I think if anyone takes faith and converts it as "a known truth" then they're guilty of Hume's Guillotine.

This sounds like knowledge (science/reason) has to be on a different scale than a faith would — Fire Ologist

Perhaps for some, but not me. I can understand why the religious type lie to themselves about faith. It's a prominent feature of their thought so they want it to count for something more. Faith in faith.

The real friction between reason and faith manifests later with Protestantism, where salvation by faith alone — Wayfarer

Could be the case a few influenced my decision, but I never care to ask someone their religion because it's something that matters 0 to me. But I feel like a lot of people think because they have faith in faith they think it's knowledge. They find it some form of reasoned knowledge... the more knowledge you have of something the less faith you have in it because the more you know...

A scientist doesn't need to have faith in his model after showing it works...he knows it does.

Bet most the religious here serve themselves not their God...

Brcause their knowledge of themselves is greater than their faith in their God.

"God thinks and I obey?" More like "I think and it obeys," after the death of God...

Yes. Even in science, man places much faith.

Though, to be fair, the mischievousness in me wanted to say "No" to create absurdity...

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

Having absolute faith in God requires nothing more than belief. Having faith doesn't even require routine or doctrine...

The more knowledge I have the less faith I have in the statement yet.

Know how counting cards works?

Even a 5% margin of error is requires great faith in a machine that RPMS 10000 times a minute...

"NO I KNOW MY WIFE WOULD NEVER CHEAT!" *He shrieked in despair after hearing the news that she did just that* Well obviously there was a gap in the knowledge... that gap was faith... that the man lied to himself about there being a gap in knowledge...

A large dose of knowledge makes the certainty of faith FEEL and APPEAR like knowledge...Hence St. Thomas thinks "nor can truth ever contradict truth." His gap in knowledge (faith) appears to him as knowledge... sadly the truth of Paradox were far before his time, and something he willingly ignored, probably to maintain his faith that truth never contradicts itself... I don't know, I can't ask him, so I suppose I will just have to have faith in my opinion that he willingly ignored the truth of paradox so he could say "truth never contradicts truth"

[But if I say I knew for sure ... that's] Hume's Guillotine — DifferentiatingEgg

So basically we end up with knowledge on Paradoxes and Knowledge on St. Thomas, to make an "educated guess."

But if I got to ask him, and fill that gap... well, I would know then wouldn't I?

Faith is not opposite reason — Fire Ologist

Yall in that Dialectical thought of antithesis of values...

Also

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

It seems Bizarre to you that the more you know your wife won't cheat on you the less faith you have in believing that she wont? You don't even comprehend what I'm saying with that example.

So everything you believe in is a known fact? If I know my wife won't cheat on me then it's no longer a question about faith... because it's known.

It's bizarre to me that you equivocate beliefs with knowing...

Just because I believe I have the biggest penis in the world doesn't mean plenty of others don't dwarf me in reality.

Knowing I have the biggest penis in the world entails something completely different than just believing I do...

I can make shit up about you right here on the fly and believe it...

Just because you fall into the trap that Christians are like "your belief is your personal relationship with God" doesn't mean you know God...

Do you collect Faith or Intelligence in war? For the purpose of knowing the plans of your adversary?

After a scientist has faith in his work and makes a discovery... and can recreate said experiment...sorry but... it's no longer faith but repeatable knowledge...

He no longer needs faith it will work... he knows it does work...

The reason a Christian feels faith is knowing is because they attempt to relay every perspective through the "womb of being"... "faith in God is knowing cause God is everything."

"NO I KNOW MY WIFE WOULD NEVER CHEAT!" *He shrieked in despair after hearing the news that she did just that* Well obviously there was a gap in the knowledge... that gap was faith... that the man lied to himself about there being a gap in knowledge...

A large dose of knowledge makes the certainty of faith FEEL and APPEAR like knowledge...Hence St. Thomas thinks "nor can truth ever contradict truth." His gap in knowledge (faith) appears to him as knowledge... sadly the truth of Paradox were far before his time, and something he willingly ignored, probably to maintain his faith that truth never contradicts itself... I don't know, I can't ask him, so I suppose I will just have to have faith in my opinion that he willingly ignored the truth of paradox so he could say "truth never contradicts truth"

Hume's Guillotine

So, St. Thomas's Five Ways demonstrate a lack of faith and are contrary to Church doctrine? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Not exactly, a quantum of force cannot actually be weaker than it is... you and T Clark have made me consider my perspective a bit more, and what I'm coming to is that ... but say St. Thomas's Quantum of Force in faith is already this grand mountain... we can say his Faith is still as strong... but say instead of St. Thomas being 100% faith-based, he's 60% Faith and 40% logic and perhaps a lack of clarifying here has caused all sorts of equivocations, perhaps of myself even... due to the quantum of force not actually being lesser... just because a persons intellect may be divided in a 60/40 split doesn't necessarily mean that because a persons thought moves to 55/45 split that the quantum of force behind faith grew less... but that the quantum of force behind reason grew more...
there IS a nuance to it... so for some people a quantum of force of faith may not be phased by reason...

Not a blanket quality for all or even most though...

And knowing is not an act of the intellect? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Just because two things are an act of another doesn't mean you can equivocate them... unless you do so under the umbrella term, which is a hybrid of a multiplicity...

Like Pooping and Thinking... both an act of the body.

faith is not achieved through reason." However, it involves the intellect and understanding — Count Timothy von Icarus

Believing is an act of the intellect — Count Timothy von Icarus

Believing, not knowing...

that the submission of our faith might nevertheless be in accordance with reason — Count Timothy von Icarus

Submission to faith... a faith that happens to run parallel to reason, just as male and female are parallel antagonist...

Faith is certain. It is more certain than all human knowledge

You realize all your quotes are about the difference between Faith and Knowledge/Reason...

Faith seeks understanding

No it doesn't.

Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.

The above sentence is great because the author obviously forgot that paradox "this sentence is a lie." Because his faith was stronger than his knowledge about Truth and its paradoxes... Also a showing that Faith doesn't seek understanding... otherwise author would understand Truth is Enmeshed in Deception... via Paradox.

The OP has a view of faith that is only consistent with an austere sort of fideism — Count Timothy von Icarus

Faith is relaint on faith alone... Faith = Faith. When was Faith equated to Knowing? I don't know of any meaning of the word that suggests knowing.

Just because people here are used to their two to three quarters faith acting as absolute faith doesn't mean they're correct about Faith... Most "Christians" today aren't even 3/4ths Christian...

Nietzsche discusses Christ in AC, and regardless of the madness of Christ he discusses... we can see from AC 33, all the qualities of Jesus that Nietzsche utilized in his equation of the Ubermensch. So with Jesus as the basis of the Ubermensch and Amor Fati as a style of the Glad Tidings of Jesus Christ. Can compared AC 39 with GS 276 or is it 271 (the one ob Amor Fati). I can't say I agree with Deleuze on that.

Nah

I think the confusion here is thinking knowledge is more powerful than belief. — Fire Ologist

Nah one end of the spectrum is Faith, the other is Rationalism. I believe the mis understanding is on your end. It's a sliding scale. The more of one you need the less of the other you require.

Meh, we will have to disagree from nuance in perspective... Sure sure ...

The most careful ask to-day: “How is man to be maintained?” Zarathustra however asketh, as the first and only one: “How is man to be SURPASSED?”

The Superman, I have at heart; THAT is the first and only thing to me—and NOT man — Zarathustra

But what is Man to Nietzsche?

Zarathustra defines as strictly as possible what to him alone "man" can be,—not a subject for love nor yet for pity—Zarathustra became master even of his loathing of man: man is to him a thing unshaped, raw material, an ugly stone that needs the sculptor's chisel... — Nietzsche, Ecce Homo

Away from God and Gods did this will allure me; what would there be to create if there were—Gods!

But to man doth it ever impel me anew, my fervent creative will; thus impelleth it the hammer to the stone.

Ah, ye men, within the stone slumbereth an image for me, the image of my visions! Ah, that it should slumber in the hardest, ugliest stone!

Now rageth my hammer ruthlessly against its prison. From the stone fly the fragments: what’s that to me?

I will complete it: for a shadow came unto me—the stillest and lightest of all things once came unto me!

The beauty of the Superman came unto me as a shadow. Ah, my brethren! Of what account now are—the Gods to me!— — Zarathustra

What is the only time in which Nietzsche points directly to the Superman becoming reality?

See how Zarathustra goes down from the mountain and speaks the kindest words to every one! See with what delicate fingers he touches his very adversaries, the priests, and how he suffers with them from themselves! Here, at every moment, man is overcome, and the concept "Superman" becomes the greatest reality,—out of sight, almost far away beneath him, lies all that which heretofore has been called great in man.  — Nietzsche, Ecce Homo

Or more precisely "und mit ihnen an ihnen leidet" to over come the animal compulsion to destroy but rather suffer with them from them... IE to "Suffer the fool," said Mr. Z "not pity the fool, Mr. T!"...

And the final nail in the coffin is from solving the riddles from The Vision and the Enigma within TSZ... we can clearly see the transformed being is one who overcomes their bad conscience, their shame and guilt...

And verily, what I saw, the like had I never seen. A young shepherd did I see, writhing, choking, quivering, with distorted countenance, and with a heavy black serpent hanging out of his mouth.

Had I ever seen so much loathing and pale horror on one countenance? He had perhaps gone to sleep? Then had the serpent crawled into his throat—there had it bitten itself fast.

My hand pulled at the serpent, and pulled:—in vain! I failed to pull the serpent out of his throat. Then there cried out of me: “Bite! Bite!

Its head off! Bite!”—so cried it out of me; my horror, my hatred, my loathing, my pity, all my good and my bad cried with one voice out of me.—

Ye daring ones around me! Ye venturers and adventurers, and whoever of you have embarked with cunning sails on unexplored seas! Ye enigma-enjoyers!

Solve unto me the enigma that I then beheld, interpret unto me the vision of the lonesomest one!

For it was a vision and a foresight:—WHAT did I then behold in parable? And WHO is it that must come some day?

WHO is the shepherd into whose throat the serpent thus crawled? WHO is the man into whose throat all the heaviest and blackest will thus crawl?

—The shepherd however bit as my cry had admonished him; he bit with a strong bite! Far away did he spit the head of the serpent—: and sprang up.—

No longer shepherd, no longer man—a transfigured being, a light-surrounded being, that LAUGHED! Never on earth laughed a man as HE laughed! — Zarathustra

So, I think, I'll have to go with the greater nuance of my understanding...

And by the way... WHO IS THE SHEPHERD?... Well none other than ...

A light hath dawned upon me. Not to the people is Zarathustra to speak, but to companions! Zarathustra shall not be the herd’s herdsman and hound! — Zarathustra

He says this after hiding his "dead" "companion" or rather a metaphor for Nietzsche himself...the transformation of himself in his opposite. The following is a further example...

People have never asked me as they should have done, what the name of Zarathustra precisely meant in my mouth, in the mouth of the first immoralist... Have I made myself clear? ... The overcoming of morality by itself, through truthfulness, the moralist's overcoming of himself in his opposite—in me—that is what the name Zarathustra means in my mouth. — Nietzsche, Ecce Homo, Fatality § 3

A mighty perhaps, what is more religious than a binding to ones own evaluations? How else should one evaluate?

Nah, I just have a stricter identity to my understanding of the word faith.

Argument, discourse, proof—these are all means of understanding. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Understanding is knowing. It's why all great leaders are natural psychologist.

Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth

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

Though I suppose I could have clarified "absolute" faith. The more you require reason and knowledge for God the less faith you have.

Another translation of this sentence could be "You have to be crazy to believe God exists." Because I don't really know what "belief without reason-based thought" means. — Fire Ologist

Crazy is a deep end of that, from Foucault's Madness and Civilization pg 78/79:

"Christian unreason was relegated by Christians themselves into the margins of a reason that had become identical with the wisdom of God incarnate. After Port-Royal, men would have to wait two centuries-until Dostoievsky and Nietzsche-for Christ to regain the glory of his madness, for scandal to recover its power as revelation, for unreason to cease being merely the public shame of reason... Further: Christ did not merely choose to be surrounded by lunatics; he himself chose to pass in their eyes for a mad-man, thus experiencing, in his incarnation, all the sufferings of human misfortune. Madness thus became the ultimate form, the final degree of God in man's image."

That’s not the question on the table. — T Clark

Fair enough, I see your point now that you're less ambiguous with it other than "prove you're smarter than." I'll ruminate over it and get back to you. But know what will likely come is a deeper nuance of my perspective that bridges with yours because that's currently already underway, but it will take time to express. It will likely be in the realm of something like why Nietzsche considers science a morality of resessentiment for most practitioners rather than people truly passionate about it.

Minds and words intersect at more than just language and communication. As Quine puts it in Pursuit of Truth: "in psychology, one may or may not be a behavioralist, but in language one has no choice..." Words are made with individual letters and accents that tyrannize the rhyme and rhythm of their form and flow. Their meaning in a community of words is ultimately determined by several factors intrinsic to the word, its definition superficially changed by external factors. And every word has its own set of forces behind it that triggers a set of total receptors in the brain.

I had perceived this quite some time before I even started delving into Nietzsche, let alone Deleuze, whom details that every mind has a set of total forces in possession of it... one can reflect and ruminate upon something from a different set of "total receptors" (total forces) just as one can approach a problem from a new total set of receptors that make up a different perspective. Normally these changes are gradual, and a when another person finally notices and declares "you're a completely different person than you were when we first ...!"

Well, one can learn to do this at a much more rapid pace. One can master such a skill, just as they can master self-abnegation, as self-abnegation is the first step. It's not that you are identified with this other, but you don the mask of its forces. Especially after getting acquainted with Schizo Analysis and Rhizomatic Thought mastery is relatively simple.

people believe they ought to believe — 180 Proof

Exactly, so believe... no need to try and to hide behind rationalism. That's my point, not everything needs to be. I firmly believe more than one mind can occupy a body... I dont give a fuck what others believe about that...

The only presupposition I’ve made is that you don’t know enough about religious doctrine to make a meaningful statement about it. — T Clark

... you asked me to overcome Aquinas, not you. That was towards Aquinas. Hence why I responded to your quote "prove you're smarter than Aquinas" with that...

I didn’t defend any arguments — T Clark

Never said you did, was clarifying that arguments aren't for proselytizing. I clarified that people here defend illogical positions because "OTHERS DONT UNDERSTAND" not because their own logic is flawed... that style of defense is hollow and just re-preaching hollowness.

Prove you’re smarter than Thomas Aquinas. — T Clark

You mean prove myself smarter than Aristotle's Prime Mover?
Do you want me to point out why arguments from presupposition that begs question are bad? I mean, at least make it a presupposition that doesn't beg any questions...

Cut out arguments... sure... but arguments aren't for proselytizing others, they're for making reason-based decisions. Philosophim said "Arguments are for proselytizing."

Continued defense of illogical arguments because "people don't get it [because OPs poor logic]" is basically a bump, and a way of just re-preaching the same illogic.

metaphorically speaking, yeah. But also, I don't have a problem with what you're trying to prove. I have considered similar notions, especially in the case of Eternal Recurrence... I personally am unconvinced by your argument, but I will admit I had equivocated your meaning here:

I did it. Please read the OP. — MoK

Thought you were saying you made an argument for God. Because I thought you made it as a parallel to say this this thus that (about God).

Arguments are for others to join your outlook on life. — Philosophim

Pretty sure that's the exact definition of proselytizing...


See above.

I think it's impossible to live a life of pure reason. It's okay to have faith in things. Faith is a powerful tool.

Dr Jung: "Yes, he has lost the body. You know, from the primitive's point of view the spirit that is always about with no body is forever seeking one, and as soon as they touch a body they go into it and imagine that it is their own. But they only cause possessions. Spirits crave food in order to be active in this world. Therefore, in Homer, Ulysses kills the sheep and pours out the blood for the ghosts; and only those to whom he wants to talk does he allow to drink of it. And as soon as the ghosts have drunk blood, they can speak with an audible voice. They become active. They make themselves understood. They are tangible, visible when they add material substance to their spiritual existence. Now, all spirits want bodies; they are crazy without bodies."

And yes, other minds are floating in space. They are in the place where your body resides. — MoK

So they require the body to interact with reality? That's why it creates physical?

Why would the mind need to create a body if it already exists?

Curious mostly.

Your OP is convoluted to me, a muddle of poor reasonings which you defend to insanity. So I wanted the plain words of what you're asserting.

The mind is a substance that exists within spacetime. — MoK

So there are disembodied minds floating about in our 3d space... where are they? (Mind before Body)

Or are they only found after the birth of a body?

I can't follow your argument it's like an ironmaiden on my mental faculties...

But that could be cause I don't really understand what you're trying to say in plain words...

Or is the mind like "mana"? How mana is this pre body substance?

If the mind is uncaused, then does it require a body?

So you're just talking about disembodied minds that exist pre growth of the body?

Same difference. Realm of 0 evidence.

What's funny is that you're arguing that God is the uncaused cause and experience is physical... Thus God as the uncaused cause has no experience... lmao

And if you try to argue, God is everything... I really hope you do cause then we get really fun fallacies to throw at you with the basis that God is now physical mind and experience all as 1... which then goes back to my initial argument here...which you so vehemently denied

I don't want to strip you of your beliefs or faith. That's the thing as to why I'm even frustrated with you. You refuse to accept after everyone here has given you good reasons to doubt your bad reasoning. Reasoning you don't even need as it defeats the purpose of faith.

Ever heard of Einstein's definition of insanity?

I got a Categorical Syllogism for you:

Faith in God requires belief without reason-based thought (which you still dont have)

A logical argument for God is an attempt to provide reason-based thought.

Therefore using reason-based thought for God is necessarily a showing of a lack of faith in God.
..

You NEED the argument to BE... because you have NO FAITH in your beliefs...

I did it. Please read the OP. — MoK

Lmao... no.

Fact is you're proselytizing an illogical argument for God because of your lacking faith in God... hence the need of an argument for God.

Where are your objections that I didn't answer? — MoK

They're there, what you can't see them? They're an uncaused cause, you gotta find em bro...

Already have...your hubris is thinking you're the smartest mind in the history of the world..
Fucking absurd really...

 If you could make a logical argument for a mind outside the body then you've done the one thing that all greater minds than you could not do... create a logical argument for God. Consequently no logical arguments for God exist.

And you're nowhere close.

Put your argument up at a university. Do it.

You're just proselytizing at this point.

if you could make a logical argument for a mind outside the body then you've done the one thing that all greater minds than you could not do... create a logical argument for God.

You realize that just because you say "No" to other people doesn't mean you've made a defense of things right? Funny you're still going on in circles here...

Obviously you think the mind is prebirth. Nothing to argue here with that.

It's like saying I have a phantom penis the size of a whale that noone can see or verify...it was prebirth too.

It was an uncaused cause.