Fanman wrote:Hi Xris,

If you read my posts, you'll see that I do examine my faith, I apply reason and logic to it. Due to the fact that you're a staunch athiest, I see no value in entering into an ad hominem dicussion with you about faith. If you want to see my faith fully explored, please read my book, it will answer alot of you're questions. We are all dogmatic in my view, all that differs, is what we are dogmatic about.

Typist wrote:

Xris wrote:Sorry that is just excusing your inability to answer simple questions.

Are your questions about god(s) based on reason?

If yes, please demonstrate that human reason and logic is binding on all of reality.

Before you do that, please tell us how big reality actually is.

If we don't even know what reality actually is, how can we know that reason is an adequate and appropriate tool for evaluating all of reality?

Isn't any conclusion that reason would be capable of analyzing gods also an act of faith?

Typist wrote:

Xris wrote: If we abide by your reasoning and consider reality as a mystery then nothing can be debated.

All of reality is not a mystery.

As example, we have tons of very well documented evidence that reason is the appropriate tool for designing bridges. Everybody agrees on this, and nobody wants to cross a bridge built using religion or faith.

The question of God is an entirely different matter, as now we are considering what is or isn't at the heart of all reality. There is no evidence that reason is the appropriate or adequate tool for a question of this scale. It might be, or maybe not, nobody has a clue.

God and religion can still be debated, but reason requires us to be clear that everybody involved in the debate is arguing from a position of faith.

This isn't a problem for the religious, as they generally already claim faith as their foundation.

If the non-religious wish to challenge religion on the basis of reason, they first have to demonstrate that human reason is binding on all of reality, a concept which can't be defined in any meaningful way, as we have no clue what "all of reality" actually includes.

Groktruth wrote:Xris,

I am enjoying this discussion, but I have lost sight of your unanswered question. Could you restate it?

Thanks.

Groktruth wrote:Xris,

One at a time. I'm getting old.

G.

Fanman wrote:Hi Xris,

If you want a description of God from the perspective of Christian theology (which is the God I believe in) simply read the Christian bible.

Fanman wrote:Hi Xris,

I think that you're going about this the wrong way. If you consider what you know about God, describing him should be easy for you. He is the type of Father who suffered and sacrificed his own son so that mankind would have a chance of redemption. That was a great expression of love and mercy; therefore God is loving and merciful. He is the keeper of those who believe in him and his son. He is (through Jesus) always welcoming new sheep to the herd; therefore God is welcoming. You get my drift now Xris? God did x; therefore he is y. Hence you have a description.

Typist wrote:1) Theists believe in the ability of holy books to address questions of infinite scale.

2) Atheists believe in the ability of reason to address questions of infinite scale.

3) Both of these beliefs are faith, because neither are supported by evidence.

What is a delusion is any notion that theists and atheists are fundamentally different. The truth is, they are fundamentally the same. They differ only in the authority they choose to have blind faith in.

Fanman wrote:Hi Typist,

What about a theist who's ”blind faith” is based on reason and logic? What catergory would you put them into?

Fanman wrote:Hi Xris,

Scamper away? Not at all. I just don't see the point in holding or continuing a debate where the contributors will never meet on common ground, due to having polar perspectives and opinions. My logic and reasoning are clear to see in my previous posts. And can easily be examined.

Fanman wrote:Hi Xris,

Take it easy, I'm not preaching to anyone. I am only sharing my opinion as I choose to.

Nick_A wrote:

Belinda wrote:Here is the definition to which Scott refers:

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: "Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." That is the only definition from that dictionary that seems to apply in the epistemological context of this discussion.

I have just replied to the new topic on Derrida and deconstruction, to which I responded that deconstruction has no practical logical use at all. Faith as defined above is within the universe of debate which may be referred to as constructive. This is because a structure is implicit in this debate. The structure that is implicit in the debate as raised by Scott is Western Enlightenment structure. Upon this structure it is true that faith is self delusion. However if you believe that there is nothing true, not even logical proofs, but thinking and language makes it so, then we all have faith in something or other or we would abandon all efforts to care for our own lives.

Secularism only recognizes one quality of faith which is faith IN something or someone. However there is also the faith OF Christ. It is our psychological potential to serve as a middle which unites levels of reality and opens us to becoming an expression of objective human meaning and purpose.