Liquidrage

You wrote, "Why do you believe in God if you do not understand God?"

Because I have FAITH in Him.


I would like to point out that I do not accept this statement. Now, I'm not asserting that it was written for me to judge, however, in this context it is clear that is this not a valid.

Faith and belief are actually synonyms.

Answering a question of belief with the word "faith" does not actually answer the question.

Samhain

I am placing this quote here again, as it seems to apply now more than ever, and I ask you to pay heed to the content and idea that Hume is arguing.

"If the whole of natural theology resolves itself into one, simple, though somewhat ambiguous, at least undefined proposition, that the cause or causes of order in the universe probably bear some remote analogy to human intelligence: If this proposition be not capable of extension, variation, or more particular explication: If it affords no inference that affects human life, or can be the source of any action or forbearance: And if the analogy, imperfect as it is, can be carried no farther than to human intelligence; and cannot be transferred, with any appearance of probability, to the other qualities of the mind: If this really be the case, what can the most inquisitive, contemplative and religious man do more than give a plain, philosophical assent to the proposition, as often as it occurs; and believe that the arguments, on which it is established, exceed the objections that lie against it?" -David Hume Dialogues on Natural Religion

Now, as you stated, it is impossible to fully understand "God". I will be taking this further by stating that it is not only impossible to fully understand "God" but impossible to understand "God" in even the remotest sense. Therefore, if you wish to believe then do so, but do not try to make assumptions that you are even capable of understanding the god you worship in even the vaguest sense, for if you do so, you contradict all that you've worked to achieve here in this thread. Either we cannot understand "God" in any way, shape or form, in any sense of the word "god" itself, and your arguments and your "God" hold no meaning because of this. Or you must admit that it is possible to understand "God" and understand the mind of "God" in all of its intricities and, while your arguments made here will be accepted, you must, at the same time, accept our arguments as well because they are perfectly valid points. And, like any other argument, even yours, they are subject to scrutiny and logical deconstruction. Now, you can either have this one way or the other, to try and compromise the idea that "God" can only be partially understood or that "God" is not subject to the laws of logic, reason and science is to preform a logical fallacy known as Shifting the Burden of Proof. Now preforming this fallacy proves nothing, essentially, but only drags your claims further and further from any kind of logical validity. So, right here and now, either accept that our points are valid and attempt to combat them with reason and logic, or accept that "God" cannot possibly be understood in any way, and therefore your arguments truly mean nothing because the concept of the word "God" itself is impossible to understand, thus no arguments can be derived against it or for it.

Gemma Therese

<<<I would like to point out that I do not accept this statement.>>>

OK, but that's why I believe in God.

-=Vagrant=-

A blind believer?

Liquidrage

Why do you believe?
Because I have faith
Why do you have faith?
Because I believe.
See where it goes?

If you were expand upon your use of the word faith then perhaps it would be a valid reason. What you posted was a non-statement.

Samhain

[nitpicky]

Actually, it's circular argumentation, another logical fallacy, which, essentially, proves nothing and fails to present any type of argument or stance.

[/nitpicky]

So, Gemma, perhaps you'd like to elaborate on the reasons for your faith/belief, since the statement you made concerning the subject is hardly a valid response to the question at all.

himynameisPwn

Has anyone else noticed Gemma lost when he conceded that his belief was faith and he knew God was real but his entire argument was that you cannot prove something with emotion? Gemma, its alright to say that you are wrong.

Im editing this to add quotes to prove my point btw:

Faith, blind faith in your case, is not proof, therefore you believe God is true without proof. That has no bearing on whether its true or not(said by yourself). I suggest you re-examine the truth of God, objectively.

[ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: himynameisPwn ]</p>

Jobar

Gemma, I believe this thread has reached a clear ending. Do you have anything more to say?

Echo

Gemma,

To use your own words: There's one born every minute!

Now can you please, please tell us why you think someone who has "faith" in pink dragons is a "sucker" (I'm assuming that is what you meant by the "one born every minute" comment"), but not someone who has faith in a god?

You seem to be implying that the things *you* have faith in are acceptable, but things like pink dragons (or astral bodies, or ascended masters, or aliens who abduct people) are questionable.

So how do we go about determining which things to have "faith" in? Obviously having faith in some things makes us "suckers," but having faith in other things is okay. How do we distinguish between the two?

Can you please discuss this with us, because this thread will go nowhere until you help us understand this whole "faith" business, and when it should or should not be relied upon.

MrDarwin

In other words, you have no reason to believe in God, you are unable to provide anybody else with a reason to do so, and no reason for us to listen to you. You have yet to give us any compelling reason to pay any attention to anything you've said (which has amounted to precious little).

Tell us, Gemma Therese, do you have anything more substantive to tell us than "I believe in God and you should too"??