Agrote, yes, you understand my thoughts about "faith." I would stress, however, that it differs from belief. I had to say, because of the constraints of language, that I "believe" realilty is, ultimately, O.K., but it is really a perspective or attitude, more of a feeling (intuition) than an idea, rationally derived.
I would suggest that other animals are our "equals" (which is to say not our inferiors) not because they may be able to think. They are adequate not to the extent that they resemble us; they are adequate in their own ways.
If God is everything (the Pantheistic thesis), he is subject to the laws of nature (space and time?). But this is not because they put constraints on Him from without but because THEY ARE HIM. To be "directed" by your nature is a kind of freedom not coercion.
Wow. When I opened this page today my first thought was "OK, coffee time!" Where do I start, I guess we go in order of appearance.
thethinkfactory: re your head existing: Please refer to my earlier post where I talked about what happens when you take analogies too far. About matter: Please refer to my earlier post where I stated that we are talking about the creation of matter, not the adaptation of it from one form to another. About the angels: I did not say that they were equal but that they were perfect in and of themselves. If you want to argue about that one any more I suggest you start a new thread 'cause this one's gotten confused anough already. About empirical evidence: I was actually agreeing with you here. Remember when you said "if I proved every book in the bible to be true a non-believer would not believe and if I proved it all false a believer would not stop believing"?
JLNobody: Cool. Empirical evidence, intuited meaningfulness, personally I think you need a measure of both. About the belief/faith thing, I hate to say it but I think you're just quibbling over semantics here.
agrote: Chambers English Dictionary says will wil, n. the power or faculty of choosing or determining: the act of using this power.
Yes, if you say something about everything then it applies to everything. But saying something about a part of everything is different. We are bound by the laws of space and time, but we are just a tiny part.
About Lucifer: if I were to go into a discussion of him it would take a very long time and involve extended argument about the nature and purpose of evil, so I'll give you the same suggestion I gave thethinkfactory; start a new thread, I'm sure you'll get plenty of takers. Ditto for the imperfection of humankind.
About that quote about what people feel is right for them: I was speaking of people coming to a religion, people who are born into one are a completely different matter. Just to clear that thing up for everyone I'll try to refrase- When someone believes something, telling them that they are wrong is not going to change their mind, no matter how nicely you say it. Once a person has made up their mind you can argue till you are blue in the face but it wont get you anywhere.
It's OK if you think it's impossible, I'm not trying to convert you, just explain my ideas. After all, my own opinions are pretty much always in a state of flux. I like to think that I have ideas about things, not beliefs. Which I suppose is why I like arguing with you people.
cavfancier: Lol. Nice one!
Oh, yeah. I think Whatsisname got booted because he was trying to flog his CD.
Fortune, I understand your notion that I am quibbling about trivial semantic differences, differences that make no difference. I agree that the line I draw between belief and faith is a very fine one. But consider this: People fear death and adopt beliefs, e.g., in an immortal contination of life in Paradise, to assuage that fear. One who has no fear of death, who has a non-discursive (extra-rational) "faith" that it is O.K., has no need for such a defensive belief. I see this as a non-trivial difference.
OK, so maybe it's me that's quibbling over semantics. It's just that for most of the instances you have used the words 'faith' and 'belief' they would seem to be pretty much interchangeable.
Just looking at your original definitions of the terms. I would say that to believe something is to regard it as being true, evidence doesn't come into it. Faith, is as you say, an attitude. It is confidence in something. So there's really not so very much of a difference, to believe is to have faith and vice versa.
Fortune said: "Yes, if you say something about everything then it applies to everything. But saying something about a part of everything is different. We are bound by the laws of space and time, but we are just a tiny part."
- so... bits of God are bound by the laws of space and time? If God is everything, then He is the universe, which is bound by the laws of space and time (isn't it?) so what else is there, other than the entire universe, which is part of everything (and therefore part of God), but which is not bound by the laws of space and time? You've mentioned us being part of God, which suggests that you have no problem with breaking God into bits - taking a reductionist approach. So I now ask you this: which bits of God aren't bound by the laws of space and time?
"Once a person has made up their mind you can argue till you are blue in the face but it wont get you anywhere." - but that isn't always true. people do chang their minds - that's why we have a phrase to describe it ("I 'changed my mind'").
I think I might start a new thread...
cavfancier wrote:Being immortal, omnipotent and all-powerful must be the most boring job in the world.
Very cool, I can quote myself. This statement reflects the nature of god's own universe. The Luciferian model would involve humans who believe they are immortal, omnipotent and all-powerful, which explains dicatators and CEOs, and their fascination with dominance, strippers and fancy cars. Anything you need to know about Satan, just dial 1-800-JMilton.
