Yes; like when an orchestra disbands, their music stops. — 180 Proof

If you make an orchestra playing music a metaphor for a human body living and conscious, then yes, I guess an orchestra disbanding would be like a human body breaking down and dying…into eternal oblivion, to round out all the poetry.

Who did the paying? Investigate that.

So some idiot pays a claimant too much money and before proving enough suspicion to obtain a warrant, that idiot gets to grab the money without the claimant’s consent? Terrible idea.

what awaits us when we die — Zebeden

As far as I can tell, all life is inseparable from the physical body. Life is a function of a certain physical arrangement. Why would my life be different?

If the body stops functioning, the body stops living; why would I think there is anything left to live on after this body stops functioning, or why would I think some function of my body (my mind for instance), would be able to persist or be sustained, when the other functioning of my body (my breathing for instance, or my brain activity) stops functioning?

Eternal oblivion is a poetic way of simply saying “not here anymore.”

I am a body. When the body dies and decays, everything about me, everything particular to “me”, is gone.

Life after death would be a miracle.
Because it is by definition physically impossible.

I personally believe in miracles. My cousin just died last week and I hope God saved him from his death as I hope for all of you. But this is a belief in the impossible.

Can you tell me two useful things Nietzsche has contributed to your thinking and life? In simple dot points. — Tom Storm

His approach to science - the gay science. Meaning, each step towards "knowledge" must be made with an awareness that we are likely fooling ourselves. Seek the truth, but never claim truth is the only, highest goal, and never assume the truth you find may not one day be made false.

He flipped the Reality-Appearance divide for me. I saw appearance as the world of changing things, more material in nature, and the world of reality as hidden, only seen in ideas and truth. Nietzsche reminded me that we only claim to see "reality" and formal ideas at all because by unmasking material appearances, and that really, these appearances are as formal as ideas ever get to be. The appearances, the Apollonian, the rational-knowing-truth seeking, are all aligned; but reality, the Dionysian, the tumultuous world of instinct and power, this is the hidden reality. He toppled the age-old distrust or hatred of the body that favored only things of the mind. He reminded us of the body, of man's absurd place opposed to this body. And he didn't deny the absurdity or the opposition, just that we have been looking at it from one side, and of the two sides, the less real side.

But what I did was take Nietzsche's equation for man (a rope over an abyss) and said faith is very much the same. I find it an interesting parallel — DifferentiatingEgg

We ARE the presence of faith, the existence of faith, in life.

The bridge threw me off (ironically) your point.

I like the tightrope over an abyss, because even though it’s a tightrope, you don’t really care much about what’s holding the rope up on each side, there’s just a tightrope and the abyss.

To me, the rope itself creates the distance below it, so we are, simultaneously, the rope that creates the distance and so we are the abyss (we manufacture our own isolation by just being). We build our own need for a bridge or a path, that is never just there, (unless something reaches out of the abyss and grabs us). Nothing grabbed Nietzsche from the abyss. He only had himself. If he wanted a path or a faith or a bridge, he alone had to construct it whole-cloth, like an artist does. Which is why I respect his philosophy above most others. He saw that we build both the abyss and if we want a bridge, we build that too.

I only differ from him (and it’s a huge difference) in that I don’t associate faith in the church with laws and hell and hierarchies and priests and self-denial. There’s nothing special at all about the pope because he’s a pope. He might be special, but I’d have to know him personally like anyone else might be special. But “pope” is just a game.

But just because a law is given doesn’t mean I can’t make it my own. I can conquer whatever I want. Even Nietzsche had to learn to speak German once before he could build his art. Anyone claiming they know another honest man’s faith is deceiving themselves. No one can know anyone, not even themselves. And post-modern social construction theories, that’s all today’s over-rated reified masking, and today’s slave morality. Layers upon layers of lies and more self-defeating, self anesthetizing, opiates to cover the abyss. Own your own shit, whatever that shit may be, and celebrate when you want to celebrate.

Faith is essential to being a person. The question is not “do you believe?” Because we all do. The question is “what do you believe?” Reason is essential too but reason is more like the rope, having form (logic and language), and believing is more like the abyss. Some people won’t let go of the rope. Others think they can see things in the abyss and are delusional (possibly me). But the existentialists, Nietzsche, just called it what it was - absurd, nauseating, solitary - meaning standing in the face of absolute meaninglessness, the abyss.

We stand on the edge of everything. We are the first limit in the limitless. We are the first fleeting form, and as soon as we grasp that, we must lose it all and start over.

Faith is a style of guiding principle, a phenomenological structure that paves a path forward, a bridge over an abyss... — DifferentiatingEgg

Basically I like it, especially recognizing the abyss, but I’d chop down a bit.

Faith is a self-structured principle, that paves a path forward in the abyss.

“Bridge” implies you might see the other side just needing a bridge you don’t see to get there. I see the abyss all around with no other side to bridge towards in sight. So the faith we build is solely in the face of the unknown, of emptiness, of nothing else but our choice.

Because I happen to have faith, I see its structure as a gift, not so much because of me. When I said “self-structured” I’m recognizing that I have to gather all of the inputs to build the output here called faith. But because of the particular faith I have, I don’t take as much credit for my own gathering - I give more credit to structure than my structuring. But it’s all by my choice, so it all collapses back to me in the abyss. The faith, the path, is a gift (for me) or it is a “style” or “phenomenological structure” in terms of someone else’s faith.

"faith" is the same thing as what I call "intuition." — T Clark

I never responded to you on the other thread. I think we are on the same page but I’d name the moving parts a bit differently.

Believing is found in a moment of consent, and your actions are based on what you consented to. Once you believe something, it’s as deep as it gets and you are willing to act on it.

We can KNOW it is safe to cross the street by looking both ways, but the moment we step off the curb it’s because we ARE BELIEVING what we know; we gather the knowledge, CONSENT OR BELIEVE, and only then act.

Intuition is like a parallel process to reasoning, to gathering the knowledge. Intuition is like when you can’t explain your reasoning, but you know it is reasonable. Believing is more of an act of consenting to whatever you know, be it known from reasoning or from intuition.

That said, I can see why you place intuition more closely to believing. Both are distinct from knowing and reasoning (qua knowing and reasoning).

It’s like anything we do - we get all the knowledge, we train, we check our equipment and then it comes time to act. If we didn’t believe we were ready, we wouldn’t act. Believing gathers what we know, what is reasonable, where the holes in the reasoning are, where the questions still exist, and then, we decide, we consent, we either believe or not - so belief is the springboard for action.

So religious faith and religious beliefs are a particular subset of this otherwise human process of knowing, reasoning, believing and acting.

Religious faith is about the same process, just the objects of knowledge are fantastical, impossible, non-empirical.

People who mock religious people, think believing is just skipping the reasoning part. Which it can be, so I don’t blame them for the mockery (most religious people should expect mockery cause there are some whacky beliefs in most religions). A religious belief is just another type of belief, similar to a belief we might have that it is safe to cross the street, that my own eyes are not deceiving me and there are no unaccounted demons in the sewer!

faith: it's is incorrigible belief. — Relativist

Sounds like a person with the ability to reason who won’t use reason when it comes to belief. It sounds like a mental problem.

So if a person of faith is reasonable in every other conversation besides faith (because faith isn’t reasonable), wouldn’t that person be at odds with their own faith? How is that tenable? What kind of inner life regarding their own beliefs would that be? How does one preach that, if one was so inclined to preach? Sounds terrible.

You are certainly accurately describing a lot of religious kooks and cult members. Incorrigible believing. Probably some mental problems. But does that accurately describe all people who believe anything that hasn’t been empirically/experientially verified yet? Are all such believers refusing to be reasonable?

I take the view points, let them all rattle around in my head in a hurricane of different thoughts, not all are left standing. — DifferentiatingEgg

I call it all part of the gay science.

What I was trying to say is like instead of absolute faith, you're now in the realm of educated guess... which is a combination of faith and knowledge, and knowledge isn't faith — DifferentiatingEgg

Again, the picture that creates is the picture I see, but the words you use to paint it I wouldn’t use that way.

I see the educated guess as in between the realm of absolute knowledge, and zero knowledge (like unconscious or subconscious). All of that is separate from will, from believing. You can be 50% sure or 60%. But when you are asked what you believe, given what you know, belief works at either 100% or 0. When you take the guess, at the moment of actually guessing based on the little you know, you are 100% believing that is what you believe.

Like if you were only going to leap once you were fifty percent sure and your at forty, then forty two, then you hit fifty and you say, that’s enough, I believe the leap will happen and just as I am about to leap I get more info and now I’m at 75%. I know more, the guess is better educated, but I already believed and was ready to leap. I know more, but I don’t believe more.

Belief, will, drives the moment of action. It’s not the moment of knowing or the moment of reasoning.

That’s my take. Think there are overlaps in the two pictures.

no, he would assume he was being deceived because he "knows" Jesus was resurrected. — Relativist

shows the unfalsifiabilty of objects of faith, …. evidence to the contrary are rejected ….. ad hoc hypothesising. This is part of the irrationality of faith. — Banno

That is what faith does, for a 'believer'. — AmadeusD

Oh my God. Faith sounds terrible!
Those people must be insufferable, just real douchers.

Am I really a doucher and I just never applied my reasoning to the situation? Banno thinks I can’t even reason - now I’ll have nothing left!!

But DiffEgg, although I wouldn’t say it how he says it, sees belief as more of a presence on the game board, which I agree(d) with:

educated guess... which is a combination of faith and knowledge, and knowledge isn't faith. — DifferentiatingEgg

if they converted faith into knowledge would it be a decrease of faith. But gaining knowledge about about something doesn't necessarily mean a decrease in faith. — DifferentiatingEgg

Is believing vital to the mix?

Now I’m not so sure.

But wait. What about when you don’t know? And you have to act on what little you do know?

Are we still acting on knowledge alone?

What about taking risk? Do we need anything like faith to take risk?

Risk involves a lack of knowledge, an act despite the lack of knowledge, like belief despite any reasoning or evidence.

Personally, a lot is not being said. I think belief, reasoning, knowledge are simultaneously at work in many of our actions, and a ‘faith’ is just another ‘science’ which is just another ‘story’, because it’s just another wording, which relies on beliefs, reasoning and knowledge to happen. You choose your beliefs, but we are all slaves to believing something.

Don’t believe me if you want, but then believe only yourself if you want.

Certainly we need faith to get to know other people. You don’t trust me yet do you? I’m being sarcastic at times here, so maybe I’m a liar. What do you believe, because you certainly don’t know?

Religious faith is just the ugliest form, right? or is that the purest form of faith?

Everyone is so biased against “faith” as organized religion, they overlook how important their own beliefs have been, despite being yet unproven, untested, even unfalsifiable in any practical sense.

So if believing and beliefs and having faith are just the way for us, do we really need to place science and above art and above faith and all else, or might that just be a sort of faith in itself?

Where did that nonsense come from? — Banno

The most faithful will be seeking to disprove that god exists.
— Banno — Fire Ologist

So for faithful Pat to believe God exists, he will seeking to prove the belief that God does not exist.

I’m sure you are confused again. It’s ok.

Two beliefs:
Pat believes that "god exists" is true
Pat believes that "god does not exist" is true.

In both cases, Pat holds a certain proposition to be the case.

I am not responsible for your own confusion. — Banno

So the same Pat can hold both beliefs at the same time. Got it. According to non-confusing Banno.

Sounds like someone else is confused. Probably Pat. :sweat:

And others compete for my attention. — Banno

Or you don’t have an explanation as to why it makes sense to you to say “a belief is holding a proposition to be true, but when that proposition is ‘God exists’ then a belief is holding that a proposition is not true.”

That’s what you said.

Oh, I can see the problem.

Cheers — Banno

Another almost conversation, about talking, your favorite subject, that you won’t talk about with me.

Cheers!

All I'm saying is I don't care if others learn from this or not, I have. Ultimately, I came here to develop my evaluations by having others help fill gaps in my knowledge. Some people have, some people haven't. People came here to express a multiplicity of view points, I don't care who is necessarily saying what, I take the view points, let them all rattle around in my head in a hurricane of different thoughts, not all are left standing. — DifferentiatingEgg

That’s cool.

Once Anselm attempted to use logic to prove God exists, he was not being faithful to what faith is anymore. I’ve said it fifty different ways by now to try to shake hands here a bit.

But that’s not all you said, and the picture you create of what a person is doing when they believe something absent logical proof behind it (faith), makes it sound like, in order to believe anything without absolute proof behind it, one has to resist or be in a state of resisting all reason.

A lot of people just say stuff because they want their faith to be knowledge... I really don't care. Faith isn't knowledge. And attempting to prove faith via knowledge turns faith into knowledge. Thus now it's not faith. Faith is an absence of knowing. Just as knowing is an absence of faith. Perspective, our world view, etc etc arises from knowledge and faith. — DifferentiatingEgg

So because of things you’ve said to me, I have to hope you won’t think I’m being too dialectic in my argument form. By dialectic, I mean placing things as polar opposites. I think you are doing that just as much as me, but for some reason you’ve told me a few times that is due to my limited way of thinking. So I’m going to ignore those accusations now because I see you thinking in the same dialectical format - which in itself is useful here so I’m glad you are. And it shows why we don’t want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Just like Anselm would be wrong to say his conclusions at the end of his logical syllogisms are articles of faith (in which we agree, he was wrong), concluding from that mistaken path towards Anselm “faith” that all faith and believing is the anti-thesis of reason and knowing is wrong as well.

The main reason I think it’s wrong to make faith merely the opposite of reason is, even if that were the case, we can’t ever hold one above the other - we need both to act (will) and to speak about our actions (reason), to be a person at all. I like acting - willing, believing, reasoning - I don’t want to declare winners and losers among them. Anselm was just as reasonable and faithful as the next guy, just not in his one little syllogism he hoped (I’m sure) might change the world.

The whole picture you create of the twisting rope between faith and reason (maybe you mean willing and knowing), should be saved. I never said that picture wasn’t a useful image of things. We ARE twisting, between things, and opposites, and twisting among many more sources of tensions -including our selves as instinct versus social norms versus will versus wits. The overall picture should be saved, and I often describe things that way.

But if you put reason all on the one side of those tensions, irrationality or unreasonableness is on the other.

If faith is on one side of the pulling and twisting, and we need an opposite, indifference or maybe deterministic necessity are on the other.

Reason is not the antithesis of faith. That’s a T-shirt version of this that is actually useless once we get beyond a fear of being religious.

So I am not disagreeing with things so much as I think it’s worth clarifying things a bit to avoid saying things that can be misconstrued, casting doubt on the soundness of the whole picture of the twisting, torn, creative and tearing man.

We don’t want to mock the man of faith, the man of will, the man willing to believe and act despite knowledge, despite any mere proposition. That’s the spice in the otherwise formulaic soup.

(Paradoxically, in a way, according to a picture pitting reason against faith, because Anselm’s argument ultimately fails, he should be seen by you as one of the greatest saints among the faithful - because his arguments and conclusions are not reasonable, yet he believes them to be, and became a saint about it all, you should think he is the brilliant evil genius who gathered more and more believers to his presentation of bad reasoning! Total digression that probably confuses you. :razz: )

If you want to say fuck off to the faithful idiot, don’t do it for sake of the steadfast empirical logician. Shit on both of those guys if you need to shit on anyone. Nietzsche did all of the appropriate shitting. Very few were spared.

But don’t mock “willing”, don’t mock the process of believing itself.

I’ve said all of this 20 times. I think you have an opportunity here to say “huh, I see what you mean, never thought about that” and maybe even admit, that no really useful point about a person of faith who is also a person of reason has been made. We all trade in both reasons and beliefs, both the religious and the empirical. This post need not be focused on all religious people whenever they ever form syllogisms.

You said “Faith is an absence of knowing. Just as knowing is an absence of faith.”
I think you can tell where I agree with what you are saying in this mix.

But we can’t say faith has no knowing in it. And we can’t saying knowing has no believing in it.

Your basic point here is that, because of the difference between believing an article of faith, and knowing a conclusion of reason, Anselm and church-lovers like him, should not waste their time seeking conclusions of reason if they are satisfied with believing an article of faith. And further, if they stumble upon a conclusion of reason, that used to be held as an article of faith, then that article, that conclusion is no longer a “faith” thing, it’s a “reason” thing now, sitting at the end of a syllogism. That’s great.

But if Anselm is tearing down his own faith by building up his own reasonable arguments, isn’t he just doing science? And doesn’t that mean that science requires faith as an engine to get started - we move from faith in something that appears may be, using reason, to knowledge of something that is proven to be. This is just science, just thinking, just juggling believing/reasoning/knowing, twisting used here for religion bashing and throwing all of us who bother to think and speak at all under the bus in the process.

The real juggling, as I see it, standing on the tightrope, is acting, believing, reasoning, knowing, believing your own knowledge, and then acting again. Huge, soupy mess that easily goes off the rails, off-rope, all of the time. But I can’t see any of it without all of it.

So we don’t want to stand up the reasonable man against his enemy the faithful man, because we need both men to be reasonable, as we need both to willingly act on what they believe.

Sometimes it's best to leave an argument ambiguous — DifferentiatingEgg

I don't care how obstinate others are... — DifferentiatingEgg

Sort of an impasse between the pot and the kettle.

That’s fine too, but that’s the end of the conversation again. You dont have to keep at it. But I don’t think I’m being obstinate.

I’m just saying it seems contradictory to hold that faith simply means no reason, because it allows silly statements that propositions proving something doesn’t exist provide the best support to having faith that it does exist. Seems like an abuse of reason, or faith, or “exist”. Seems like an abuse of language.

Seems the conversation you started need not end yet to me.

Are you just saying you are being obstinate and so it’s a warning that there is no use seeking further clarity from you, you are done with all the analysis and interpretation? If so, thanks for the tip. Will catch you on the next one.

The other two of your three bolded sentences are indecipherable. — Banno

The second sentence you refer to as “indecipherable” is a quote from you. It’s now in 3 below.

1. Believing is holding that something is true.
2. In the case of a person who believes God exists, (ie, “the faithful”) believing is holding that “God exists” is true.
3.

The most faithful will be seeking to disprove that god exists. — Banno

4. Therefore, what are you talking about Banno?

Really? I was fairly clear. I even used your words as much as possible.

You need to explain how you are saying something decipherable, when you tell a religious belief holder they should be arguing something they believe does not exist if they want to continue believing that same thing exists.

What is believed is expressed by a proposition, rather than a "thing", an object. — Banno

You are skipping categories too, like Anselm and Descartes.

What is believed “is expressed by a proposition not an object”?? That doesn’t move the ball at all.

We all get that a string of words, a proposition, isn’t the same thing or object as say, what those words are talking about.

Proposition: “God exists.”
It’s Talking about: X over there existing, having a cheese sandwich while walking on water or sorting the reasoning folks from the faithful folks according to you. An object, a “thing.”

We all get that.

You are proposing we tell someone who says ”God exists” that, if they want to believe that proposition is about an existing thing, they should seek out the most reasonable arguments that conclude with the proposition “God does not exist.”

That seems impossible, let alone stupid. Decipherable? Not really that either, but I’m trying to work with you.

You are moving the goal posts, between propositions and what they are about (expressing things or objects), and saying things and objects who are holding propositions (guys like Anselm), should seek to hold contradictory propositions if they want to be an object /thing called a faithful believer.

And you do so by equivocating on the notion of “belief” or “faith”, which I’ve been saying all along.

You are smarter than “indecipherable.” You can’t see the problem?

My post last night was too long.

See if this is friendlier:

1.

Belief is holding that something is true.
— Banno — Fire Ologist

Right. Without intending to lose any of your meaning here, I would say the same thing:

Believing is holding that some thing is true.

“Believing” is more like a “holding”, both acting, so “beleiving is holding” just flows better to me, annd avoids positing a rigid “belief”, but again, no real sense should be changed here.

“Some thing”, as two words, meaning, something in particular. This is where something.rigid creeps back in a bit, but really, again, is meant to clarify how I say what you said, and not really saying anything new:

Believing is holding that some thing is true.

2.
“Is true”.

The OP is talking about Anselm holding that “God exists” is true. “God exists” is the “something” that the one who is believing “is holding”. The question the OP asks is, Can the sound believer hold “god exists” as a conclusion in a logical syllogism while holding it as a belief? OP says no way, that’s dumb and Anselm was dumb to try faith or reason, or both.

So it seems to me, since we are talking about what to make of “whether ‘God exists’ is true or not,” ‘true’ existence is really just any existence at all. We mean the same thing if we just say:

Believing is holding that some thing is. Believing is holding something truly exists. (Truly is now superfluous).

(We can revisit the rabbit hole epistemological reasons to distinguish between “holding that ‘God exists’” and “holding that ‘God exists’ is true,” with terms like “knowledge” and “justification” also in need of being addressed here later. And we can revisit the issues between the ontological status of concepts/objects like “holding that God exists is true” versus “holding that God exists” versus God actually existing or not. But let’s try to finish one thought.)

All we need to understand really what was meant in your original statement in the context of the case of the unbelieving bad-reasoning Anselm, is this:

Believing is holding that something truly exists, or just, some thing is.

3.

those with the greatest faith would be the ones convinced by logical arguments that god does not exist, and yet who believe despite this.

The most faithful will be seeking to disprove that god exists. — Banno

4.
Therefore, the faithful ones who hold a belief, because believing is holding that something exists, must know that this same thing does not exist in order to believe it exists.

So since I kept re-writing 1, here is a renumbering of my question based in really, only your words:

1. Believing is holding some thing exists.
2. The greatest believers would find the most convincing argument about what they believe would demonstrate that what they hold, does NOT exist, to be the greatest believers.
3. Therefore, they must believe that something does not exist (not-exist is true) in order to believe it does exist (exist is true).

Maybe you still don’t get me, maybe there is a better way to say it, but you get my gist.

Something’s off here.

Added:
What do you mean by “belief” or “believing”, OR, what do you mean by “believing that “God exists” is true”? Because the above argument, basically yours, seems off to me.

they built a bad syllogism. — Fire Ologist

What? — Banno

Willful ignorance maybe? Does that have any place in this thread?

Anselm and Aquinas weren’t doing the faith thing. They weren’t talking about their faith anymore, and instead, they built bad syllogisms.

when it's something I have faith in, I have faith in it. I don't ever have a need to ever justify….. — DifferentiatingEgg

That’s closer to doing the faith thing. It comes pre-justified, or sits supra- or extra-justification.

. I started as a way to shit on people — DifferentiatingEgg

And in the process he, and you, took for granted that believing (faith) had something to do with reason (which it occurs to me Anselm and Aquinas might agree with you about, which is another mistake they made). Namely you keep leaning on faith is the polar opposite of reason, so by making faith non-reasonable, to shit in people, he shit on his very own “when it’s something I have faith in (that I am doing) I don’t ever have a need to ever justify…”

So you are shitting on using the will, on acting, just to say faithful people are contradicting themselves if they try to use reason.

Total mess.

We all act on faith all the time. No one knows anything 100%. That doesn’t mean they are mixing some faith in with their logic. If they wanted to act on their 70% certainty in their logic, when they act, they act because they believe in their action enough to live it 100%, and act.

So according to you, if anyone ever asks about, or someone wants to talk about, something they are doing that they are doing based on faith, they should all be trying to show how unreasonable such acts are, and shouldn’t try to be reasonable, there is nothing to say, so piss off if you want to reason about it.

What? — Banno

So Diff Egg, “when it's something [you] have faith in, … [and] don't ever have a need to ever justify,” and someone asks you anyway “what the hell are you doing that for?” do you feel any compulsion to try to prove how unreasonable you are, because

to review what one takes on faith is to breech that faith — Banno

So my question to you both is, What the hell are you saying faith is anyway?

Banno, that’s how I ask “what” with a bit of respect.

DiffEgg, “just to shit on people?” Come on man.

Belief is holding that something is true. One can believe that something is true for all sorts of reasons, or for no reason at all. Rational folk will try to believe stuff that is true, and so will use arguments and evidence and such, and ground their beliefs.

Faith is more than just holding that something is true. Faith requires that one believe even in the face of adversity. Greater faith is had by those who believe despite the arguments and the evidence.

So those with the greatest faith would be the ones convinced by logical arguments that god does not exist, and yet who believe despite this.

The most faithful will be seeking to disprove that god exists. — Banno

There is one point in the OP, reflected in the above, on which I have agreed from the start. Anselm and Aquinas were trying to be logical and create knowledge; they were NOT doing a lot of other things, like they were not being poetic creating verses (unless we all abuse some tacit definition of poetry), or they were not giving a eulogy for a friend, or providing a news bulletin, or preaching an article of faith.
They were building syllogisms, arguments.

Their arguments, in my logical estimation, failed for various reasons (but that is another conversation, on which we might agree as well). If you asked Anselm "why do you believe God exists?" he should say, "I don't believe God exists, I know God exists and I can prove it to you." He should say this, because he was trying to convince others of, in his estimation, a logical conclusion based on evidence.

So, hopefully recognizing my general spirit of agreement with the basic point of the OP, I think you guys are throwing the baby of belief out with the bathwater of faith, or at least Banno is more expressly. And to all of our detriment.

We have to be more careful to protect "belief" and about where we find reasoning.

Or faith is the antithesis of rationality. — Banno

These polar oppositions are distorting both sides, weakening the perfectly reasonable basic point of the OP.

If I put a square on one pole and circle on the other, and say all things in between are square-circles and circle-squares, depending on how far towards one or the other pole one goes, have I said anything at all? The instant you move off the square towards the circle, you have something other than a square, AND other than a circle, something nothing at all like either one. And in fact, nothing at all, because what the hell is a square-circle?

Pitting faith as a circle and reasoning as the square does the same thing. They aren't opposites. Just two different things. (that you rightly point out Anselm and Aquinas were squarely in on the reason side of things, not talking about faith at all, and therefore failing at both!)

But in the process you say things that make it seem like there is no room in the reasonable world for people to believe in things they do not yet know are true through reason. Action in the real world between the poles of knowledge and ignorance, reason and chaos, is impossible.

We need to take all of these terms off of the simple polarizing measuring sticks. There are many more things besides faith and reason to hold in tension to see any of them. Faith is not the opposite of reason, any more than poetry is the opposite of reason, or eulogies are the opposite of reason.

So let's quickly redefine our terms a bit.

If X, then Y.
If Y, then Z.
So if X, then Z.

Roll with me, you know what I mean. This is a syllogism.

What should we make of the first "if" in this syllogism? Can we say instead:

Believing X is the case, Y must follow.
Now holding Y to be necessary, Z must follow.
So once believing X, Z must follow.

I'm trying to breath some life into the "if" in the first form of the argument. In order for the possibility of a logical syllogism to begin, when we say "if X..", in a more naive but just as productive way, we can say "in order for you to follow my logic, take as true, X." Or just, "believe X with me and let's see what logically follows."

Belief is holding that something is true. — Banno

100%. Important for my argument. Important to make a first premise.

How about we clarify "holding that something is.." a bit: Let's say that, what is held, the something we are holding when we are holding a belief true, is knowledge. I'm NOT saying all beliefs are knowledge; I'm saying a belief is a bit of knowledge that we also hold true, I'm just clarifying "something" in "holding that something is" part of Banno's perfectly reasonable assessment of belief.

So the board pieces (which we should resist from placing as polar opposites a bit longer), so far, are at least belief and knowledge. Now let's find what we mean by "reason" in the mix.

Reasoning lies within the syllogism, not before its premises or after its conclusions.

Saying "If X" isn't giving an argument, It isn't reasoning. It's right at the start of the syllogism; it's needed to start it, but no reasoning is yet applied. It's just positing "X". "If X..." or "If you believe X exists..."

We need to set that pole "X" to launch into "then...."
"Then", which refers back to X also compels one to "Y" (if soundly referred and validly compelled). This referring back and compelling forward from X to Y is where the reasoning lives. If Anselm and Aquinas had been a little more careful with their reasoning, their logical steps referring and compelling this X (perfection) with that Y (God), they would have seen that the ontological proof makes a category error, and so their conclusion is not compelled, there is no necessity to thinking "God exists", and the argument collapses.

That is reasoning - something like that. The motivating engine of the syllogism. It lives inside the argument.

Then there is faith.

We don't even need to talk about faith or define it for the OP point to be made. Anselm and Aquinas were trying logical reasoning, did it poorly, and so built nothing of the sort. They did NOT build something to believe in (like a faith), or something to recite as poetry or at a funeral - they built a bad syllogism.

So again, that specific point of the OP as regards whether a person trying to prove God exists was refuting the need for faith in God, if the only article of faith was "God exists", then yes, knowledge (not reason, but knowledge as the result of a reasoned argument), is the anti-thesis of faith.But is faith only about the existence of God? If you know for sure God exists, will you never need faith again for anything? No, there is way more to it, like poetry has more to it than a simple antithesis: "not-syllogistic argument".
What is faith?

To simplify this, let's look at faith as believing. Like we can look at reason more clearly as the motivating engine in the argument called "reasoning", we should look at faith more as another type of engine called "believing".

You are standing on the edge of a cliff wearing a newly designed parachute. Someone wearing the same parachute says "look it's safe" and jumps off the cliff and safely floats to the gorge floor below. Then another person says "look, we've done the math, tested this 1,000 times before, and here, I have a parachute, I'll give you some more assurance" and jumps landing safely. You look at all of the calculations and tolerances and wind conditions, etc., and look at all the test results with 1,000 samples, and you can see with your own eyes and common senses the two jumpers and say "understanding that knowledge isn't perfect, I know enough to say 'I know I will be safe when I jump.'"

What does what you know matter anymore in the instant you jump? Do you actually jump because of what you know? Or what you believe?

To jump, in the moment one acts, it is because you believe your own knowledge. Faith is the engine of action. You might make other people jump to demonstrate all that you know from your calculations and test results, and say "I know you will be safe so you should jump" but when it comes your turn to actually jump, when you take that leap, it is only because of what you believe is true that you act; If you don't want to die, only because you believe you will make it safely, would you yourself, jump. Never because you can know the calculations and test results are sound and validly ordered.

We act out of belief in something true. We act out of belief that something we know is true. When knowing, knowing is complete in the knowledge. When believing, the belief is complete in the truth, and the bridge between the belief and the truth is how one acts. We make the bridge to the truth by acting on the belief, and believing is bridging. Believing is holding something over there as true here in me. It's what I believe as is testified to in words and deeds.

When we act, we may be wrong in our knowledge, or we may be right in our knowledge. That occurs during reasoning after positing the "If....then...therefore..." There is where reasoned knowledge sits.

Every time we honestly mean the statement "therefore..x" we are saying "we believe X." We believe the reasoning is done, and we believe we know our conclusion can be called knowledge. If someone believes the argument is false, we would either look to the premises and conclusions to re-support the conclusion, or we could simply say "Prove it then, because I believe my proof is done." We can call upon them to prove our conclusion again, but the act of "concluding" is a judgment that "the argument is over, it needs no more or less" and in that moment we "are knowing" we call this knowledge because we are believing there is no more need for argument.

Once it is time to act, (even the act of knowing) all the reasoning and knowledge is literally placed behind you and you are now believing it is true because you are acting on that belief. Your reasoning and knowledge support and uphold the moment of action, but that act is not taken unless you also believe something to be true. How else could you aim a gun and hit a target unless you believed that what you know was true?

Faith is tied up with that. We all have faith in our beliefs that we all have, and believe some of the things we know are true. If we didn't, every act would either be compelled by necessity, or utterly random (again another can of worms for another conversation.)

Believing isn't just about whether something exists. It most fully arrives in this mix somewhere outside of the reasoning (again, agreement with the OP), but so close, it is tied to the "If X..." at the beginning, and more completely just after the conclusion, when one acts on that conclusion, and in the acting, the believing enough reasons exist to leap into the unknowable (until the experiment is over and the shoot failed and we all get to know his calculations missed a few variables, he should not have believed they were true, and should not have jumped...)

So...

...faith is the antithesis of rationality. — Banno

...is just not the dialectical picture you needed to draw, or should draw, to draw what I agree with in the OP, namely and to paraphrase, "proof God exists precludes the ability to call the phrase "God exists" an article of faith." This is because, as I would add: faith (believing something as an act of consent) has nothing to do with proof (proving, reasoning)."

And besides, do you mean to say anyone who believes in God should try not to use reason and when they talk about God they are unable to be reasoning? That's the gist of some of this. That's silly rubbish.

It doesn’t matter what you think in your head. It's what your body does, your arms and hands, your legs, feet, your face, your eyes your voice, your feelings. — ENOAH

Hey Enoah. So let’s collapse the dualism. Mind IS body. We live inside the illlusion.

If we collapse it all back together, we can call the illusion reality just the same. Now, like our thoughts were the illusion and the feelings were reality, the thoughts are the feelings (bodies) and illusion is reality (or reality is illusion).

This is how I come to see that knowledge has less power than belief. Belief is what we act on, it’s what we do - the verb believe - and when we most deeply believe something we already trust it so completel, saying “we know it’s true” (like some conclusion from syllogism) sounds weak or hallow, like something we don’t have to act on. Faith and belief are where power flows. Knowledge and simple thoughts are in the mix but lose power and solid form when divorced from belief.

- My comment was about fdrake, not you two. — T Clark

I was just trying to show no parental supervision needed here, in case a mod thought they needed to step into Fdrake’s shoes.

Conclusions from valid and sound arguments do precisely the same, establish a necessary about an outlook.

Thus it takes some aspect of faith and converts it to knowledge... if it's logically valid and sound... all arguments for God aren't...so it's the case no conversion is actually achieved... — DifferentiatingEgg

I’m going to do my best and say where I agree with what you are saying.

Sound valid arguments establish a necessary conclusion. 100%
Let’s call this knowledge.

Assertions can be posited not as conclusions, but just as premises, like “if X…”. We don’t need a reasoned argument to identify an observed premise. Let’s call an assertion that is not a conclusion of a reasoned argument, a belief (or an article of faith). If someone removes the “If” and just asserts “there is X” and is unable or unwilling to give a sound valid argument to support that assertion, they are not providing knowledge and we can call this a belief.

I’m fine with all of that.

Next, when Aquinas and Anselm were arguing for the existence of God, they were attempting to make logical arguments. They weren’t doing any preaching; they weren’t talking about their faith; they were trying to say the God they believed in was also the entity proven to exist at the end of their syllogism. I think they failed.

And with all of that said, I think we basically agree.

But you didn’t say it like that, and in the process, I think, you are misrepresenting reason and faith, and their relationship to knowledge, and you misconstrued the motivations of Aquinas and Anselm, and you implied that it is contradictory for someone to believe something (make a simple assertion) and be reasonable at the same time; you made it seem like reason can only be found at the end of a syllogism and that no one who was reasonable could possibly take God as a premise or conclusion. I disagree with all of that.

The attempt however points to a desire to convert belief to knowledge because the person feels knowledge is more substantial than faith, at least in the regards of the argument...

Aquinas and Thomas both show us that they had more of a desire to move God to a realm of absolute truth, rather than a belief...regardless of the quantum of force behind their faith is. — DifferentiatingEgg

See, I don’t think we have any knowledge of, nor do we need to raise the issue, of what Anselm or Aquinas desired. And you say they feel knowledge is more substantial than faith - all if that is irrelevant to the part of your argument that I agreed with. And I think it’s bullshit.

I also think think faith has been an imprecise word here. You are talking about knowledge, belief and reason and their relationships to assertions (premises, syllogism, conclusion, preaching). And I agree with some of how you line them up.

But comparing faith to reason (as opposites) is like comparing reason to beauty; it’s just not necessary or necessarily logical, and possible nonsense.

Don’t get me wrong, faith versus reason is a simple catch-phrase that has been expressly around since the enlightenment (and I guess Anselm and Aquinas). I get the popular soap-box point. I agree with that part of your point.

But if you aren’t careful, as I am trying to be by distinguishing faith from belief and belief from knowledge, and knowledge from reasoning, you end up making muddled statements like Anselm was just preaching and that faith by necessity is unreasonable.

If, by the sum total of faith you mean “the belief that God exists” - then yes, Anselm was trying to replace belief with knowledge.

But articles of faith are more like a premise. They aren’t something we conclude. We just know. Like the fact that my wife loves me. I just know it. I could never create a syllogism that shows “therefore wifey’s love for FireO exists.” Does any love exist? What is love? Well when it comes to what I know, to what is reasonable for me to say, my wife’s love for me exists. Faith belongs as a word in those types of conversations, not analyses of reasoned knowledge versus unsupported beliefs.

Anselm and Aquinas blew the argument. I haven’t heard anyone ever make an argument that, by force of mere logic and words, proved anything exists. You can doubt you are reading this right now! You can’t prove existence, but you can be logical and reasonable about the things you believe exist. Anselm and Aquinas were trying to move one of those things from the asserted belief column to the asserted logical conclusion column, yes. But even if they succeeded there would still be vast oceans of faith needed to know God, like knowing another person takes.

And everyone doesn’t have to be nuts to know the baby Jesus. Just some of us.

bear in mind, any series or collections of tones is only a tune when somebody recognises it as such. — Wayfarer

I agree. I’m also saying identifying one single tone is a collection recognized as such as well.

I’m chillin. I think we are getting somewhere. Will get back to DifferentiatingEgg shortly.

Even though I have no faith
— Fire Ologist

I highly doubt you have 0 faith. That's just your clumsy handling. — DifferentiatingEgg

Emotional handling. I guess I see a glimmer of hope. So point taken.

boil it down — DifferentiatingEgg

For you? Even though I have no faith you want to see what I’m saying, kind of like you know I don’t see what you are saying? Well ok.

The scale you built in your OP put faith on one side and reason on the other. But more precisely you meant faith on one side and knowledge on the other.

So the main point I’m making is that reason cannot be on that scale if it is to be the vehicle that moves somebody from one side (not-knowledge, or faith) to the other (knowledge).

If you see that, that’s enough to show how the faithful and the knowledgeable both need to avail themselves of reason if they are to make pronouncements, posit arguments supporting knowledge, or preach something.

Your whole post was a shoddy insult. “Rubbish” was an appropriate response.

So you asserting that reason is other than faith is true, but you missed the point that reason is other than knowledge just as well.

This is analysis of what you said and what you appear to think, as close to your language as I can make it.

From what I can tell, faith and knowledge do not belong on the same scale; they are wholly different things and exercises. Both use words to be expressed and so both use reason (like any wording requires a reasoning), but knowing my wife will never preclude trusting my wife. I can’t trust what I don’t first know. Trust and faith speak is wholly other than knowledge and ignorance speak.

And none of this thread is very Nietzschean because, Nietzsche didn’t defend his thoughts and arguments - and wisely so,as that takes a reification of reasoning and knowledge, and yirlds “right and wrong” speak. That’s why I noted above, if you are so sure you know me and Nietzsche, why do you bother?

You dragged Nietzsche into this. In my opinion, he would entertain neither your opinion nor mine, at least not for this long.

Last word, is it possible to you for someone to know Nietzsche deeply (as you do, and I mean that) and also disagree with him? I think, if you are honest, you would say no, that once you see the lies that Nietzsche uncovered there is no returning to the false zombie state those lies spawned - you are too fully enlightened to disagree with Nietzsche.

I think Nietzsche was one of the top five most important philosophical thinkers, and that, on many conclusions, just like the others in the top five, he was talking out his ass.

Most people only talk out their asses. Even one truth sets one apart greatly. Nietzsche had quite a few truths. But not enough, and citing him doesn’t help your argument with me.

FAITH IS KNOWLEDGE IS A LOGICAL FALLACY DUMBASS — DifferentiatingEgg

Well then “spewing logical fallacies” can’t be “just preaching”

So which is it? In your fallacy spotting opinion.

Spewing logical fallacies for the existence of God is just faith based preaching — DifferentiatingEgg

That contradicts your whole “opinion”.

I thought logical fallacies, identified only by using reason, had nothing to do with faith.

Try again.

Jung is right. The point he is making is epistemological/pshychological. But that point is, it is always objectively wrong to assume “X is nothing but this.”

I’m not going to get into the weeds with someone who says they know what I think already and supports that observation “FireOlogist is nothing but this” with “my opinion”.

and also why you'll never be able to really love Nietzsche, — DifferentiatingEgg

Wandering off into the mountaintops again…

You made the objective statement faith precludes reason.

Bonehead.

Perhaps for some, but not me — DifferentiatingEgg

I thought you were trying to say something for Christians who are just people lying, so saying something about people in general - sifting the faithful liars from the reasonable folks like yourself. If we can all just resort to “not for me” then why are you bothering to say something for all people in the first place?

“Not for me”. Conversation ended.

The tone moved up, or down. Which tone moved up? That one. Then it moved down. The tone of that tone changed... The first "tone" is an individual, the second an attribute. The attribute of that individual changed - perhaps in pitch, perhaps in timbre, perhaps in volume. — Banno

I think I’m saying the same thing but would say it like this:
In a field of overlapping fields, I gather or isolate tone A. Then I put it down and subsequently isolate tone B, which is higher in pitch. I’ve identified two individuals: low tone A and then high tone B. Next I gather tone A and subsequent tone B together as one Tune. So calling it a single changing tone is possible by gathering differently from the well of overlapping fields, and seizing two tones in one tune. I’ve still just gathered one thing, but that one thing is two tones.

Close to what you were saying. I’m just not putting the agency in the tone, I’m not saying “the tone moved up or down”. And I’m not making it so that I have to explain how, because of the language I’ve used , how A becomes B, how A becomes not-A. I’m recognizing that identifying tone A is the same as identifying subsequent higher tone B, is the same as identifying the changing Tune C. It’s identifying anything at all. To explain the change you need to fashion a seemingly wider, longer single unit, namely, the single tune, fashioned or identified with the many different single tones it is. It’s all singles, whether it is identity (tone) or identities with motion (tune).

There is a probably terrible song in there somewhere called “singles only” or maybe “nothing changes”.

Just to slow “things” way down and see if I know what you mean (or if you know what my questions are getting at, either way.)

In a discussion framed in time, you said:

their practicality. It's what can be done with such language that counts. — Banno

Are you drawing a distinction between language on the one hand and practicality, the what can be done on the other?

Continuity … Instantaneous velocity … things confuse — Banno

Do these things refer to a practicality within language, or a practicality among things being done?

What counts? The one (ie. velocity, continuity, practically any thing), its other language, or both?

Yes. Even in science, man places much faith. — DifferentiatingEgg

This sounds like knowledge (science/reason) has to be on a different scale than a faith would. Otherwise you couldn't "place faith IN science"; some faith is already in there. If faith/belief and reason/knowledge are all on opposite ends of the same scale then you don't place faith in science, you reduce science and increase faith, or you reduce faith and increase science.

So this is just a muddled way of equating faith with not-knowing, and a muddled way of equating reason with knowledge. Your using faith as the antithesis of reason, but talking about faith like it's the antithesis of knowledge.

I get the scale of reason versus faith - but maybe this is imprecise, and they aren't on the same scale.

If reason, faith and knowledge are more complicated and just different, one may be able to place faith in science (your phrase now) or faith in God, as the distinctions would allow one to be reasonable about objects of faith or objects of science or any posited things. We can wonder if reason itself is reasonable for instance.

If you want scales, I see the scales are:
knowledge/knowing ---- ignorance/questioning,
reason ----- absurdity/irrationality
believing/faith ----- denying/no faith
(minding intention ---- mindless passivity, should probably be here, but we aren't wondering how reasonable or religious a rock can be, nor what someone who is intoxicated makes of a math problem or tree elves - mind can be everywhere on all scales).

If you don't know something as you know the conclusion of a syllogism, you can still believe or deny it. That's where the objects of faith come in - believing something you don't know. But you can use reason to shape your belief just the same as using reason to shape your knowledge - or absurdity to shape either. There is such a thing as bad science, as using reason to argue for an object of knowledge and just being wrong. Reason might stay reasonable despite erroneous facts causing the wrong conclusion.

In order for you to keep faith and reason apart on opposite ends of the scale, you could never tell whether your knowledge was reasonable, or it was not-knowledge, and you could never tell your faith was absurd. And the "scientist" would just be another word for "the person who says what they think", like a religious person, or an ignoramus. Maybe that is what you are saying - we are all priests and scientists and ignoramuses' bouncing between knowing reasons and un-knowing irrationality (you call faith). But then we are all as guilty of the same bad faith you accuse of Anselm and Aquinas, sound logic or not.

Or maybe you are saying the only thing worth saying is absolute knowledge and given our predicament (utterly blind to absolute knowledge) we are all liars, some version of a mad priest, lying to the extent we ever say "I know". Again, why pick on the "faithful" then - as they are the same as you, somewhere in the middle of the same scale.

faith is never entirely independent of reasoning — Tom Storm

That's what I was pointing to when I said we have faith in our senses when we follow them to cross the street. I put it the other way and said reasoning is never entirely independent of believing. Reasons and the logical connections we make between them, the reasoning, is either a blessing or a curse that our mental activity is never entirely independent of, including the activity of believing something regardless of how well we might know it.

what we call faith when it comes to religion is a way of knowing we use in all aspects of our lives. You call it "will." I would probably call it "intuition." — T Clark

Yes - it's all hard to say so maybe I'm making sense and maybe I understand you. But yes, knowing anything involves believing something, and it involves reason. It's one package. Faith allows us to know things our sense experiences may resist, or faith may allow us to assign meaning to things that may mean other things to others as well, but we are still using reason, and concepts, in minds, like any act of knowing does.

And no worries on the response time. I cannot case a stone on that one either.

Basically I'm saying you either have absolute faith in something everything less than absolute faith brings some knowledge with it. — DifferentiatingEgg

But does that also mean you either have absolute knowledge of something and everything less than absolute knowledge brings some faith with it?

So all of us scientists who admit we do not have absolute knowledge but have to live our lives and make our theorems anyway MUST mix in faith to do so. Is that right also?

The more knowledge I have the less faith — DifferentiatingEgg

So you have some knowledge all along the process, more or less cards counted.

And so you are saying that faith (maybe in an extreme blind form) includes zero knowledge (zero cards), whereas knowledge (like certainty or truth) is based on all the cards.

And so I take it you think that everything you know and say is part knowledge, and part faith, unless you think you have all the cards?

I am just trying to understand your response to what I am saying about believing aligning with judgment and action (will), and knowledge aligning with math, reason, step one, two three, like counting cards. I need two scales if we are looking for sliding scales. You keep referring to one scale to account for all the moving parts.

I don't know, I can't ask him, so I suppose I will just have to have faith in my opinion — DifferentiatingEgg

All the moving parts of my analysis are right there.

I know.
I don’t know.
I have faith.
And I act - namely, express an opinion.

So since you have faith in your opinion are you saying you didn’t use reason here? There is no reason for your opinion?

The more I know/understand that my wife won't cheat on me the less faith I have in her? — Count Timothy von Icarus

So to tell a person who believes in God they might be jeopardizing their faith-based belief by seeking logical proof, or that logical proof replaces and usurps this belief, is like telling me the fact that I trust my wife must mean I don’t really know her (or. I know her “without reason based thought” or something), and if I really knew my wife, there would be no place or need for trust anymore. — Fire Ologist

Diff - you haven’t addressed the above on your scale of faith versus “reason based thought.”

So when you are believing, knowledge and reason are absent? And when you are knowing, belief is absent? Is that how it all works in your view?

Exactly the human spirit is the rope between two opposites faith and reason... - DiffEgg

The more I know/understand that my wife won't cheat on me the less faith I have in her? This seems bizarre to me. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Me too.

It’s because faith isn’t the opposite of reason.

If you made the two opposites Reason and No-reason or Irrationality, then faith or belief would represent the judgment of where one was standing in relation to those two poles.

Faith is not opposite reason; faith/believing is opposite having no opinion or not judging, or not yet ready to act - if we have to create a continuum to understand the concept of faith.

If we do a long complicated math problem, spanning several pages of calculations, and check our work twice, all along trying our best to use only reason and logic as only they can ensure the math problem is addressed, we can now separately adjudge “the problem is complete, correct, and the answer is valid and sound.” We now KNOW the answer, because we now BELIEVE we have already checked our work and know how to use reason, etc. Belief is an act, at the moment of judgment.

It takes knowledge, or some knowable object, and consents to that object’s existence.

This is how one could make sense out of faith alone bringing justification, while faith without works is dead. Having faith is the work of knowing - it is an act of judgment not the mere result of the process before it (be that process a reasoning through an argument, or experiencing the transfiguration). So sola fide points to the act of consenting to the conclusion of the argument - by grace we only need the conclusion and don’t need the premises and the reasoning processing among them. But the nature of the conclusion here, that Christ is God, and Christ gave his life for his friends. So if you say you have faith but would not give your life, then you do not know faith, you do not have faith, faith is dead. The key epistemological point being, you do not KNOW faith if what you know isn’t an act, an acting, a believing, like walking on a path takes judgment, not the science that might be behind it that judgment.