good?
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Then, todangst responds 2007-02-07 19:23:
Sorry Michael, but this does not interest me. We already have several debates going, and I see little reason to continue with them, let alone start a new one.
However, if you would like to actually have a discussion, I might enjoy it. They do use the 'stickam' room for such things, perhaps you might be available one night.
- Chris

StMichael wrote 2007-02-07 23:10:
Dear Sir,
I don't see why you are so skeptical. I have been arguing with you, and you merely abandon my debates. If my position is so easily refuted, why don't you answer all my posts? You just leave them, and then claim elsewhere that you have refuted them. Either accept a direct debate or stop making these claims. If you want to have a private discussion in the stickam room, I am afraid that would be impossible due to the filtering that I must tolerate.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Then, todangst responds 2007-02-08 01:56:
Mike, you just don't know how to argue that well. You've been refuted over and over, which is why you're writing in the first place..... you're looking to find a way to get over the hurt.
If you're suffering from doubt, I can't help you. You'll have to work that out on your own.
Good luck.

StMichael wrote 2007-02-08 13:59:
Dear Sir,
Your continual refusal to address my points is getting irritating. I have continually answered and rebutted your arguments. You then proceed to do this: say that mine are refuted and you have no need to listen to argument. It is incredibly dishonest and unfair. If you want to claim that you have done so, you need to engage my points. Stop shifting the subject and argue. Be a gentleman.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Then, todangst responds 2007-02-08 14:16:
> Dear Sir,
> Your continual refusal to address my points is getting irritating.
Your continual lies are irritating. I respond to you, and you run away. You never argue, you just assert, and then re-assert. You ignore my arguments.
You are a waste of my time, and I'd like to ask you to stop posting in my "god the iron worker' thread, as you aren't even responding to my argument.
> I have continually answered and rebutted your arguments.
You are a liar. You naysay some of them, and run from the rest.
You have everything backwards.
I'll debate you on the main boards only to expose you and your constant lying.

Then, todangst responds 2007-02-08 14:27:
Your refusal to respond to this:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/4640
has led to an entire new thread dedicated to dealing with the fact that you are doding this refutation of your claims about faith.
You've run from these points for weeks, we've had enough.

Then, todangst responds 2007-02-08 14:41:
still waiting for you mike:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/4640
These arguments have been there for weeks.
So the truth is: you're the one who is running.
Let's go...

Notice the timestamps on these last three e-mails, all within about ten to twenty minutes of each other. He doesn’t bring up the fact that there is this thread going on until the last two letters, each occurring within 14 minutes of each other.

Notice when he starts the thread he claims I haven’t responded to:
2007-02-08 14:25.
When does he post this? Within 2 minutes before he claims that I have been “dodging” this post for “weeks.” The facts contradict his egregious lies.
I quote, from 16 minutes after he starts this thread:
“still waiting for you mike:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/4640
These arguments have been there for weeks.”

Who is lying now? I have been completely honest in response to your arguments. I ask for a fair debate, and you go ahead and lie right to my face and in front of everyone on this website. I’m sick of it and you need to apologize.

He claims he has been posting and reposting these same points in different forums, but that is precisely my point: he posts them in one forum, I answer them, and he reposts the same thing in a different forum without addressing my answers. Which was the entire reason I called him to debate me in civil fashion. I went through and debunked his nonsense before in:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/3809?page=2 – He jumped in and left without responding to the SAME arguments he makes here.
And here,
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/3674?page=1 – again, he jumps in and jumps out when the water gets too hot
And here,
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/3590

I think it just illustrates his working principle of irrationality better summed up in this statement of his: “Mike, you just ignored everything just said to you” which for him seems to mean, “It doesn’t matter what you say. Everything I say is right, so stop talking right now.” Which is just the same usually in every other post of his, where he makes statements like, “Mike has been so thoroughly refuted here that there's nothing else to say...“ ‘I don’t have to listen to anybody else because I am right.” It is a total refusal to engage in real discourse.

Quote:
His argument here is ridiculous.... to argue that 'faith begins at step 3' solves nothing.
First, whether or not 1 and 2 "enter into faith' has no bearing at all on whether they beg the question or not! The question remains: do they beg the question? All we have to do is examine then, and determine if they beg the question. And they do. As I have demonstrated.

Then you cannot claim that faith itself is unjustified. Only my account was unjustified in its assumptions of premise 1 and 2. These are not the same. I never said that faith itself assumes these premises (expect in the sense above, where faith has these logically prior to itself).

Quote:

Next, we have to ask: if they 'don't enter into faith' then why bring them up? He brings them up because they are the 'reason' for faith, the 'ontology' for faith.... so his delineation is a false one.

They are not the reason we have faith. They are just prior to having faith. For one to have faith in something God has revealed, there must be: [a] something God has revealed, and [b] these things would have needed to be revealed (beyond natural power to know).

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
St.M, How can one call

St.M,

How can one call faith a type of knowledge when you have to suspend your knowledge in order to use it?

I've heard so may say, "you just have to have faith" in answer to questions they simply haven't thought about. I've even been told "don't think about it - just have faith"

If god gives reason, why does he ask you to throw it away and have faith? 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10540
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: I have

StMichael wrote:

I have engaged every one of his arguments.

Again, participation is not refutation.

StMichael wrote:

How/where have I been hiding?

All over the forum. How has already been explained.

StMichael wrote:

I do not redefine words. I clarify what they mean.

No, you redefine them, then try to clarify your redefinition. Which is completely invalid because the words already have their meanings.

StMichael wrote:
There are multiple senses to words, and sometimes we need to clarify this if we want to debate something.

Some words have multiple meanings. Truth, knowledge, and faith are not amongst them.

StMichael wrote:
For example, the word “dog” can refer to a good friend or a four-legged animal that barks. Clearly different senses of the same word. To have a debate, we do need to clarify our terms.

No, the word dog refers only to a four legged animal. The use of the term "dog" to speak of a friend is slang, not english.

StMichael wrote:
Even if I was deluded, it doesn’t affect the truth of my arguments. Even a deluded man is right when he claims the grass is green.

Unless he's pointing at the sky while he does it.

StMichael wrote:
And you still have yet to point these fallacies out in a cogent fashion.

This is either a dodge, a lie, or evidence of you not having a centre in reality. This topic alone points out multiple fallacies. Others point out more, if that's possible.

StMichael wrote:
I am not just saying I don’t like it. I am claiming it is wrong for a number of reasons. And I post my reasons. If you have a problem with them, criticize them. Otherwise, they stand.

This is your biggest problem(other than reposting the same fallacies over and over again that is). Your posts have been refuted. Every single one of them. You respond to refutation either by changing the subject, or by reposting the original point that was just refuted. So they do not stand. They don't even crawl. They are currently 6' under the ground. And unlike the fiction you claim as a saviour, they aren't about to rise up again.

StMichael wrote:

Your assertion. The jury is still out on that one.

No, it isn't. The jury was settled dozens or hundreds of years ago when the word was first defined. This is not a debatable point. Faith means the belief in A without evidence of A. That's it. There's nothing you can say to change it. Every time you try to debate this you fall flat on your face before you even post.

StMichael wrote:

The dictionary is not a religious authority.

It doesn't have to be. It is a linguistic authority. As long as you use linguistic communication to debate your points, you must use the dictionary or you will always fail. Period.

StMichael wrote:
It cannot define faith for the Christian.

It defines the word faith. That's all it needs to do. If you are using the word faith for something other than what it means, then you are guilty of redefining a term without having the authority to do so. Which means you automatically fail both in the debate and in your attempts to communicate with others. You aren't getting your point across and you aren't refuting anything by doing this.

StMichael wrote:
If you assume that faith means accepting unjustified assumptions, that is not an argument.

I defined faith earlier. If it doesn't apply to what you're talking about than you need a new word. That's all there is to it.

StMichael wrote:
You are working a priori from some definition you made up.

Blatant lie.

StMichael wrote:
My argument is that faith is the accepting of what God has revealed, because God has revealed it. The acceptance of some truth on the authority of God. This is theistic faith, and it is not irrational.

Your argument is irrelevant and irrational. Faith is faith. Use the term as it applies to reality or use a different one that applies to what you're talking about. The longer you call an apple an orange the longer you're wasting your time and everyone elses.

StMichael wrote:
How are you going to argue Scripture when you don’t accept what Scripture says?

I'm not arguing scripture. Again you go off on a tangent without dealing with the point at hand.

StMichael wrote:
You don’t interpret it the same way I do. I accept Catholic doctrine as normative in faith. If you argue as if I were a Protestant, it doesn’t suffice. I take Scripture is an authority, but with the proper interpretation. I am not using Scripture to argue that Scripture is true. I am just saying that you can’t really redefine some article of my belief from your own interpretation of Scripture.

This whole quote is irrelevant as it uses terms that have no meaning in the discussion, and continues the tangent I mentioned in my last refutation.

StMichael wrote:
What does faith mean to you? If you just define it as “irrational belief,” you load the dice.

That's what it is. Even a priest will tell you that faith is irrational. That's why it's called faith. That's the definition of the term.

StMichael wrote:
Or, as todangst likes to put it, “beg the question.”
I will even provide you a dictionary definition: “confidence or trust in a person or thing.”

I can list numerous sources against your non sourced quote. You didn't list the one you used, which leads me to believe it says exactly what I'm saying, and you didn't source it so I can't point it out to you. Here, I'll even point to a few for you. I'll even make sure some of them are religious sources.

Faith is a belief, trust, or confidence, not based on logic, reason, or empirical data, but based fundamentally on volition.

Faith - confident belief in the truth of a person, idea, or thing. This belief is not based on logical proof. With Faith, one has hope, Trust, Love, and certainty that God is.

Belief without evidence.

Is the absolute assurance or conviction of our hope in Christ regardless of our inability to physically see Him and those things that exist or yet to occur in the spiritual world.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.