|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Dear Dark:
You wrote:
>
> If you assume that what is seen *must* have been created.
Yes, I assume that. Chaos will not produce order.
> Faith can be mislead just as easily. Indeed the computer programmer
> who KNEW he wrote the program correctly was using more faith than
> reason to rationalize his program's correctness.
Faith does not mislead. It cannot, any more than walking can get you
lost. What matters is the object of your faith -- if it is false, it
will mislead; internal duplicity will also mislead, regardless of the
object of your faith.
I don't understand the statement "...using faith more than reason to
rationalize...". To RATIONalize requires the use of reason. The
point was that, regardless of one's use of the reasoning process, he
can arrive at a false conclusion if his premises are incorrect,
dishonest, or irrelevant. Even an atheist can truly believe he has
done something correctly and yet find out at the conclusion that his
results are way off his expectations. In fact, I think even
objectivist programmers also debug...If reason is infallible, why?
Incidentally, this is the whole rationale for system 'testing:' to
determine if our premises yield the hoped for result. We do this
because we know our reasoning process can't be infallible (for we know
that our premises may be somehow inadequate). Hence we test to see if
the outcome is consistent with that which our reasoning process led us
to conclude. If you use TS, you must know by now that such is most
assuredly rarely the case.
> No, it is what is seen that we can say with assurance exists. If you
> doubt that the tangible exists, then you also cast doubt upon the
> existence of its creator.
I do not deny the existence of the tangible. To what or whom do you
attribute the origin of the tangible?
Do you categorically deny the existence of the unseen? If so, on what
basis?
>If you accept that what is seen exists
> then you don't need an unseen creator to rationalize its existence.
I don't need to rationalize its existence. I know it exists. Since
it exists, from what, where or whom did it originate? If you can't
show me the Originator, then He or it must be unseen (or non- existent).
> Proofs aren't needed to verify the existence of what is. Tangible
> experience is verifiable and tautological.
Granted, but the conclusion one draws from such experience is subject
to interpretation. That's why I believe there is a Creator and you
don't.
>Give me a proof that
> distinguishes a madman from a prophet.
What the prophet says will come to pass. Incidentally, a prophet can
prophesy lies if he disposes himself to. The proof is in the pudding.
I hasten to add that, from man's perspective, the last chapter of time
has yet to be written -- that is, some prophesies have yet to be
fulfilled, although many have already been.
Man has yet to prove tangibly and by experience that there is NOT a
Creator who loves him and desires to save him from the hopelessness of
what only the material realm can offer.
>Oh, you can't?
See above.
>Then how
> can you say that you faith is any better than the ravings of a
lunatic?
I really didn't say that, though I do believe it's true. I did say
that the decision- making process of humankind involves a great deal
more faith than most people will acknowledge, if the definition of
faith is "believing something strongly enough to act on it, even in
the absence of total certainty." The man who says he never uses faith
is simply in denial. Do you have absolute certainty of every premise
that you use in reasoning every decision that you make at all times?
And if not, how can you make any decision without it? How does one
fill in the gap and live in the real world? He fills in the gap with
faith, which is the substance of things hoped for (that is, the
evidence of things not seen [things unknowable, as-yet objectively
unprovable, things we're willing to believe even though we haven't
touched or experienced them]).
Faith does not deny objective knowledge -- it simply acknowledges that
there are some things that are as yet unknowable, and then chooses to
act anyway. People do this all the time, day in and day out, atheist,
Buddhist, Scientoligist, Objectivist, Agnostic, Christian, whatever
(etc). What distinguishes people is what the object of that faith
is...on what basis they expect a certain outcome from the premises
they insert.
Some people have the basis of, "things just always seem to work out,"
or maybe "things never work out," or "the great spirit helps me," or,
"the brotherhood of man is essentially good," or ,"the universe sends
us signals," or, "I have a degree from MIT, so I can make it," or, "I
have enough money in the bank to get me through," or, "I have good
ancestry," or,"I have a great wife," or, "someone will do something,"
or, "the government should fix it," or, "the law of averages says...,"
(what appears random to us will not, by definition, be random to an
Omniscient Creator, if one exists), etc.
People always trust something, even if they trust no one but
themselves. But even that one must acknowledge that he is not
omniscient, and therefore must be fallible at some point, and
therefore is not utterly trustworthy. But God is.
> > Finally, I prefer to distinguish between "gods," and God. The
> > premise here is that there is only one true God, creator and
> > sustainer of creation. Certainly, however, anything can be
> > worshiped, trusted, and therefore be the object of faith; these I
> > would call "gods."
>
> This is dogma. Why should faith in a one and true God have any
> precedence over many gods. Since they are all unseen, there is no
> difference.
This is what blows my mind about discussions with people who deny
faith. May I gently and with respect demonstrate that your statement
simply does not make sense?
What is dogma? If I say that I know a concrete block exists, is it
dogma or a statement of fact? If there is one true God, and I testify
to that, is it dogma or a declaration of truth (assuming it is true)?
And to say that "since they are all unseen, there is no
difference."...This statement seems to imply that what you don't see
doesn't exist, since you refuse to distinguish between various
entities that you cannot see. If you can categorically state that
"all unseen things are the same," or even, "All unseen gods are the
same," I would have to conclude that you have
a) examined all unseen things (including things greater and more
complex than yourself) throughout eternity and the universe and proved
them to be alike, or
b) are making such a statement without perfect certainty, which means
that your premises are incomplete, in which case the remark is a
statement of your particular faith on the issue.
If a), then you must be omniscient, and I might ask you to prove that
you are, or if b) then you are just like the rest of us and you do
exercise faith, just not in the same Thing that I have faith in.
>
> Can we dispense with the Philosophy Of Religion 101 and get back to
> trading? These pissing contests are really getting tedious.
I concede that this discussion isn't a trading practicum, but I assure
you that I don't view this as a competition. I am not into "winning"
this discussion, or 'proving' in any way that I am somehow a superior
reasoner. I promise that I am as fallible as anyone.
If you are reasoning in a way that is inconsistent with the way you
believe you are reasoning, then you are going to be blindsided
someday. My motives are more about using reason truthfully to
demolish the potential for blindsides.
Disagreements to the contrary, I assure you that I have all due
respect for you and wish you the best.
Sincerely,
CW
>
> - Hacker
>
> ---
> Dark Hacker | Hacker and Fortress web mechanic
> The Guardians Of Computation | Fortress Of Computation
> mail: hacker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | web:
> http://www.computation.com/pub/hacker/
> ____________________________________________________________________
>
> "What immortal hand or eye, dare frame thy fearful symmetry"
>
>
|