Definitions, by golly!

Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Definitions, by golly!

I'm officially damn tired of the redefinition defense.

This is the theist defense of a contradiction in which a "new" definition for a word is posited, and then not given.

SO...

Here are some words.  I want positive definitions, theists!  Don't tell me what they aren't.  Tell me in clear, definable language, what they ARE.

"Emotions" (God's) Human emotions are reactions.  If god knows everything, including what he will do in response to a situation he knows will happen, he cannot experience emotions the way humans do.  Theists, please define "Emotion" as it applies to god, using positive characteristics.  If you start by saying "It's not like X," you'll just get laughed at.

"Faith"  If it's not "Belief despite evidence to the contrary" or "Belief despite a complete lack of evidence," what is it?

"Unconditional"

"All-Powerful"

********

Atheists, feel free to chime in with some words that theists like to use multiple definitions for.

 

 

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

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


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
1Corithians214

1Corithians214 wrote:

Umm... no. Sorry. He stated "as it applies to god". Well, you have to first believe in a god to apply something to him. If you don't believe in a god, then there is no argument.

 This statement is ridiculous.  He's obviously asking for a theist to clarify what he/she wants to claim as an attribute of his/her god.  Seeing as how there are approximately 50 billion different traits attributed to "god," it's certainly prudent to be straight on which god he is arguing against.

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
The thread has been

The thread has been hijacked..-- heh-- I will ignore the currently developing tangents-- for some reasons 'trolls' seem to attract more attention.

 Anyways.. I'll get to this.  So, not ignoring..


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Don't worry this asshat

Don't worry this asshat troll has been deleted. He was busy and his other threads were removed already.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle.. for the first

MattShizzle.. for the first time, I thank you.  Heh. Trolls.. are bad-- they eat goats.

 Anyways.. onto my post.

Quote:
Mutually exclusive? I guess that depends on your view. In every-day life, I'm confronted with an enormous number of rational numbers. If I eat 34 french-fries at lunch, that's a rational number of fries. If I take a bite out of one fry, I've eaten some rational quantity of that fry. The real world only exists in rational quantities; You can't have an amount of something which consists of a non-terminating non-repeating decimal.

So.. the real world has nothing which can represent Pi?

Quote:
No. I can define pi. I can define 2^1/2. I can't have 2^1/2 of something.

I didn't say you couldn't define Pi, I was asking if the word 'irrational' when applied to mathematics, has a definition mutually exclusive of the other definitions of 'irrational'.

Quote:
The point is that when someone uses 3.14 as "pi", they're not wrong in the same sense that someone using 2 as "pi" would be wrong. I can prove this, if you care to sit through a page or two of mathematical proofs(they're boring, trust me).

I think I took that class as well. Smiling

Quote:
You, on the other hand, cannot prove that your "representative" description of god is anything like an estimation for pi; You cannot demonstrate that your answers are more correct than another "value" taken for god.

I think you're missing my point again.  As you stated in the quote before the last.. you can 'prove it'.. but only through math.

How is 'proving' a mathematical concept through math any different then 'proving' a theistic concept through theism?  or any concept through that same thing?

Yet.. for some reason you automatically assume that the mathematician is more rational than the theist.. even though you don't necessarily know anything about the theist concept of God or the system he would use to 'prove it'.

Quote:
If you could, it would be fair to equate your lacking definition of god with a lacking definition of pi. You can't.

I do not say I lack a definition of God.. I say that I lack a "all-encompassing" definition of God even as mathematics lacks an "all-encompassing" definition of Pi.  Or.. could you please define Pi?

You might 'prove it' mathematically.. but you won't be able to define it other than through the means of saying "Pi" or some limited number.. even as I say "God."

At least I believe this to be the case

Quote:
I cannot judge the absolute truth of anything.

Neither can I.

Quote:
I will say, however, that such a belief is no more rational under any particular guise than another.

Isn't this a statement of absolute truth?  I'm just asking for a bit more skepticism.  I would not state, immediately, that the concept of the FSM is irrational.. because.. well, I know nothing about it.  For all I know.. it could be as rational as saying that:

"I define everything around us as the FSM."

This is a rational example of prescriptive language... or would you argue that saying that "Everything around us is called the FSM" as more or less rational than "Everything around us is called the universe."

There both arbitrary matching of words to concepts.

In anycase.. this is what I mean when I state.. I wouldn't contend to judge something I know nothing about.  Even my presumptions about certain atheists.. I try and take with a grain of salt and leave myself open to the possibility that they my change.  

Quote:
IE; The flying-spaghetti monster is no more rational a belief than the christian god, or brahman, etc.

That's fine that you believe it.. but I don't think that you can state this as an absolute.. at least not according to the objective definitions of rational.  


MrRage
Posts: 892
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
I'm going to jump in the

I'm going to jump in the conversation with a comment about Pi. (Sorry, but I have two math degrees. I couldn't resist).

Pi is irrational in the sense that it can't be written as a ratio, i.e. a fraction, of two integers, i.e. whole numbers. Think irRATIOnal.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I'm going to jump

Quote:

I'm going to jump in the conversation with a comment about Pi. (Sorry, but I have two math degrees. I couldn't resist).

Pi is irrational in the sense that it can't be written as a ratio, i.e. a fraction, of two integers, i.e. whole numbers. Think irRATIOnal.

Heh.. I know what Pi is.. I don't mean to be speaking of Pi.. what is more the focus of the conversation, I believe, is the use of words in both the cases of mathematics and theology or metaphysics.. or whatever.

In anycase.

So.. would you consider THIS definition to be mutually exclusive than that definition of the word applied to "rational concept" of X (some non mathematical concept)? 


Spewn
Posts: 98
Joined: 2007-01-30
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

MattShizzle.. for the first time, I thank you. Heh. Trolls.. are bad-- they eat goats.

Anyways.. onto my post.

Quote:
Mutually exclusive? I guess that depends on your view. In every-day life, I'm confronted with an enormous number of rational numbers. If I eat 34 french-fries at lunch, that's a rational number of fries. If I take a bite out of one fry, I've eaten some rational quantity of that fry. The real world only exists in rational quantities; You can't have an amount of something which consists of a non-terminating non-repeating decimal.

So.. the real world has nothing which can represent Pi?

There in lies the rub, my friend. Of course something can represent pi. What? 3.14 does a nice job, as has been mentioned plenty of times. 3.14 is not actually pi, however.

 

Quote:

Quote:
No. I can define pi. I can define 2^1/2. I can't have 2^1/2 of something.

I didn't say you couldn't define Pi, I was asking if the word 'irrational' when applied to mathematics, has a definition mutually exclusive of the other definitions of 'irrational'.

You had actually gone on a different tangent at this point in your argument, and stated that because you could define god as an "irrational concept" that believing in him was not axiomatically invalid. My point was that just because you can define something in irrational terms doesn't mean that thing actually exists.

Quote:

Quote:
The point is that when someone uses 3.14 as "pi", they're not wrong in the same sense that someone using 2 as "pi" would be wrong. I can prove this, if you care to sit through a page or two of mathematical proofs(they're boring, trust me).

I think I took that class as well. Smiling

Quote:
You, on the other hand, cannot prove that your "representative" description of god is anything like an estimation for pi; You cannot demonstrate that your answers are more correct than another "value" taken for god.

I think you're missing my point again. As you stated in the quote before the last.. you can 'prove it'.. but only through math.

How is 'proving' a mathematical concept through math any different then 'proving' a theistic concept through theism? or any concept through that same thing?

For starters, it's reproducable. To follow that, it was invented to deal with real problems and consistantly does quite well with that. If you want more, talk to any math teacher. Regardless, when I "prove" math with math, I'm not suggesting anything other than an abstract concept based upon rules. When a theist "proves" god with theism, he's proving the existance of something real; the cause of our universe. Key difference.

 

Quote:

Yet.. for some reason you automatically assume that the mathematician is more rational than the theist.. even though you don't necessarily know anything about the theist concept of God or the system he would use to 'prove it'.

 

Actually, as long as the theist accepts that the constructs he's creating exist in his mind, like the mathematician, I don't find him any less rational. That's your automatic assumption.

Quote:
 

Quote:
If you could, it would be fair to equate your lacking definition of god with a lacking definition of pi. You can't.

I do not say I lack a definition of God.. I say that I lack a "all-encompassing" definition of God even as mathematics lacks an "all-encompassing" definition of Pi. Or.. could you please define Pi?

That was my point. You lack a complete definition of god, just as I cannot list for you a complete definition of pi in decimal form. I, however, can reliably use an approximation(incomplete form) of pi to calculate things which can then be applied to the real world. This cannot be applied to a lacking definition of god. When I use 3.14 as pi, I am declaring that the digits beyond 4 do not matter for my purposes. As far as I'm concerned, they're not there, and my calculations show it. When you use an incomplete definition of god you aren't declaring that the parts you don't know don't matter, or don't apply to this situation.

 

It's funny that you ask me to "prove" pi. I could write a program which would endlessly spit out digits for pi, until you got sick of it. Does your definition go into infinity and, could you(if asked) continue it for such a time(all other things aside)? I doubt it. Anyone with a computer can do that with pi.

Quote:

You might 'prove it' mathematically.. but you won't be able to define it other than through the means of saying "Pi" or some limited number.. even as I say "God."

At least I believe this to be the case

Finally, something we agree upon. The difference is, however, that I can additionally prove to you that my limited definition of pi is not only valid sometimes, but nearly all of the time. I can further prove that when one finds that the current limited definition is not precise enough, one can simply calculate the value to further digits until the desired precision is obtained. This is NOT only useful in mathematics; The building you're in used math to prove it would stand before it was built. The placement and size of the pixels in your monitor was determined mathematically before being applied to the screen you're reading this on. Math is being used as you type your reply to display it back to you.

Your definition does not enjoy these benefits.

 

Quote:

Quote:
I will say, however, that such a belief is no more rational under any particular guise than another.

Isn't this a statement of absolute truth?

I said it, but I may not always speak the truth. Just a reminder; I'm human, and this is a discussion forum. I'm open to new evidence, as always. My statement applies universally to things for which the amount of evidence for or against is equal. All things which have no evidence for or against fall into this category.

Quote:

I'm just asking for a bit more skepticism. I would not state, immediately, that the concept of the FSM is irrational.. because.. well, I know nothing about it. For all I know.. it could be as rational as saying that:

"I define everything around us as the FSM."

This is a rational example of prescriptive language... or would you argue that saying that "Everything around us is called the FSM" as more or less rational than "Everything around us is called the universe."

There both arbitrary matching of words to concepts.

 

Right. If that was the definition as understood by many, I would not call it irrational as long as it actually(and by actually, I mean verifiably) applied to the real universe. However, defining the FSM in such a way places you in an ambiguous position; you can't be wrong, simply because things exist, and you've defined the FSM as the whole sum of everything. If there is existance, there is the FSM as you've defined it(and this does not include actual flying pasta or noodly appendages). Does that matter? As long as you never stray from that definition, never add to or take away from it, I don't think so. You apparently do.

Quote:

In anycase.. this is what I mean when I state.. I wouldn't contend to judge something I know nothing about. Even my presumptions about certain atheists.. I try and take with a grain of salt and leave myself open to the possibility that they my change.

 

I don't attempt to judge ideas I know nothing about either, although it sounds strange to hear you say that "The Flying Spaghetti Monster" tells you nothing about what it is, as the name clearly indicates it is some kind of monstrous flying spaghetti thing. The problem is, simply by defining something as theism you've given me a description of what it is. Now I do know. I can't tell you whether or not the western wallowshiver queaver is real, because I don't know what it is. I can judge the idea of the loch-ness monster, however, even if I haven't been to the lake or studied the history of the beast.

Quote:

Quote:
IE; The flying-spaghetti monster is no more rational a belief than the christian god, or brahman, etc.

That's fine that you believe it.. but I don't think that you can state this as an absolute.. at least not according to the objective definitions of rational.

Actually, until proof is offered suggesting one idea is more(or less) rational than the other, I really don't see the objection to this.

If someone says "Glimmerwidgets are good!" and another guy stands up and says "No, Glimmerwidgets are bad!", the fact that neither of these statements accompanies anything real means that neither is more or less valid than the other. YOU believe that your particular god has evidence, or proof, I don't, therefore my statement is rational.

 

Until you offer a valid reason to do so, you're not likely to find that atheists "may change".


MrRage
Posts: 892
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote: Heh..

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Heh.. I know what Pi is.. I don't mean to be speaking of Pi.. what is more the focus of the conversation, I believe, is the use of words in both the cases of mathematics and theology or metaphysics.. or whatever.

Cool. That's what I get for jumping in in the middle of the conversation.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

In anycase.

So.. would you consider THIS definition to be mutually exclusive than that definition of the word applied to "rational concept" of X (some non mathematical concept)?

I hope I'm reading you right. Saying that a number is irrational only means what I said above (and anything that's logically equivalent of course). It has to do with ratios.

It is mutually exclusive with the usage of irrational in philosophy, theology, etc. It has nothing to do with violating reason.

Of course the ancient Greeks though all numbers were rational, and finding that the square root of two was irrational was a big scandal among Greek mathematicians. So to them irrational numbers were irrational.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: There in lies the

Quote:
There in lies the rub, my friend. Of course something can represent pi. What? 3.14 does a nice job, as has been mentioned plenty of times. 3.14 is not actually pi, however.

Oh.. well then indeed I did misunderstand you, I thought you defined 'real world' as something other than mathematical concepts.

In this case:

"Of course something can represent 'God'. What? 'YHWH' does a nice job, as has been mentioned plenty of times.  'YHWH' is not actually 'God', however.

They are equivalently.. only existent within the realms that created them.

Quote:
..and stated that because you could define god as an "irrational concept" that believing in him was not axiomatically invalid.

I believe I stated that "supernatural" was an "irrational concept".. and my contention was that this, in and of itself, does not necessarily make a system which holds and applies "natural aspects" of a "supernatural entity" as axiomatically irrational.

Two different things I believe.

Quote:
My point was that just because you can define something in irrational terms doesn't mean that thing actually exists.

I would agree.  Whether you can define something in irrational terms or rational terms.. has no bearing on it's ability to exist.  IF something exists, it exists-- whether or not there are rational or irrational terms to define it.

Quote:
To follow that, it was invented to deal with real problems and consistantly does quite well with that.

I believe that most atheists would probably agree that theism was created to deal with real problems.. whether they deal with it consistantly well.. well-- that could be argued, and is based off what one contends the 'real problems' and subjectively judged.

Quote:
When a theist "proves" god with theism, he's proving the existance of something real; the cause of our universe.

He is "proving" the existance of something real in accordance with "theism."

Math.. does nothing different.  It "proves" the existence of something in accordance with "math".

Let me voice an opinion of mine.. if someone "proves" God in accordance with "theism".. it is no more "real" then it would be otherwise.

Real is real.. whether or not it is proven.

In application.. a theist who "proves God with theism".. should not be so arrogant as to believe that he "has proven" to someone who does not accept the theistic system.

That.. I would contend would be an irrational act.

As irrational as a scientist who "proves the world is round scientifically".. should not be so arrogant as to believe that he "has proven" to someone who does not accept the "scientific system."

The latter is absurd.. since it's pretty hard for one to detach themselves from accepting the scientific system these days.. but it's just merely making a point-- the statement.

Theist get caught up in this hurdle sometimes.. I don't like it. :/

Quote:
Actually, as long as the theist accepts that the constructs he's creating exist in his mind, like the mathematician, I don't find him any less rational. That's your automatic assumption.

You're right.. I did assume that.  I apologize that I assumed that about you. Smiling Good point.

In anycase.. I would agree.  I'm arguing this point because-- well.. RSS seems to be incorrect in its blanket application with statements like "your belief in God is irrational".. "theism is irrational".. etc.

I don't believe I can "prove" 'God' to anyone, myself included, any father then what one wishes to be "proven to".

Yet.. this seems to be true for a lot of things.. not just theism concept.

Quote:
It's funny that you ask me to "prove" pi. I could write a program which would endlessly spit out digits for pi, until you got sick of it. Does your definition go into infinity and, could you(if asked) continue it for such a time(all other things aside)? I doubt it. Anyone with a computer can do that with pi.

Heh.  I keep on saying "prove pi" without using "mathematically accepted proofs".

This would give it some sort of external proof.

But.. like I said.. I accept that Pi exists.. heh-- my points lay more in the use of irrational.. concepts.. definitions.. semantics.. applications of concepts.

People seem to accept that mathematicians can "limit" an "infinite number", use the implications of the "finite number", and still be rational.

In the same.. I wish for people to consider that a theist can "limit" an "infinite", use the implications of the "finite", and still be rational.

I cannot define all of a supernatural God.. but I can define part of him while still keeping to the idea that there is much more.

Quote:
Finally, something we agree upon. The difference is, however, that I can additionally prove to you that my limited definition of pi is not only valid sometimes, but nearly all of the time. I can further prove that when one finds that the current limited definition is not precise enough, one can simply calculate the value to further digits until the desired precision is obtained. This is NOT only useful in mathematics; The building you're in used math to prove it would stand before it was built. The placement and size of the pixels in your monitor was determined mathematically before being applied to the screen you're reading this on. Math is being used as you type your reply to display it back to you.

Agreed.

Quote:
Your definition does not enjoy these benefits.

These specific benefits? Or.. benefits outside of theism? Or.. any benefits whatsoever?

I would agree with the first.. I could argue the latters.

Quote:
I said it, but I may not always speak the truth. Just a reminder; I'm human, and this is a discussion forum.

Same for me.

Quote:
Right. If that was the definition as understood by many, I would not call it irrational as long as it actually(and by actually, I mean verifiably) applied to the real universe.

The important word here is "verifiable".. through what means?  We'll just fall back into the endless circle of most concepts.

Quote:
Does that matter? As long as you never stray from that definition, never add to or take away from it, I don't think so. You apparently do.

Indeed.  This is important.  As a theist I am judged as irrational in this belief.. yet, to the best of my knowledge, I am consistent in my application of that definition.

People just assume that I "CANNOT" be.

Quote:
I don't attempt to judge ideas I know nothing about either, although it sounds strange to hear you say that "The Flying Spaghetti Monster" tells you nothing about what it is, as the name clearly indicates it is some kind of monstrous flying spaghetti thing.

Haha. Indeed.  

Quote:
The problem is, simply by defining something as theism you've given me a description of what it is.

Only in that I believe of a "God concerned with humanity."  I think that might be, the only, basic block of the word.

Quote:
I can judge the idea of the loch-ness monster, however, even if I haven't been to the lake or studied the history of the beast.

You can judge.  We all can.. judge most things, if not everything we want.

Quote:
Actually, until proof is offered suggesting one idea is more(or less) rational than the other, I really don't see the objection to this.

This would require me to know, and judge, about those other concepts.. so, feel free to enlighten me on the concept of FSM or brahman.

And then I will tell you if, how, I believe one to be more or less rational than the others.

Let me state something:

The concept of an all-loving, all-powerful, logical God who burns people in hellfire for eternal torment for a, seemingly, finite actions... seems illogical to me.

Irrational? Well.. who knows.  Perhaps I just don't know enough about the belief system.

Quote:
If someone says "Glimmerwidgets are good!" and another guy stands up and says "No, Glimmerwidgets are bad!", the fact that neither of these statements accompanies anything real means that neither is more or less valid than the other.

They are both equally.. neither irrational or rational-- they are assertions.

Quote:
YOU believe that your particular god has evidence, or proof, I don't, therefore my statement is rational.

Your statement is rational.  Does not mean you are objectively correct.

Quote:
Until you offer a valid reason to do so, you're not likely to find that atheists "may change".

Atheist (I believe) believe themselves to be logical individuals.

I, therefore, am attempting to use logic to suggest that, perhaps, that (some of) they should realize that there application and use of the "irrational" is not objectively correct (objectively, refering to the basic definition)-- merely subjective opinion.

The same as I would say.. "To not believe in God is irrational."

(Something I don't necessarily believe.. just making a point.)

Anyways.. Getting kind of late-- and I'm substitute teaching tomorrow.. so probably won't be able to get another post in tonight.

Take care S.


Spewn
Posts: 98
Joined: 2007-01-30
User is offlineOffline
To sum up everything;   I

To sum up everything;

 

I have no problem with you believing in something that exists only inside your head.  Once you start suggesting that it had anything to do with the world we live in, that's where things will get hairy until you prove it.  Mathematics was used to build the house I live in, the computer I'm typing this on, the car I drive etc.  Theism has shown no such usefulness or accuracy.

 

 


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: ...Theism has shown

Quote:
...Theism has shown no such usefulness or accuracy.

To you.

I think that is an important qualification.

Theism.. fundamentallly I believe..has "something to do with the world we live in."

True.. it exists in my head. True my experiences and yours are different.  True my perceived benefits and yours might be as well. 

So I will not be so presumptious as to believe that I can prove to you something that you don't already believe or are willing to believe.

Heh.. the odd circle.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Well, I've been watching

Well, I've been watching for a while, to see how the side conversations would go. I guess it's a decent time for me to jump in again.

As predicted, I've been disappointed, but at least I was ready for it. In a way, rhad, it's really interesting to watch your mind work. You're not unlike that un-common-sensical concept in calculus -- approaching but never reaching zero. You get so close to realizing your mistake, and never do!

I wish we could leave Pi alone, honestly. Pi/Irrational is to God/Irrational as Chess/Set is to Tennis/Set. I don't know why we're even talking about it. The only correlation is that the words are spelled and pronounced the same.

Just to be thorough, I'd like to reiterate: Pi is irrational because it fits the mathematical definition of the word: It does not produce a terminating set of decimals. That's it. Pi is not, by any sense of the word, philosophically irrational. Period.

Theism, defined as belief in the supernatural, has a definite effect on the world. So does astrology. So do alien spaceships. People's beliefs affect their actions, and their actions affect others. This has absolutely zero impact on the objective existence of actual alien spaceships, or the statistical analysis of the accuracy of astrological charts or marriages.

To return to the original point, which you have gone to such great lengths to refute, and have not managed to do so:

Supernatural is a broken concept. It describes nothing. In the same way that a square circle cannot exist, supernatural cannot exist. Theism is the belief in the supernatural. Since the supernatural cannot exist, believing that it does exist is irrational in the philosophical sense, defined briefly as "believing in something despite logical proof of the contrary, total lack of evidence, or the logical impossibility of its existence."

While it is possible to philosophically define anything we like into existence, to descend into nihilism through uncertainty, or to postulate the existence of uncomprehendable existence, all three of these "justifications" for belief in the illogical still leave us in a universe where the only possible universe of discourse is the universe of rational possibilities, and any intellectually honest postulate must be confined to it.

Therefore, Rhad, theism is irrational.

 

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

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


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:As predicted, I've

I think the end is quite nice.. I hope you get there and are not immediately put off (as disappointed and give up) by the initial contentions.

Quote:
As predicted, I've been disappointed, but at least I was ready for it.

Sorry. I still don't believe it was as disappointing as not getting the hot girl's number.


[qoute]In a way, rhad, it's really interesting to watch your mind work. You're not unlike that un-common-sensical concept in calculus -- approaching but never reaching zero. You get so close to realizing your mistake, and never do!

Highly complex and technically correct, but not practical? Smiling


Quote:
I wish we could leave Pi alone, honestly. Pi/Irrational is to God/Irrational as Chess/Set is to Tennis/Set.

Or like Car/Tire and Sleepy/Tire. I believe there is some sort of commonality between a congregation of chest pieces known as a "chess set" and a congregations of tennis plays known as a "tennis set".


Quote:
I don't know why we're even talking about it.

We were talking about it because I assumed, incorrectly it seems, that you would understand the relationship between the two definitions (which I still believe there is). I did not believe that you held the definition of one application as COMPLETELY independent from the other.


I still do not believe they are as independent as you believe (even with your stated definitions-- there is still a relationship) but.. nonetheless, I will move on.. because I was only seeking to make this proposition.


"If you accept the use of A as rational you must the possibility that B is also rational."


I was not trying to PROVE that theism is irrational.. just testing to see if you were consistent.


But like I said.. since we have come to a difference of fundamental definitions on this tangent.. as well as the relationship between those definitions-- I will take it no farther.


Quote:
Pi is irrational because it fits the mathematical definition of the word: It does not produce a terminating set of decimals.


If you believe this to be a mutually exclusive definition (as you have in essence said).. then I have equally meant to make my use of the term "irrational" in a mutually exclusive way.


My definition for the word "irrational" when applied to "supernatural" means "cannot be fully defined".


If you do not accept my definition of the word as possible.. then I must take back my "concession" of the point that "supernatural is definitively irrational". Which would lead us back a couple squares.. :/


Quote:
Theism, defined as belief in the supernatural, has a definite effect on the world.

But what that effect should be as well as how it is revaeled, is different from theistic belief to theistic belief.


Quote:
So does astrology. So do alien spaceships.

Indeed.


Quote:
People's beliefs affect their actions, and their actions affect others.

Actions don't always affect others.. but as for the first part, yes.


(I can whistle in a completely isolated place... my whistling doesn't affect others.)


Quote:
This has absolutely zero impact on the objective existence of actual alien spaceships, or the statistical analysis of the accuracy of astrological charts or marriages.

Indeed. But neither does "rational" or "logic". I can be perfectly rational and logical.. and still be wrong.


Quote:
To return to the original point, which you have gone to such great lengths to refute, and have not managed to do so:

Hmm..


Quote:
Supernatural is a broken concept. It describes nothing.

According to your definition or mine? My definition would only imply that it is not fully able to be described.. mine allows me to define somethings.. just not EVERYTHING about whatever is 'supernatural'.


Even a "supernatural" concept has "natural" aspects.


For instance.. a ghost is considered supernatural.. but still has natural aspects.. otherwise one would not be able to speak of it at all.


Does that mean ghost are rational? No.. not necessarily. I'm just speaking of the word and its application.


Quote:
In the same way that a square circle cannot exist, supernatural cannot exist.

A square circle cannot exist because it is axiomatically impossible.


A square is a square-- this is an axiom. A circle is a circle-- this is an axiom. The characteristics of a square does not match up to the characteristics of a circle.. therefore you cannot have something that is both at the same time.


The relationship is not the same between "square circle" and "supernatural".. I don't believe it's even close.


Supernatural is a word. "Square circle" is two. One has to do with definition and application to the world. One has to do with definition and application to eachother.


Quote:
Theism is the belief in the supernatural.

Therefore people that believe in ghosts are theist? I believe your definition is incomplete.


Yes.. they believe in one thing that is supernatural.. this does not mean all things-- or that this is the sole belief of theism.


Quote:
Since the supernatural cannot exist

This is an assertion that goes against many points (I believe) you have stated in the past.


Even if something is proven utterly illogical.. and utterly irrational.. does not mean that at somepoint, it might be found, that this thing actually exists or is.


i.e. a sun-center system.


Illogical and irrational.. are so many times affected by time and perception rather than truth.


But.. thats beside the point-- I'm just taking issue with this assertion.


Quote:
believing that it does exist is irrational in the philosophical sense, defined briefly as "believing in something despite logical proof of the contrary, total lack of evidence, or the logical impossibility of its existence."

Where did you get this definition for "irrational in the philosphical sense?"


Dictionary? I suppose its possible. In anycase.. I have not conceded that logic has "proven" anything about the "possible" existence of the supernatural. At the most, I have conceeded that logic cannot address a "supernatural" aspect unless it is defined.. which, would be dificult to do. But nonetheless.


As for the "total lack of evidence".. many people use this-- and I keep on trying to counter that "evidence" does not need to be "independently verifiable".. it is merely the "basis for" X.


Quote:
While it is possible to philosophically define anything we like into existence, to descend into nihilism through uncertainty, or to postulate the existence of uncomprehendable existence, all three of these "justifications" for belief in the illogical still leave us in a universe where the only possible universe of discourse is the universe of rational possibilities, and any intellectually honest postulate must be confined to it.

I agree. The question is, however, and I keep on trying to clarify this, when I wish to enter a "rational discourse" and make "intellectually honest postulates".. I try, maybe I do-- but I do not believe so, to speak of the natural aspects of God's character. For instance.. 'all-loving' and 'logical' are natural aspects.


Hm.. I just thought of something..


If I had said.. "The culmination of all things constituted a sentinent thing--even as the culmination of the molecules of your brain constitute a sentinent thing--and this thing was 'God', that is all loving, all powerful (definitively), and logical."


Would this be alright with you?


It would take out the "supernatural" aspect of the concept.. and is still "inline" with a "theistic" viewpoint.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I hope I'm reading

Quote:

I hope I'm reading you right. Saying that a number is irrational only means what I said above (and anything that's logically equivalent of course). It has to do with ratios.

It is mutually exclusive with the usage of irrational in philosophy, theology, etc. It has nothing to do with violating reason.

Of course the ancient Greeks though all numbers were rational, and finding that the square root of two was irrational was a big scandal among Greek mathematicians. So to them irrational numbers were irrational.

Interesting. I find history fascinating at times.  Those crazy greeks, heh.

Um.. but yes.. I can concede, for the sake of argument, that the two definitions are mutually exclusive.  I did not, however, originally assume this.. I probably assumed more like some of those mad greeks of old.

If the definitions of "irrational" are mutually exclusive in these two cases.. then the point (that a person who says a mathematician is rational but a theist isn't irrational, even though they both use an 'irrational', is inconsistent) does not apply.

Read the post above.  It's killer.  Kind of like eating a Chipotle Burrito, but without the food or satisfied filling afterward. Sticking out tongue (Just playful arrogance.. I'm actually finding this conversation fascinating.. it just a bit fatiguing on the mind--at times.) 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: My definition for

Quote:
My definition for the word "irrational" when applied to "supernatural" means "cannot be fully defined".

Well, that's the problem then.

This is a broken concept. What does "fully defined" mean? Why can it not be fully defined? If you try to answer these questions, you will discover that you will still end up with nonsense "negative" definitions or "double" definitions.

But, you're the one asserting that theism is rational, so -- Onward and Upward!

Please explain with complete definitions what "fully defined" means.

Please explain with complete definitions why an irrational thing "cannot be fully defined."

Thank you.

(Please don't dodge by saying that you only said theism can be rational.  You know that will only take up bandwidth, and you'll still have to answer the questions.)

Oh, and for the record, I've long since gotten over the Japanese girl. But, yes, I'd say I was a bit more disappointed by not getting her number than by you not seeing the error in your thinking. Once again, your deduction, based entirely on rational concepts, was brilliantly accurate. If only you could apply that same rationality to god-belief...

 

 

 

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

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


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Please explain with

Quote:
Please explain with complete definitions what "fully defined" means.

"Fully defined", in this case, refers to the ability to write out an explanation of a real phenomena which can be considered complete.

This is what I mean by Pi is not "fully defined"... as of yet.. any number written has yet to be "considered complete".

God "cannot be fully defined" in the sense that any explanation I give up him will not be considered complete.

Quote:
This is a broken concept. What does "fully defined" mean? Why can it not be fully defined? If you try to answer these questions, you will discover that you will still end up with nonsense "negative" definitions or "double" definitions.

By the way.. the concept that "negative definitions" are nonsense only refers to those definitions which are "fully comprised of negative definitions".

Such as.. "A rock is not a couch, or a tv, or a.... etc etc etc.)

I would have to go off into infinity until such a time as to discount all things but a rock.  That is why it is considered nonsense to define things purely negatively.

My definition of supernatural (something I have conceded is irrational in this sense), however, is not purely negatively nor is my definition of "Cannot fully be defined".

Supernatural is anything that "cannot be fully defined".. or, with replacing the definition: Supernatural is anything which explaning will produce an incomplete explanation.

In both these cases I give positive aspects as well as negative ones.

These can be as valid a definition as this.

"A rational number is any number which does not have an infinite series of non-repeating integers."

Quote:
Oh, and for the record, I've long since gotten over the Japanese girl. But, yes, I'd say I was a bit more disappointed by not getting her number than by you not seeing the error in your thinking. Once again, your deduction, based entirely on rational concepts, was brilliantly accurate. If only you could apply that same rationality to god-belief...

Smiling


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Rhad, I'm sad to see you

Rhad, I'm sad to see you going down these roads. I'm trying to be very honest with you, because I have more hope for you than many of the theists here. You seem to be genuinely interested in truth, but your last few posts have smelled suspiciously of disengenuity.

Quote:
"Fully defined", in this case, refers to the ability to write out an explanation of a real phenomena which can be considered complete. This is what I mean by Pi is not "fully defined"... as of yet.. any number written has yet to be "considered complete".

Pi is fully defined. Pi can be proven mathematically with complete accuracy to whatever finite number of decimals we desire. At any point, we can add another decimal. The word "non-terminating" is a complete, sufficient, and completely accurate definition of the mathematical nature of pi. Why you are not grasping the obvious is a mystery to me. The proof is the definition. Again, in mathematics, irrational refers to numbers that do not terminate. By saying, "Pi does not terminate" I have just given you a precise and accurate understanding of the nature of Pi. If I offer you the mathematical derivation of pi, you will have a complete and precise understanding of Pi.

Your analogy fails here, but I'll go ahead with it.

Quote:
God "cannot be fully defined" in the sense that any explanation I give up him will not be considered complete.

So, Pi is fully defined and God is not. Your analogy fails, and we must conclude that Pi is a very rational concept and god is not.

Once again, I must point out that any attempt to completely define god results in an internal contradiction. The theist's refusal to commit to a definition points not to the "indefinable nature" of an existing being, but to the self-contradictory and illogical (irrational!) nature of any and all definitions of god!

God absolutely CAN be defined, and he is. Christians define him in various ways, but each way leads to an internal contradiction. Same for other theist religions. Pantheism fails because it defines god in purely natural terms and renders the term meaningless in any theistic sense.

Rhad, the obvious conclusion is right there in front of you! It's not that god is indefinable. It's that god is self-contradictory, and so it cannot exist!

For the sake of completeness, I will mention that your understanding of negative definitions is similarly blurred. Definitions are entirely dependent on a universe of discourse. The nature of a negative definition is that it cannot offer one. A negative characteristic within a universe of discourse is simply a derivation of a positive characteristic.

"A rock is not a couch," while being far from precise, is not an example of a negative definition. There is a universe of discourse present, and so the negative attribute, "not a couch" gives us positive information about the nature of a rock.  "Completeness" in a definition deals with a real set of boundaries.  I cannot offer a complete definition of a rock because a rock is comprised of a staggeringly large number of particles, each having a potentially endless number of characteristics.  However, any "complete" definition of a rock will be complete within the parameters set forth.  If I point to a rock, and say, "Is that a couch?" and you say, "A rock is not a couch," you have completely answered my question.  With regard to "supernatural" we cannot say this, because any definition within any meaningful parameters will fail to offer any positive information about what supernatural actually "is."

"God is not natural" is a negative definition because it offers no universe of discourse. Since everything that occurs in the universe is natural, by definition, then god must not exist in the universe. If he does, then he's natural. The term "supernatural" or any other "...natural" word used in its place is nonsense, since it describes nothing. While it "sounds logical" to say that since something is not natural, it must be supernatural, it is not. Without a positive description of what this existence outside of nature is, it is simply wordplay, and cannot be said to describe anything real.

 

Lastly, rhad, please don't gloss over this again. You completely ignored my most important question.

************

Why can god not be fully defined?

************

(You, of course, know I'll call you out if you say anything remotely similar to "Because he's indefinable.&quotEye-wink

 

 

 

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

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


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
Rhad, I'm sad to see you going down these roads. I'm trying to be very honest with you, because I have more hope for you than many of the theists here. You seem to be genuinely interested in truth, but your last few posts have smelled suspiciously of disengenuity.

Regarding this quote.. I'm both complimented and disheartened at the same time. I will attempt to give a better, or more clear, response this time.

Quote:
Pi is fully defined.

I didn't mean to get into this discussion again. Nor is the analogy necessary. You were asking me to "define" something.. I was defining it in the "same way" that one defines "Pi".

But.. let me try to represent my way of thinking someway else.

The end of the universe has not been seen or observed. Perhaps there is one.. and perhaps there is not. The matter of fact is that we have no gotten to its end.. the means by which matter has congregated and revealed beyond we can see is only limited, now, by some scientific assumptions we make concerning fundamental laws of nature.

"Conservation of matter and energy.. etc."

Who knows how many different phenomenas ("things&quotEye-wink have formulated through matter and (if it so suits you) the "Big Bang" theory. The reality of the matter is.. we don't know.. nor will we know until such a time as our abilities allow us to.

Yet, despite our limitations of 'knowing' these things, or 'perceiving' these things, or 'explaining fully' these things, makes little difference as to the "rational belief" that "aspect" of the universe is still not understood, perceived, or explained.

In the same way I view the universe-- I view God.

Perhaps, at some point, my abilities will allow me the ability to "perceive" and "understand" what I do not understand at this point.. (for instance IF God existed, his second coming would probably allow me to "perceive" and "understand" a few things more)... yet, until that time, I describe that "unknown" aspect as "supernatural".

The only difference is that the "unknown" of the universe is fundamentally limited to "the natural" by definition.. and an "omnipotent God" is not necessarily so.

I'm attempting to explain a definition through an analogy.. if the analogy doesn't work for you.. believe me.. it was not done dishonestly.. but just because the "analogy" falls apart does not mean that my "definition" is false. For.. you are asking for how I interpret the definition of supernatural-- the analogy is just an aid in further explaining the concept of:

Supernatural is any thing that cannot be completely explained through natural terms.

(I added that "natural terms" part. Smiling I just realized it was missing in the first one.)

Quote:
The word "non-terminating" is a complete, sufficient, and completely accurate definition of the mathematical nature of pi.

Now you're misrepresenting Pi.

Pi is a ratio that is "non-terminating" AND "non repeating" number.

"Non-terminating" could be. .5555555555555555555....

And that's not pi.

Quote:
Your analogy fails, and we must conclude that Pi is a very rational concept and god is not.

What possible relationship is there between the "failing of the analogous relationship" and the rational merit of Pi as opposed to God?

The relationship between the rational merit of the two and the analogy only exists in the affirmative.

If X -> Y.

Because you're saying "Not X" -> "Not Y"

This is a "incorrect negation" in order to make me believe that I must "logically agreed" to something that I do not in accordance with my earlier argument.

Nonetheless.. I presented another analogy. Perhaps it better explains.

Quote:
Once again, I must point out that any attempt to completely define god results in an internal contradiction.

Any "Christian" attempt to COMPLETELY define God results in an internal contradiction. Yes.

Quote:
The theist's refusal to commit to a definition points not to the "indefinable nature" of an existing being, but to the self-contradictory and illogical (irrational!) nature of any and all definitions of god!

This however, is not the necessary causation.

Quote:
God absolutely CAN be defined, and he is. Christians define him in various ways, but each way leads to an internal contradiction. Same for other theist religions. Pantheism fails because it defines god in purely natural terms and renders the term meaningless in any theistic sense.

Not completely/fully. As for pantheist. Perhaps. But the explanation of God/gods in completely natural terms does not logically necessitate "meaningless".

Quote:
Rhad, the obvious conclusion is right there in front of you! It's not that god is indefinable. It's that god is self-contradictory, and so it cannot exist!

Hmm..

[edit] Regarding your explanation of negative definitions.. I can only hope your correct.. because I am changing my thoughts in accordance with them as I understand them.. And while I wrote a lot regarding these ideas.. I thought it better to focuse on one particular thing.

Quote:
"God is not natural" is a negative definition because it offers no universe of discourse. Since everything that occurs in the universe is natural, by definition, then god must not exist in the universe. If he does, then he's natural.

I NEVER wish to "discourse" about the supernatural aspects of God. Rightly so.. to say I am discoursing some "supernatural" aspect of God would be impossible since.. "by definition" everything that occurs in the universe is natural.

I believe that I have stated this before that when I speak of God I only speak of those "natural premises" which I accept, and speak with regards to.

[------------------------------------------------------------->

If this is God. Then everything up to ">" is natural aspects.. everything other than that would be consider "supernatural". It's possible that there are no supernatural aspects.. but, seeing as I have accepted a premise of "omnipotent".. I necessitate the "possibility" that there is.

Christian concept of God does not necessitate that has, in fact, supernatural characteristics. Yet.. understandably.. there are perhaps biblical actions we cannot scientifically explain (if they are as they say they are)-- that is not to say that we could never explain such a thing through natural means since they all involve natural things (visual things.. things observable.. by definition.. natural.)

For instance.. at one point, some people believed planes to be supernatural.. does this mean, that in fact they were? Or that one could not explain it as of yet?

Quote:
Why can god not be fully defined?

************

(You, of course, know I'll call you out if you say anything remotely similar to "Because he's indefinable.&quotEye-wink

Heh.

IF I have fully defined him, then he is a lot smaller than I believe. Yet, it's possible that I could with just the mere definition of: omnipotent, all-loving, logical, conscious culmination of all matter.

(The last one I added just for the sake of keeping it 'natural' and therefore being able to 'fully define' him.)

I choose to believe that there is something more beyond my definition even as I believe that there is something more beyond the farthest perceived reaches of space. There is no evidence... just accepted that there is.

But.. like I said.. "any aspect of God I "cannot define"-- I do not discourse about. It's just a premise, as rational as it is to believe that there is more to this universe than what we know right now (it's based off my hopeful, curious, nature). "Supernatural" aspects of God.. do not necessarily have real world effects.. they could.. but since I don't try to define them.. they cannot definitively at this time.  And so.. it's nothing.

Anyways.. I know you're going to get mad at me. Heh-- or at least.. I'm guessing you are. Sticking out tongue

Hope things are good Hammy. Don't get to upset with me. I'm only human. Smiling


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Well, rhad, I get upset

Well, rhad, I get upset with you because I like you.

I'd have given up weeks ago if I wasn't sincerely interested in helping you get all that damn theism um... forgive me... exorcised from your mind.

You're right, I am upset, but mainly because you got quibbly with me about Pi.

Sorry I didn't include the words "non-repeating" in my post.  You caught me.  My entire argument must be blown to shreds now because I didn't reproduce the exact definition of pi.  Duh.

I've pretty much exhausted my limits of following you around in a circle for the time being, rhad.  I hope you'll forgive me for not refuting your last post.  It's not lack of ability, it's lack of will.

Maybe someone else will jump in here and help me out for a while.  Tag-Team Atheism, if you like.

 

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

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


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
:) Heh.  I know what you

Smiling Heh.  I know what you mean by "lack of will".. it happens at times.

 Good luck with your hiatus... I'll continue reading other peoples post.. I think I'm going to cut back on the posting a bit-- or a lot.


Steve A (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
FAITH - what it is

"Faith" If it's not "Belief despite evidence to the contrary" or "Belief despite a complete lack of evidence," what is it?

In reading your posts/dialogue (admittedly not all) I believe you want some one to argue/express their view with accuracy and conviction, and yet to accept your criticism, which I consider to be constructive.

"Faith" is a big subject. What is it....if not "Belief despite evidence to the contrary" or despite a complete lack of evidence," ? Those who are "of faith" are not without evidence, on the contrary, they do indeed have evidence, quite clearly to them,....Now this may not be the best analogy, but....If, for example, Sam truly believes that his mother loves him(and you know this because he speaks of this to you), but you, his best friend, see things differently.....though you've not met nor even seen her, in fact you're beginning to wonder if she really does exist. (use your imagination here....how do I portray a young class mate whose habitual appearance is only the beginning among other things that would lead us to believe that his mother couldn't possibly care about him or for him, let alone love him. In fact, everything in you says he's deluded.

He has something deep within him........ a conviction....... that you cannot change. This could even frustrate you, because, after all, best friends care about one another......and, you want him to see what you do...... that what he believes ( regarding his mothers love for him ) is unfounded and without evidence. Sam is also frustrated, he wants you to understand his reason for his belief, cause he cares about you. AND he wants not to be conceived as a fool, he wants to justify himself. But you still don't see any evidence to support or justify Sams belief.

Sams dilemna is like that of a believer, (what he has deep inside himself, which he may likely have trouble putting into words, is ...... a conviction...... a witness .....that he didn't invent, imagine, or create, and he is powerless to change it nor does he desire to change it because it agrees with all that he is )....and therefore he has nothing to hold in his hand, to show to you, to convince you, even his best friend, that he has "FAITH" .

So.....FAITH is:......intangible, unseen, not earned, nor gotten by any merit. It is a gift, given by God, to whom He will, when He will, according to all He's ordained since the foundation of the earth.

I believe that you also have beliefs, deeply imbedded within you (in your heart), that no man nor his clever sermons/arguments can dissuade.

Faith is, ......not blind...... I remember only seven years ago ( I was 50 )when I thought and freely proclaimed: that religion stuff is for those with weak minds, etc. I could not know what was hidden from me ! I could not believe nor want to make sense of what others believed, after all, they had nothing tangible to hang their hats on, not to mention their lives...... I can see..... that the things I believe are very different, I wasn't always this way!

Faith is,....not mine......it is a gift...but it is God/Jesus manifested in me, it is "His faith" manifested in me.

Faith is,....The witness/revelation of the Father and the Son deep within.....in my heart/ my spirit/soul. This witness/revelation is " in part " we believers don't see(with the heart) all of God, nor do we have all the answers, but He's convinced us that He does.

Faith is, ....Amazing Grace.......I was lost ( blind / without revelation, without knowledge of Him)....But now I see (not by my doing, but because of Him and His plan ).

So much more could be said about "Faith". I welcome response.
I am OK with those who oppose what I believe. I respect you and your right to believe what you do.

Thank you, I commend you for your willingness to engage and to speak freely.

Steve A


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

Constructive criticism: Less..... dot...... dot..... dot...... would make your posts a lot easier to read.

So far, it looks like you're saying that faith is analogous to a situation in which neither of two parties has enough knowledge to accurately make a decision, yet both of them have convictions based on their limited knowledge. Am I approximately correct?

If this is your position, then you fail in two ways.

1) An analogy is not a definition.

2) An individual's awareness of the existence of information has no bearing on the objective existence of that information.

This topic has been covered before. A person may make a rational judgment based on inaccurate data and arrive at a logical conclusion that is objectively false. This has nothing to do with defining the word faith.

Or, perhaps you mean that Sam is correct, and that his mother does love him, but he cannot convince his friend because his friend does not have enough information about his subjective understanding of his mother.

This argument also fails. Expressing it more clearly, it says, "One person's subjective understanding of a subjective concept cannot be proven empirically. While this is true, it is not analogous. While it is a true statement, it is not a definition of a word. If you say, "Faith is a belief in a subjective understanding of a subjective concept," I will agree that it is so, but this gives faith no ontological or epistemological authority, and cannot possibly justify it as a means to deriving falsifiable (empirically verifiable) knowledge.

If you want to try again to define faith, please use the form:

Faith is XXXXXXXXXXX.

Analogies are not definitions, so don't say, "Faith is like XXXXX." If I say, "Crafflepop is like water," can you tell me what crafflepop is? Maybe I mean it's a liquid. Maybe I mean its chemical composition is two elements. Maybe I mean it is a solvent. Maybe i mean it's pretty to look at when it falls over a cliff.

 

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

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


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Wow.. never expected this

Wow.. never expected this thread to be resurrected. 

Faith is a belief not based on proof. 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Yep.  I was equally

Yep.  I was equally surprised, but hey, I try to be thorough.

I would not argue against your definition, Rhad.  It's good enough for the newspapers.  I'm sure if I dissected it a bit, we could get into a good argument, but I think we've probably shot this horse enough times.

 

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

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


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
You know me too well Hamby.

You know me too well Hamby. Smiling