What's your religion?

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by Cipher

There are many things that aren't definite other than morality. But what's important is the percentages of each answers, this is really because its so dependent on situations. We *can* accept answers because of its greater tendency towards one way than the other. This doesn't make it definite, what it does is make sense....

Definiteness is a useless argument that lacks practicality.


Please don't present that as direct information, describe it, state your opinions, and we'll state ours----that way, it'll make more meaningful(that's only my opinion however).

There will always be a moral "gray area", you probably can never escape that. The only reason "definitiveness" is lacking as a practical argument is because it itself isn't even definite. People only say it's definite, but on what authority? People won't willingly accept the authority of a fellow human being. The only way it will be valid if the "definitevess" of a moral quality is confirmed by an authority that is beyond doubt, and so far humanity as a whole does not recognize a one such existence.

[Xrayz0r]

Originally Posted by Cipher

Please don't present that as direct information, describe it, state your opinions, and we'll state ours----that way, it'll make it more meaningful(that's only my opinion however).

Don't tell me that others may come and go by saying "hay am catholic lulz". Yet you don't complain when that happens.

I've said before that I'm not interested in discussing religion as a means to explain the universe. That hasn't happened in academic circles for centuries, and I don't intend to start now. Religion is a social phenomenon. If we're seriously going to discuss existence, invite me when you start doing so, and I will gladly share my thoughts.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

There will always be a moral "gray area", you probably can never escape that. The only reason "definitiveness" is lacking as a practical argument is because it itself isn't even definite. People only say it's definite, but on what authority? People won't willingly accept the authority of a fellow human being. The only way it will be valid if the "definitevess" of a moral quality is confirmed by an authority that is beyond doubt, and so far humanity as a whole does not recognize a one such existence.

Our indefiniteness does not erase the fact that we have *several* commonalities. And that, alone, serves as enough stimulus towards progress.

We are human because we choose to move. If one truly accepted all of these indefiniteness, then one does not even need life. Your discussing this now because you "believe" it *will* create progress and, for that, it requires attention, but what you have to truly understand is that we shouldn't let this act as a "roadblock" towards "advancement".

Originally Posted by Xrayz0r

Don't tell me that others may come and go by saying "hay am catholic lulz". Yet you don't complain when that happens.

Unlike them, your evidently a person that *has* that ability to discuss well. I don't complain because I know it won't do anything.

I've said before that I'm not interested in discussing religion as a means to explain the universe. That hasn't happened in academic circles for centuries, and I don't intend to start now. Religion is a social phenomenon. If we're seriously going to discuss existence, invite me when you start doing so, and I will gladly share my thoughts.

Your choice..

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by Cipher

Our indefiniteness does not erase the fact that we have *several* commonalities. And that, alone, serves as enough stimulus towards progress.

We are human because we choose to move. If one truly accepted all of these indefiniteness, then one does not even need life. Your discussing this now because you "believe" it *will* create progress and, for that, that it requires attention, but what you have to truly understand is that we shouldn't let this act as a "roadblock" towards "advancement".


Unlike them, your evidently a person that *has* that ability to discuss well. I don't complain because I know it won't do anything.


I have nothing much to say to you, I've overestimated you well enough...

I'm not saying that that the lack of objective definitiveness is a hindrance, I'm just saying that there will always be times where people are bound to a point due to the lack of evidence and authority. This is a day and age where people are no longer bound by what moral figures dictate and true and false. People are thinking for themselves and want answers they themselves can accept and not just sppon fed to them by someone else. People will want evidence of something before they choose to believe or deny it. If people can't see evidence outright, then they will look for it themselves. This is true not only for science but for religion as well, and as such this is one of the major functions of theology.

This applies to me as well. I'm a devout Catholic and I have faith, but if my faith has taught me anything it's that simple faith alone does not suffice. I question my faith, it's grounding and it's ultimate end. I wish to seek evidence of my faith and the outcome it will lead me to. I want it there, tangible and observable. People assume that questioning one's faith is a sign of weakness but no, it is not. Only by questioning faith and seeking the evidence of where it is rooted on is the only way to strengthen it in the long run. I seek to understand why I believe, and why I should continue to do so.

I for one believe that my God itself has evidence of His existence in some form or another. He is not just some abstract concept built by man over the years. He is THERE, in a way that only those who tryto actually search for it will find. Maybe perhaps there is no objective evidence of His existence and the morality he imposes on me, but in the end I'm convinced that if I ever find it, it will be evidence enough for me that it will satiate both my faith-based questioning and my science-based ones. I don't believe that faith and science are mutually exclusive. I believe, in fact, that it's ultimate union exists in the form of the Deity I worship when I finally find Him and am convinced, without a doubt, that He is there.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

I'm not saying that that the lack of objective definitiveness is a hindrance, I'm just saying that there will always be times where people are bound to a point due to the lack of evidence and authority. This is a day and age where people are no longer bound by what moral figures dictate and true and false. People are thinking for themselves and want answers they themselves can accept and not just sppon fed to them by someone else. People will want evidence of something before they choose to believe or deny it. If people can't see evidence outright, then they will look for it themselves. This is true not only for science but for religion as well, and as such this is one of the major functions of theology.

If this is the case, then how does anyone convince anyone else anything? If people really do follow definiteness, then people won't have to move or do anything. There are no definite things except our own existence, therefore, how can anyone trust anyone or anything? How come humans, in general, want progress? What I understand is that humans do have *faith*(otherwise known as practicality) in this "reality" and that *faith*, alone, deserves all of our attention and hard work. We don't have to time to deal with unfix-able *paradoxical* issues, we *have* to solve problems. Otherwise, why bother moving at all?

[roriconfan]

Originally Posted by SeedFreedom

Ok, so by that logic, if i hand a monkey a gun, and it uses it and accidentally shoots another monkey without knowing how to use it, then i punish it by restricting its food would that be fair? yes the gun could help the monkey. But it had no comprehension of how it works. Lets say further this monkey saw someone use the gun to shoot someone else and steal their food, thereby thinking this is how a gun should be used, and is then punished for shooting another monkey. Is that different than being tempted by another to sin or led astray without the proper tools to fight it?

Ignoring all of that, if god gives me a tool,say free will, and doesn't help me use it properly, say by allowing me to give into temptation or be fooled by a false prophet, and punishes me when i had no chance to do the right thing, then why should i praise him and follow a religion?

Animals have no sense of morality. They are not responsible for anything. Laws mean nothing to them. A dog can be trained to fetch sticks or attack anyone coming close. Both cases have nothing to do with morality. There is no right or wrong in terms of morality. Only response by others defines that, which can be mistaken or misused. Vikings thought it was an honour to kill and plunder. Based on their set of religion and way of life, they were right and Christians with their morality were wrong.

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by Cipher

If this is the case, then how does anyone convince anyone else anything? If people really do follow definiteness, then people won't have to move or do anything. There are no definite things except your own existence, therefore, how can anyone trust anyone or anything? How come humans, in general, want progress? What I understand is that humans do have *faith*(otherwise known as practicality) in this "reality" and that *faith*, alone, deserves all of our attention and hard work. We don't have to time to delve on *paradoxical* issues, we *have* to solve problems. Otherwise, why bother moving at all?

Anything that can even be considered definite, evidence etc. only came to be because people sought them out. You are assuming here that something must be concrete in it's total form that man can immediately perceive before he will accept it. The fact of the matter is that practically everything was a mystery, an object of belief and even faith itself, before they became accepted truths. This is the very nature of the scientific method! Create your hypothesis, arrange a method of inquiry, then test and experiment until you can prove and conclude something. A hypothesis is itself a belief and a form of faith. It was just an idea, an abstract thought, until one chooses to find out it's truth of whether it exists or not.

People follow a definitive truth/existence because it has been found as proven and true. Progress follows because humanity sought truth through science and in some ways, religion.

The problem begins when people only want evidence and truth that is already there. They stop thinking, in a sense. This is precisely my point. People move forward because they sought answers; in contrast they stagnate when they want others to find answers for them.

The ultimate goal of faith is the knowledge of truth: that by believing in the abstract and finding way to prove it then faith is validated. Faith isn't a passive activity, faith is an approach to truth. It just so happens that faith starts of shakier ground than science, but in the end both science and faith are after the same thing.

[monster]

Originally Posted by Cipher

Hehe, ...I've actually been wondering why you haven't responded quickly enough to this "extreme" and "absurd" statement of mine. Please, read this.

I believe humans do have liberty, although limited. By liberty, I mean humans do have the capability to make choices in life that would affect their future.
By limited, I mean
- not all choices will be availabe to an individual
- every choice has a consequence
- a person may not have the liberty in choosing the consequence

As for destiny, I believe
- God already knows in advance the choices that will be made by humans
- he can and do make his own choices that affect human liberty

One example is Jesus Christ himself. A person has the ability to accept or reject Christ, and that is the liberty and free will that man has. But there are also many who will never hear of Christ before they die. That shows two things, first it shows God's choices do affect humans. Secondly, in other cases it also shows the liberty that believers have in choosing not to spread the good news. And that choice has its own consequence for both the believers and those who never got the chance to believe, even if they wanted to.

Having said all that, I don't know if hearing about Christ would change those people who never heard of him. There are people who have heard of him, and they still rejected him. So maybe it doesn't matter after all. Whatever the case, I believe God knows the hearts of every human beings better than anyone, even themselves. And the choices he made does not erase the liberty, however limited it is, that humans do enjoy. On the other hand, the liberty that humans do enjoy does not change that God is still God and has the power over all human lives.

So for destiny, I do not believe it in the sense that everything we do is directly controlled by God. Although God can certainly dictate every thought and action, and I believe he controls all physical laws, he has chosen to give humans some free will over their own lives. And that choice is what produces the limited liberty we currently take for granted. Just that he is still God and makes his own plan.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

Anything that can even be considered definite, evidence etc. only came to be because people sought them out. You are assuming here that something must be concrete in it's total form that man can immediately perceive before he will accept it. The fact of the matter is that practically everything was a mystery, an object of belief and even faith itself, before they became accepted truths. This is the very nature of the scientific method! Create your hypothesis, arrange a method of inquiry, then test and experiment until you can prove and conclude something. A hypothesis is itself a belief and a form of faith. It was just an idea, an abstract thought, until one chooses to find out it's truth of whether it exists or not.

I'm not arguing about definitiveness---Its already understood. What I'm arguing about is whether that type of belief will *create* results.

People follow a definitive truth/existence because it has been found as proven and true. Progress follows because humanity sought truth through science and in some ways, religion.

No, people do *not* follow ultimate definitive truth/existence. If they do, then they'd just consider pain as an indefinite foolery of the mind, and thus, won't care if their existence are provoked.

The problem begins when people only want evidence and truth that is already there. They stop thinking, in a sense. This is precisely my point. People move forward because they sought answers; in contrast they stagnate when they want others to find answers for them.

How can you find definitive answers when there's only *one* aspect of reality, yourself, that is true? Belief in Indefiniteness will only a cause a *halt* of those supposed finding of answers.

The ultimate goal of faith is the knowledge of truth: that by believing in the abstract and finding way to prove it then faith is validated. Faith isn't a passive activity, faith is an approach to truth. It just so happens that faith starts of shakier ground than science, but in the end both science and faith are after the same thing.

Agreed. I've been actually continuously using this as an argument.

Originally Posted by monstert

I believe humans do have liberty, although limited. By liberty, I mean humans do have the capability to make choices in life that would affect their future.
By limited, I mean
- not all choices will be availabe to an individual
- every choice has a consequence
- a person may not have the liberty in choosing the consequence

As for destiny, I believe
- God already knows in advance the choices that will be made by humans
- he can and do make his own choices that affect human liberty

One example is Jesus Christ himself. A person has the ability to accept or reject Christ, and that is the liberty and free will that man has. But there are also many who will never hear of Christ before they die. That shows two things, first it shows God's choices do affect humans. Secondly, in other cases it also shows the liberty that believers have in choosing not to spread the good news. And that choice has its own consequence for both the believers and those who never got the chance to believe, even if they wanted to.

Having said all that, I don't know if hearing about Christ would change those people who never heard of him. There are people who have heard of him, and they still rejected him. So maybe it doesn't matter after all. Whatever the case, I believe God knows the hearts of every human beings better than anyone, even themselves. And the choices he made does not erase the liberty, however limited it is, that humans do enjoy. On the other hand, the liberty that humans do enjoy does not change that God is still God and has the power over all human lives.

So for destiny, I do not believe it in the sense that everything we do is directly controlled by God. Although God can certainly dictate every thought and action, and I believe he controls all physical laws, he has chosen to give humans some free will over their own lives. And that choice is what produces the limited liberty we currently take for granted. Just that he is still God and makes his own plan.

We *almost* have the same route of belief. The only problem is how its so hard for me to relate to. I, simply, cannot accept a lowly(pardon if its rude) man, such as I, to be so highly considered as God.

[TinyRedLeaf]

This is for the Christians (and those who challenge them without understanding)

• Utterly humbled by mystery

"Religious belief has made me comfortable with ambiguity... When I was young, I couldn't tolerate such ambiguity. My education had trained me to have a lust for answers and explanations. Now, at age 63, it's all quite different. I no longer believe this is a quid pro quo universe — I've counselled too many prisoners, worked with too many failed marriages, faced my own dilemmas too many times and been loved gratuitously after too many failures."

This is for the atheists (I believe you'd love it)

• There is no God

"I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy — you can't prove a negative, so there's no work to do... But, this This I Believe thing seems to demand something more personal, some leap of faith that helps one see life's big picture, some rules to live by. So, I'm saying, 'This I believe: I believe there is no God.' Having taken that step, it informs every moment of my life."

This is for the slaves to science (do you truly think you're smarter than him?)

• An ideal of service to our fellow Man

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the Mysterious — the knowledge of the existence of something unfathomable to us, the manifestation of the most profound reason coupled with the most brilliant beauty... I am satisfied with the mystery of life's eternity... This is the basis of cosmic religiosity, and it appears to me that the most important function of art and science is to awaken this feeling among the receptive and keep it alive." - Albert Einstein

These are for the artists (for to perform is to partake in Creation)

• The artistry in hidden talents

"In ordinary life, I'm a civil engineer... But in my other life, I am a pianist, bringing to life with my own hands the genius of Bach, Mozart and Chopin... One time, feeling bold, I played a Mozart Sonata in an airport lobby, between connecting flights. People slowed down or even stopped to listen; readers looked up from their chairs. I saw smiles and heard a smattering of applause. I thought: No one smiled and clapped after my presentation on the site engineering for a new strip mall..."

• The magic of the alphabet

"I believe in the alphabet, because it has the power to change life... (On) the very first day I joined an adult literacy class...I was introduced to (the) letters that stood for my name. In discovering the Nepali alphabet, I discovered I was Cha-me-li and not Cha-mi-li, as everyone used to call me. It felt like magic. A little loop of "e" for "i" changed my name! If three letters could change my name, how much would I be able to transform my life if I understood all the letters?"

• The making of poems

"When I write a poem, I process experience. I take what's inside me — the raw, chaotic material of feeling or memory — and translate it into words and then shape those words into the rhythmical language we call a poem. This process brings me a kind of wild joy. Before I was powerless and passive in the face of my confusion, but now I am active: the powerful shaper of my experience. I am transforming it into a lucid meaning. Because poems are meanings, even the saddest poem I write is proof that I want to survive."

• Life is an act of literary creation

"I (believe) the world is essentially a literary energy. That the world was more than a place. Life was more than an event. It was all one thing, and that thing was: story... Now, if it is all story, I believe we are the narrators. Many writing instructors will tell you that to be a great writer, you must be attentive. Shamans will tell you the same thing: If you want to be a good person, a whole person, wake up! Pay attention! Be here now! Zen monks will go so far as to hit you with a stick. Look!

...I used to approach writing like a football game. If I went out there and aggressively saw more, I'd know more and I'd capture more, and I'd write better. Hut, hut, hut: First down and haiku! But I found out something entirely different. I learnt that if I went into the world and paid attention (in Spanish, you 'lend attention', presta atencion), the world would notice and respond. I would have demonstrated my worthiness to receive the world's gifts."

==========

About 'This I Believe'

This I Believe is based on a 1950s radio programme of the same name. In reviving This I Believe, executive producer Dan Gediman said: "The goal is not to persuade Americans to agree on the same beliefs. Rather, the hope is to encourage people to begin the much more difficult task of developing respect for beliefs different from their own."

During its four years on NPR, ending on April 24, 2009, This I Believe engaged listeners in a discussion of the core beliefs that guide their daily lives. Although the NPR series has concluded, the project lives on at the This I Believe website: thisibelieve.org

Essay guidelines

Tell a story: Be specific. Take your belief out of the ether and ground it in the events of your life.

Be brief: Your statement should be between 350 and 500 words.

Name your belief: If you can’t name it in a sentence or two, your essay might not be about belief.

Be positive: Please avoid preaching or editorialising. Tell us what you do believe, not what you don't believe.

Be personal: Keep editing and simplifying your essay until you find the words, tone, and story that truly echo your belief and the way you speak.

[monster]

Originally Posted by Cipher

We *almost* have the same route of belief. The only problem is how its so hard for me to relate to. I, simply, cannot accept a lowly(pardon if its rude) man, such as I, to be so highly considered as God.

That's completely understandable, which is why it requires faith. For my part, I believe it is the greatest show of love (and miracle, really) that God could give to mankind. That one as great as he would humble himself to be human. And not just any human, but one whose early life people wouldn't ordinarily think higly of (and many people still don't, which is fine). Even the place where he grew up were scorned by others. Not only that, he would then die in the place of sinners and to save those who would believe in him only to rise up again to be glorified.

That is why even though I probably don't "celebrate" Christmas and Easter like most Christians currently do, and certainly not like the rest of the world does, I can still give thanks to God, especially in those holidays (but any day, really) for he has given himself in the form of Christ, the greatest gift in my opinion.

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by Cipher

I'm not arguing about definitiveness---Its already understood. What I'm arguing about is whether that type of belief will *create* results.


No, people do *not* follow ultimate definitive truth/existence. If they do, then they'd just consider pain as an indefinite foolery of the mind, and thus, won't care if their existence are provoked.


How can you find definitive answers when there's only *one* aspect of reality, yourself, that is true? Belief in Indefiniteness will only a cause a *halt* of those supposed finding of answers.


Agreed. I've been actually continuously using this as an argument.



We *almost* have the same route of belief. The only problem is how its so hard for me to relate to. I, simply, cannot accept a lowly(pardon if its rude) man, such as I, to be so highly considered as God.

As I already said, simply following in established truths didn't get us where we are. It's believing in the both the established truths and the mysterious ones and seeking them out that did.

What I mean is that it is natural for man to believe easier in something tangible and physical because they know it's THERE. They can believe easier in a car powered by petrol to get them to work than say, a badass flaming chariot to bring them to heaven (ala Elijah). I'm not here to debate whether exclusive belief and trust in the tangible will be able to bring progress and betterment to humanity, just to restate that people find comfort in something they know without a doubt is there.

Also, you're arguing that there's only one tangible thing, which is the self. Isn't this likewise an excessively subjective POV? Reality is not simply a personal synthesis of personal experiences and perceptions but likewise an amalgamation(sp?) of everything and everyone else.

Think about it this way: if you say that only the personal self is a confirmable reality, does that mean the self of others is not true reality? Likewise if they say the same thing about themselves, does that negate the existence of your own reality?

Or is it, perhaps, that reality is not a single entity but the collective personal realities of everything in the universe? No offense but you need to try and understand human nature more. If the supposed failure to find that which is indefinite serves only to halt the search for answers, then we'd all still be clubbing each other with sticks and wondering if poop is edible.

Probatio Diabolica: you can prove that something exists simply by giving evidence, but you cannot prove something does not exist, with the only exception is to have investigated the entirety of the universe and time-space. The inability to find the truth to something not yet defined is not the same as it not existing. This is precisely why people don't stop searching when they feel they have failed: they continue searching and searching until they find it, are completely exhausted, or simply want to stop. Some are even content with the struggle itself, rolling up the damn rock over the hill to watch it fall down again. So far no one has explored the entirety of the universe in search for answers, ehich is why people continue searching.

We all struggle to find answers, surely, and again it returns to the question of faith and belief that exists likewise and science. We believe it is there and, until proven otherwise, we will keep looking for it. This is what drives man despite the perception of failure.

It may even be said that failure isn't the absence of what you're looking for, but rather because you simply didn't search enough.

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

It's like so long so *snip*

Agreed. This is definitely something everyone needs to see. Rep for you.

[TinyRedLeaf]

These are for Ledgem (bear witness)

• A God who remembers

"I remember, May 1944: I was 15-and-a-half, and I was thrown into a haunted universe where the story of the human adventure seemed to swing irrevocably between horror and malediction. I remember, I remember because I was there with my father... We talked a lot to each other, especially in the evenings, but never of death.

"I believed — I hoped — that I would not survive him, not even for one day. Without saying it to him, I thought I was the last of our line. With him, our past would die; with me, our future. The moment the war ended, I believed — we all did — that anyone who survived death must bear witness."

• The questions we must ask

"I believe in asking hard questions and arguing about them. I grew up in Israel in the '70s with the shadows of the Holocaust. As children, we knew that the people with the blue numbers on their arms were survivors, forcibly tattooed by Nazis in concentration camps, such as Auschwitz. In my family, too, the Holocaust left scars. My grandparents managed to escape Germany, but they left behind relatives and friends.

"What beliefs do such collective memories create, especially when mixed in with the intensity of living with war and terrorism? In my family, they created a commitment to examine the morality of our actions — a feeling that we have a duty to do the right, that is, the moral thing. Even though we agree about that, my mother and I disagree about the implementation of our commitment to moral awareness."

This is for the Chinese (my people, my history, my heritage)

• A duty to family, heritage and country

"I am a good child, obedient. I grew up in China, a country where education is the centre of every child's life and a grade less than 85 per cent is considered a failure. Grades mean more to us than a mother's smile, more than the murmur of a wish lingering on birthday candles. I had homework during lunch, math and language classes two times a day. There were punishments for not paying attention. I was beaten with a ruler. I learnt to do anything to get a good grade. I believe in duty, but that belief comes with sacrifice. The achievements I make come with a cost."

These are for parents (for without them, we are nothing)

• The person I want to bring into this world

"I am pregnant. In the brief moments between dramatic dashes to the bathroom and just as dramatic raids of the refrigerator, I sometimes sit and philosophise about what kind of person I would like to bring into this world.

'If we had to boil it down to three basic personality traits,' I asked my husband, 'what would they be?' I thought if I could name those three qualities, I could identify my own belief about what I value most. Just three, because I figured we'd be lucky to even get those, given our limited control over whoever pops out."

• There is no job more important than parenting

"The simplest way to say it is this: I believe in my mother... One night my mother came home from working her multiple jobs and I complained about not having enough Italian knit shirts. She said, 'Okay, I'll give you all the money I make this week scrubbing floors and cleaning bathrooms, and you can buy the family food and pay the bills. With everything left over, you can have all the Italian knit shirts you want.'

"I was very pleased with that arrangement but once I got through allocating money, there was nothing left. I realised my mother was a financial genius to be able to keep a roof over our heads and any kind of food on the table, much less buy clothes. I also realised that immediate gratification wasn't going to get me anywhere. Success required intellectual preparation."

• I am capable of more than I think I am

"'It is trisomy 21. It is Down syndrome.'

"Beyond those words I heard nothing, sitting in the obstetrician's office. The doctor was talking about my unborn daughter, and the results of an amniocentesis. I know there were words after that statement, but I don't remember them. I do remember returning home with my wife and crying on the sofa.

"I distinctly remember saying, 'I don't want this.' I didn't want this situation. I didn't want this responsibility. I didn't want to become one of those parents — the parents of a child with a disability. 'God never gives you more than you can handle,' people reassured me. 'We'll help however we can,' they said. 'Fine,' I thought. 'You have the kid with the developmental delay, and I'll help you out.'

"...I now believe Genevieve is here for everyone. I believe Genevieve is taking over the world, one heart at a time — beginning with mine. I believe that what was once our perceived damnation has now become our unexpected salvation."

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

Also, you're arguing that there's only one tangible thing, which is the self. Isn't this likewise an excessively subjective POV? Reality is not simply a personal synthesis of personal experiences and perceptions but likewise an amalgamation(sp?) of everything and everyone else.

Think about it this way: if you say that only the personal self is a confirmable reality, does that mean the self of others is not true reality? Likewise if they say the same thing about themselves, does that negate the existence of your own reality?

Or is it, perhaps, that reality is not a single entity but the collective personal realities of everything in the universe?

The problem with this discussion is that we haven't established the list of*definite* truths and what reality is. Forgive me, I thought that you already share that same objectivity in that there is only one definite truth with definite evidence: the self. I'm guessing you already understand that *this* "reality" *could* all be but an illusion and that there serves no "true" evidence to support it. And because its obvious that you have a "thought processor", your existence is the one and only clear self-evident truth. (Kindly enlighten me on this as I, myself, fail to realize to as to how I reached such a conclusion.)

Probatio Diabolica: you can prove that something exists simply by giving evidence, but you cannot prove something does not exist, with the only exception is to have investigated the entirety of the universe and time-space.

You can't prove something does not exist but you also can't prove it does. Its *stuck* as a possibility and only that.

The inability to find the truth to something not yet defined is not the same as it not existing. This is precisely why people don't stop searching when they feel they have failed: they continue searching and searching until they find it, are completely exhausted, or simply want to stop. Some are even content with the struggle itself, rolling up the damn rock over the hill to watch it fall down again. So far no one has explored the entirety of the universe in search for answers, ehich is why people continue searching.

I believe its more meaningful to "help" society than start an endless/fruitless trip of searching. What we can only rely on is *faith* lets face the more dire(starvation of children/poverty) problems.

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by Cipher

The problem with this discussion is that we haven't established the list of*definite* truths and what reality is. Forgive me, I thought that you already share that same objectivity in that there is only one definite truth with definite evidence: the self. I'm guessing you already understand that *this* "reality" *could* all be but an illusion and that there serves no "true" evidence to support it. And because its obvious that you have a "thought processor", your existence is the one and only clear self-evident truth. (Kindly enlighten me on this as I, myself, fail to realize to as to how I reached such a conclusion.)



You can't prove something does not exist but you also can't prove it does. Its *stuck* as a possibility and only that.


I believe its more meaningful to "help" society than start an endless/fruitless trip of searching. What we can only rely on is *faith* lets face the more dire(starvation of children/poverty) problems.

The reason why we aren't in any form of agreement is because you seem to believe that there is no such thing as objective evidence and truth. We haven't established any form form of truth and reality because the only reality you accept is your own self existence. You either reject the reality of others or are unable to comprehend them. This brings us to the vicious cycle you are stuck in: you do not believe that definitive proof of anything outside your own self exists, but you need definitive proof to accept the existence of a reality outside yourself. You try to bridge that gap you seem to see with faith, yet you still are skeptical of the realities outside your own.

Likewise you assume that faith is more tangible and trustworthy than proof and evidence which seems to boggle me considering that evidence itself is the ideal physical manifestation of belief and faith. Faith should lead to truth.

Me and anyone else can engage this with you all day but the argument will never proceed as long as you believe that your own self reality is the only basis of tangible proof, and no other proof outside that can exist.

How about this challenge instead: what about having faith in the proposed reality and proof of other people? If you can place some sort of faith in a God you've never met, how about showing some degree of the same faith in another human created by him? If you think that faith is the only means for you to accept the world then why not apply that same frame of mind to tangible existences? Until you do that then this debate will never progress, and you will never be able to accept a reality differing from your own.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

The reason why we aren't in any form of agreement is because you seem to believe that there is no such thing as objective evidence and truth. We haven't established any form form of truth and reality because the only reality you accept is your own self existence. You either reject the reality of others or are unable to comprehend them. This brings us to the vicious cycle you are stuck in: you do not believe that definitive proof of anything outside your own self exists, but you need definitive proof to accept the existence of a reality outside yourself.

Please explain to me how this "reality" can be definitely proven? Please prove this "reality".

Likewise you assume that faith is more tangible and trustworthy than proof and evidence which seems to boggle me considering that evidence itself is the ideal physical manifestation of belief and faith.

We're really both mixed up in confusions, lets try to organize things a bit more:

1. I do not assume that faith is more tangible than proof and evidence. I'm only accepting it, in place of proof and evidence, because I believe that proof and evidence can't be found by mere logic alone.

2. Belief and Faith is not the physical manifestation of evidence. It is belief, not solid fact.

Me and anyone else can engage this with you all day but the argument will never proceed as long as you believe that your own self reality is the only basis of tangible proof, and no other proof outside that can exist.

Then I challenge you to make this "reality" a definite fact.

How about this challenge instead: [b]what about having faith in the proposed reality and proof of other people? If you can place some sort of faith in a God you've never met, how about showing some degree of the same faith in another human created by him? Until you do that then this debate will never progress, and you will never be able to accept a reality differing from your own.\

Let me tell you one thing: Faith does not = Solid Knowing. Faith = Belief. Belief does not have evidence.


I'm hoping things were clearer this time.

[MeoTwister5]

Please explain me how this "reality" can be definitely proven? Please prove this "reality".

You're evading the question and likewise creating a paradox for discussion. You say reality exists for you on the basis of faith, yet you ask someone else to prove theirs with proof. The matter is that very few if any can truly without a shadow of a doubt provide absolute incorrigible proof of the existence of their personal reality apart from your own. Most of us supplement our own beliefs in our own personal realities with... well belief. Same as you, but for some reason you can't accept the realities outside your own despite the fact that people apply the same thought process as you. You are asking something likewise impossible because you ask for proof that has yet to be universally found and accepted.

Now should the same question be asked to you, you've already answered it on the basis of your personal faith. Likewise the argument cycle begins again. If people apply the same thought process as you, to use faith with logic to establish their belief in their own existence and reality, why then cannot you accept that their realities exist on the same basis?

I do not assume that faith is more tangible than proof and evidence. I'm only accepting it, in place of proof and evidence, because I believe that proof and evidence can't be found by mere logic alone.

This is where we both agree and differ. I agree that logic alone does not suffice for true understanding, but I do not reject either/or in favor of one. I prefer to use both.

Belief and Faith is not the physical manifestation of evidence. It is belief, not solid fact.

Uhh.... you reversed my order. To me evidence is the ultimate result of faith and belief. Faith and belief that is well founded will reach the proof verifying it. By having faith, you will reach proof, bot vice-versa.

Then I challenge you to make this "reality" a definite fact.

That's the problem, again. You're asking us to defend that we "exist" but you aren't going to accept it because you think that only faith can verify this, that your own personal reality is the only thing real, but faith as it stands now does not even have evidence to support it, so all we can ask is for you to "believe" as well. However because faith has no proof as it stands, we cannot use evidence because either way you do not accept evidence. At the same time you won't believe us on word alone and ask we make it "real". You are trapping us in a faith and logic paradox where nothing we do will prove our own existence to you. You say you exist on the basis of faith, but do not accept faith as proof for everyone else. It's a no-win argument with this.

Let me tell you one thing: Faith does not = Solid Knowing. Faith = Belief. Belief does not have evidence.

And this is where we differ again. You think faith is unrewarded with proof. I think that with enough faith, faith will be rewarded with its confirmation eventually.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

You are asking something likewise impossible because you ask for proof that has yet to be universally found and accepted.

Which is basically my point. There is no definite evidence for even "reality". And if you don't even have that, then all of your opinions up to now regarding humanity's tendency to rely on ultimate "evidence" are logically negated----my apologies, if that sounded rude.

Now should the same question be asked to you, you've already answered it on the basis of your personal faith. Likewise the argument cycle begins again. If people apply the same thought process as you, to use faith with logic to establish their belief in their own existence and reality, why then cannot you accept that their realities exist on the same basis?

My answer: I can't prove it. I can't prove you exist. I can't *know* it. What I *do* have is a *belief* that you *do* exist.

This is where we both agree and differ. I agree that logic alone does not suffice for true understanding, but I do not reject either/or in favor of one. I prefer to use both.

I don't understand how we "differ" in this. I've basically said that "I don't believe that proof and evidence can't be found by *mere* logic *alone*"---which implies that it needs both. In order to have faith, you must have *some* logic first.

Uhh.... you reversed my order. To me evidence is the ultimate result of faith and belief. Faith and belief that is well founded will reach the proof verifying it. By having faith, you will reach proof, bot vice-versa.

Your getting the wrong idea again. I *also* believe that faith *will* reach an evident conclusion, but I don't think that our *current* state of being would *logically* prove faith's result. Faith will logically reach a conclusion but its not self-evident yet in its *now* current form.

That's the problem, again. You're asking us to defend that we "exist" but you aren't going to accept it because you think that only faith can verify this, that your own personal reality is the only thing real, but faith as it stands now does not even have evidence to support it, so all we can ask is for you to "believe" as well. However because faith has no proof as it stands, we cannot use evidence because either way you do not accept evidence. At the same time you won't believe us on word alone and ask we make it "real". You are trapping us in a faith and logic paradox where nothing we do will prove our own existence to you. You say you exist on the basis of faith, but do not accept faith as proof for everyone else. It's a no-win argument with this.

It's a win argument for me. I'm merely suggesting that there is no logical evidence towards "reality".

And this is where we differ again. You think faith is unrewarded with proof. I think that with enough faith, faith will be rewarded with its confirmation eventually.

Faith exists in virtually *every* human being. So in the end, whether you like it or not, you will be rewarded with proof. But, as it stands now, faith *can't* be proven. That is why it is called "faith" and "believing", and not called "knowing".

[MeoTwister5]

Which is basically my point. There is no definite evidence for even "reality". And if you don't even have that, then all of your opinions up to now regarding humanity's tendency to rely on ultimate "evidence" are logically negated----my apologies, if that sounded rude.

Looks like were talking about two very different monsters here. I interpreted your stance as that if reality cannot be proven as a whole, then any few, smaller truths connected to the bigger picutre of reality itself cannot also be proven.

My point was that even if reality as a whole cannot be completely and objectively be proven, some people hang on to the smaller truths that exist stronger than faith. Even if reality itself in it's wide scope cannot be objectively proven, there are smaller truths that, while they do not prove reality itself, exist as truths strong enough for people to latch on to.

My answer: I can't prove it. I can't prove you exist. I can't *know* it. What I *do* have is a *belief* that you *do* exist.

Then we are in agreement. We cannot prove each other exists, but we can believe that each other exists.

It's a win argument for me. I'm merely suggesting that there is no logical evidence towards "reality".

Yes you win... mostly by virtue of an impossible logical string.

Faith exists in virtually *every* human being. So in the end, whether you like it or not, you will be rewarded with proof. But, as it stand now, faith *can't* be proven. That is why it is called "faith" and "believing", not called "knowing".

No one's talking about the present. Faith obviously hasn't been proven yet objectively speaking. I'm talking about how it will be either proven or disproven eventually at some point. When it is of course no one knows.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

Looks like were talking about two very different monsters here. I interpreted your stance as that if reality cannot be proven as a whole, then any few, smaller truths connected to the bigger picutre of reality itself cannot also be proven.

My point was that even if reality as a whole cannot be completely and objectively be proven, some people hang on to the smaller truths that exist stronger than faith. Even if reality itself in it's wide scope cannot be objectively proven, there are smaller truths that, while they do not prove reality itself, exist as truths strong enough for people to latch on to.

Actually, you interpreted my stance well. If reality itself can't be proven, how can all these other "branches" of reality be proven?

I think what you meant by "smaller truths" is...."truths"in terms of practicality. And To that, I agree.

No one's talking about the present. Faith obviously hasn't been proven yet objectively speaking. I'm talking about how it will be either proven or disproven eventually at some point. When it is of course no one knows.

My apologies, I believe that the origins of *this* confusion lies with my inability to relate to people well. I lack social understanding, you see.