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.

I thought you were trying to say something for Christians who are just people lying, — Fire Ologist

We weren't having a conversation, as I never said this once nor implied it... and it's the foundation of all your chatting here.

“Not for me”. Conversation ended. — Fire Ologist

Read Genealogy of Morals 10, you'll learn the difference between you, and I, and even Nietzsche, it's why you gravitate to the objective...and also why you'll never be able to really love Nietzsche, you love your bad interpretation of Nietzsche. Though...perhaps I'm wrong and am only exaggerating. I don't know absolutely, so I require a certain faith to say that...doesn't mean Im any less adamant...

You know what such a statement does allow for though? You to prove me wrong. Faith motivates beyond despair... and that's a beautiful thing. Absolute knowledge is objective... Wasn't there an amateur physicist lately who remodel classic physics? Just cause a model works, doesn't make it the only one.

If you want to change my evaluation, then offer something more.

Not less...

Like T Clark and Count Timothy offered me enough thought provoking material that did alter my evaluation.

I did admit there was some ambiguity due to the simplicity of my syllogism, such that it's easily equivocated.

The more nuanced understanding is the quantum of force behind faith isn't necessarily diminished just because the % between faith/knowledge about a particular topic shifts in percent towards the gradiant of knowledge. It means the percentage of reliance on faith decreases, but not necessarily the quantum of force behind faith decreases.

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.

No I asserted my opinion in a few ways... that doesn't make it objective truth.

What I said is faith is not knowledge, it's not reasoned based thought. Unless you consider bad reasoning reasonable. Faith is belief not knowledge. You just can't accept that faith is little more than that...

Spewing logical fallacies for the existence of God is just faith based preaching... aka proselytizing. And it shows an attempt to rationalize faith into knowledge. You're too much of a bonehead to realize that your faith counts for little in a discussion on knowledge...

So you have faith a Unicorn is real... cool. Now you try to rationalize the Unicorn and project it as objective truth... well Objective Truth is absolute knowledge dumbass not may be this...

An argument to prove the absolute truth of God means you're no longer interested in faith but proving the actual factual...

You're too dense to understand that though... because you think faith is knowing... your relationship with God is 100% faith. Unless you yourself are God, but then we're changing the definition I'm using, that is consequently, we aren't God...

This is how faith works...
JUNG (from Nietzsche's Zarathustra pg 38&39):

But we must well understand when we make that formulation or any other, that it is always our formula, it is what we say or know, it is our impression, the picture which we paint. If you paint a picture of a landscape, say, you would never believe that it was the landscape; it is only what you make of the landscape. You paint a picture as well as you can, but it is probably never as beautiful as the landscape itself. Either you put something in that is not there, or you leave out something; at all events, you never make the mistake of confusing the one with the other. But when we make a formulation about God, everybody assumes that that is God. If I say, for instance, that god is an image, or a complex with a very great emotional intensity, or a supreme guiding principle, a psychological principle, then everybody asserts: Dr. Jung says God is nothing but this.. A theologian does exactly the same thing when he says God can only be good. And he has no idea of the blasphemy he is uttering. How does he know that God can only be good? He takes half of the world away from him. How can God he everything if he is denied the faculty of being evil too? — Dr. Jung

Faith is always a formula but it's not knowing... Christians happen to like to lie to themselves that it is knowing... it's literally simply what they say about faith... thus its faith in faith.

Hence St. Timmy says truth never contradicts truth because God is good. That not knowledge, that's him spewing fallacies wishing his faith was knowledge... thus something in him desires his faith to be more real...

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”.

That contradicts your whole “opinion”. — Fire Ologist

No it doesn't we can see your bonehead understanding of my opinion is nothing even close...

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

Pretending FAITH IS KNOWLEDGE IS A LOGICAL FALLACY DUMBASS...

Using knowledge to show faith is a fallacy or your argument relies on a leap in logic has nothing to do with the identity of faith...

Dialecticians... :roll:

When a person continually defends fallacy and reasserting leaps in logic... IE FAITH... They're proselytizing... because they're asserting Faith as Absolute Objective Truth...

Something like energy is never created nor destroyed is, I think, is an absolute truth, (unless someone has recently discovered a way to overturn that law, dunno dont really give a shit about the law to keep up with the lore surrounding it.)

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”. — Fire Ologist

That's all you can do. Even your shit interpretation about Nietzsche...

You know what such a statement does allow for though? You to prove me wrong. Faith motivates beyond despair... and that's a beautiful thing. — DifferentiatingEgg

You're too much of a bonehead to prove me wrong is all.

Hence you detatch...

T Clark and Count Timothy were cunning enough to force a reevaluation.

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.

boil it down, or do you think the Nazi were spewing knowledge? Rather than proselytizing with belief through logical fallacies...When you make a rational argument for something you're attempting to convert faith/belief into objective truth... Necessarily Objective Truth requires 0 faith. Thus making an argument for something as absolutely objectively true means you're taking faith and converting it to knowledge. If I had 10 dollars in bills and convert it to coins ... I no longer have 10 dollars of bills. I have LESS BILLS MORE COINS.

Thus converting faith into knowledge via trying to rationalize it means you're trying to rely less on faith for your outlook...

Not exactly a bad thing... overcoming oneself in their opposite and all.

I knew the dialecticians would get butthurt though.

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.

Even though I have no faith — Fire Ologist

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

You didn't even attempt to understand my perspective. You're grounded in your own.

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.

I mean, what greater criticism could I leverage at myself other than saying the words I used in my syllogism were too broad to allow for clarity? Such that it even caused me to equivocate that a shifting in percentage a person relies on faith to believe in something diminished their faith in something... literally an overturning of the original syllogism for something more nuanced...

The fuck more do you want?

Evaluations come through faith and knowledge. Just because you gain knowledge doesn't diminish the quantum of force behind your faith. Just means the evaluation has less reliance on faith. But how much faith do you need to know that in decimal based math 1+1=2? None.

But if I say 1+1=? And you say 2... you're taking it on faith that I'm in decimal based math not binary. Because you believe, rather than know, I'm talking about decimal based math.

If I said no it equals 0 then you wouldn't have faith that it equals 2... you know it doesn't because I'm using binary to equal 0.

Because I've established a necessary truth about my outlook...

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...

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. They're really just proselytizing with fallacious arguments. Trying to make God something more concrete...

In the good old days, fdrake would come in now and tell you boys to behave. This is what happens when we pester him till he can’t take it anymore. Alas.

Oh no a little language... what a Sin... :roll:

Im sitting here chilling to Quine, if Fire Ologist was here he'd be in another chair chilling legs up, kicked back. We're not here with guns to guts and swords to throats...

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

Im sitting here chilling to Quine, — DifferentiatingEgg

I’m chillin — Fire Ologist

Note - My comment was about fdrake, not you two.

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.

- 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.

:up: Nicely articulated!

Faith in God requires belief without reason-based thought. — DifferentiatingEgg

I agree...ultimately

It's like Morality. 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. The pursuit of "Morality," spends so much time on ideas; distractions and detractors from the real thing/Truth; instead, seeking truth in what goes on in the head about truth. It’s not our ideas about killing. The idea of killing comes up in many forms. Why and where do we think we can draw precise lines? It's the body killing; the movements of limbs or teeth, and the feeling. Yet we focus on endless debates about the thought. Like mathemeticians we tangle with intention, motive, mens rea, justifications, right and wrong, and think we discover truth in our calculations. If it feels good to kill, a feeling triggered by, and covalent with, natural feelings of the body we call compassion, pity, mercy, survival and bonding, then it’s one thing; if it feels like anger, jealousy or fear, it’s another; if it has no feeling because the body, in its motion just stumbled or happened upon killing, it’s neither.

I think the debates about God are the same. It’s a distraction from God to look for It in our thoughts. Thoughts are made up and, ironically, imprecise, not just subject to our prejudices, creations and whims, but constructed by them. As much as we convince ourselves that logic and reason are pre-existing truths, we argue and cannot agree about even logic and reason. Because we construct even logic and reason, they cannot uncover ultimate truth; if nothing else, at least that should apply to ultimate truth about God. If there even is a God, It has to be found with the body. We call it faith, but its not some scriptural directive, duty or virtue that we need to pretend to have (the sad mistake most of us invariably make despite our best intentions). It’s an actual, and real biochemical feeling in the body. And if its the Truth [about] God that we're after, that'sthe only place we'll "find" it. Only that feeling ultimately matters in our search for any truth concerning God.

Of course, that's not to say that thoughts don't trigger the feelings. Fair enough, they have their place for us humans, burdened and blessed with Mind. But ultimately that’s not where we find truths about things like morality or God, or even reality and whatever the real self is, for that matter. As distressingly anti-philosophical as it is, the ultimate truth is a feeling.

Some people seem to believe that faith exists in a separate domain, as if it were a sacred thread connecting them directly to the truth, untouched by external influences. — Tom Storm

I know what you mean, and I agree, faith which claims to have such revelation into some otherworldly superior reality is not supportable.

But maybe, it seems like another domain, because it's in another, so-called domain; but its not really another domain; its the real and singular domain, where there is a natural body that feels; only we humans are so sucked in to the "fixtional" domain of our collective constructive imaginations , that we make-believe something out of what we really simply, physically feel. The feeling is soon enough "ignored" or displaced, by a make-believe, labeled (today's manifestated version of endless dialectic), because it is so alienated from the physical feeling, as something so outside of our constructions, that it must be Other. And from there we build our Babel of philosophies, getting further and further from the truth, that once crisp feeling we happen, now to vaguely call faith,


Tragically, the human body, the animal of nature, is the domain we ignore/are ignorant of. Not just re god, but always. And as for God, we take a real human feeling about something in Nature, and we settle vaguely on q thing labeled as faith. But only in the make-believe endless trials of the dialectic, are we so called choosing to believe it, and requiring tools to structure a place to settle/believe; tools like reason, and as you say, many other external influences, all of them filtered in, and taking shape, as constructions building over the truth.

We feel it. Just because our ideas are constructions, doesn’t mean it's not God we are feeling. I can't help but feel that it is. Not in any grandiose sense, but in the sense that we all do. We wouldn't be discussing it if we didn't feel it too. And those that don't feel it, build their antitheses upon our consensus. And I ignore the feeling as much or more than you and build my stories. Nevertheless, i do think everything we think, departs from the feeling, and in its departure alienates the truth of god as a
human feeling.

I know what you mean, and I agree, faith which claims to have such revelation into some otherworldly superior reality is not supportable. — ENOAH

But that is precisely what revealed truth means. It is the entire meaning of the Bible. It doesn’t mean you have to believe it.

But in reality, faith is as contingent and fallible as any other belief we hold, shaped by history, culture, and personal experience — Tom Storm

For secular philosophy.

For secular philosophy. — Wayfarer

And for many believers too. The fact that faith can support or reject slavery; support or reject misogyny; support or reject war; support or reject capital punishment, etc, etc, tells even the faithful that faith is unreliable, since it equally justifies contradictory beliefs. The only faith which one can’t undermine like this is a faith that a god exists. The moment you drill down into what your faith is justifying, you end up in belief quicksand. Or some kind of faith competition.

But that is precisely what revealed truth means. It is the entire meaning of the Bible. It doesn’t mean you have to believe it. — Wayfarer

Fair enough if that's faith is revealed truth in the bible (and i know you agree you dont havd to believd it), but can't faith be explored beyond those boundaries. Are you suggesting no discussion about faith is meaningful without first adopting the definition that it is a revelation of something otherworldly?

The only faith which one can’t undermine like this is a faith that a god exists. — Tom Storm

You sure?

What's the question?

Are you sure that the thing you said, that I quoted, is true?

Are you sure that the thing you said, that I quoted, is true? — flannel jesus

What do you think I am saying?

If it helps, I am not saying that faith in god is true.

I think you listed a lot of things faith can support or contradict. And then what you said about faith in god looks, to me, like you're saying there's no faith that can contradict the existence of god.