I hereby announce that I will, in due time, produce an argument to show that faith is not something circular, and in addition explain, whence the notions of circularity in regards to faith.
Thank you.

Dear Water,

Arguments for Faith?

Protestants have an irrational hatred of all the Saints, although there is small justification for it. It seems to be hatred simply for the sake of mean spiritedness. But honestly, why should protestants hate Saints who lived and died hundreds of years before the Protestant Rebellion? When exactly do Protestants suppose that the Early Church crossed the line to being so demonic that it could only safely be completely ignored. But all of that is my introduction to Saint Bernard, who lived during the first stirrings of the movement to justify Faith by Reason. Bernard saw Faith as largely a Zen Like Mystery, and mixing it up with Reason could only hurt it. Peter Abelard, the most brilliant Mind of his time offered to debate Bernard on the subject, a debate that Bernard would have refused, except that the Pope, a former Monk to whom Bernard had been Superior, ordered Bernard to the debate. Abelard argued, and then it was Bernard's turn. Bernard looked across the podiums and into Abelard's eyes, and instantly Abelard understood the idea of Mystery. He instantly recanted, and resigned his Chair of Philosophy at the Serbonne and retired to a Contemplative Monastery.

Besides, when has Reason ever convinced an Atheist of anything. You cannot expect Reason to take the place and do the job of a Religious Experience. There was a well known Jewish Atheist in Paris at the time of the Atheistic French 'Enlightenment' Movement -- they used the Term 'Enlightenment' in the New Speak sense of being free of Religious Superstition. Anyway, it was the time of the introduction of the Medal of the Immaculate Conception, from a vision a nun had had of the Blessed Virgin... the Medal came to be called "The Miraculous Medal". On a bet the Atheist consented to wear a Miraculous Medal. It was Our Lady's Promise that anybody who wore The Medal would have some measure of Grace, and that Confidence could increase that Grace, but that simply wearing the Medal was sufficient for some portion. Anyway, the Atheist Jew has a lunch date to meet a business colleage in one of the side chapels of the Notre Dame Cathedral. He was struck with this incredible Religious Experience in which the Cathedral seemed to disappear and he seemed to be out in a beautiful field near a pond and a small Woods and the Blessed Virgin descended from Heaven and had a chat with him. This Atheist went on to become a Cathelic Priest and I believe may have worked his way up to Bishop. Anyway, it was not rational arguments that convinced him of the Truths of Religion. It was the Experience of Religion that made him Religious. There is no other way.

Besides, one philosopher, I forget who, had said that all good arguments are in fact circular... that is how you know they are valid. That is how a good argument checks itself for correctness --- that it can go all the way around and meet itself from where it started.

Who said faith was circular?

Will the announcement be soon, and in this thread, water?

Dear Leo,

Not arguments *for* faith, but arguments against the alleged circularity of faith.


James,

One often hears that all religious faith is circular. This irks me, for a long line of reasons.
It will take some time and research, but it'll come!
Take heart.

I hereby announce that I will, in due time, produce an argument to show that faith is not something circular, and in addition explain, whence the notions of circularity in regards to faith.
Thank you.

AHAHAHAHAHAH! HAHAHA! HAHAHA! :D

:confused:

:bugeye:

I DARE YOU.

//If you succeed, why, if you succeed... anything.

Quote:Protestants have an irrational hatred of all the Saints, although there is small justification for it. It seems to be hatred simply for the sake of mean spiritedness. But honestly, why should protestants hate Saints who lived and died hundreds of years before the Protestant Rebellion?:Quote ~Leo Volont~

Leo,

I am a protestant and I have nothing against the saints or any other religion at that. Consider me polytheistic. It is merely a hatred created long ago by people who feared what they couldn't comprehend. Like the Salem witch trials, just some snoby zealots who couldn't understand that people would have different veiws on religion.

Why not just let people believe in what they want to believe and worship unless it directly affect you. I don't have a problem with Satanics, unless they offer me as sacrifise and bring about the apocolypse. Other then that I don't care where people put their faith.

Water,

Faith is simply belief without proof. The primary circular arguments regarding faith tend to be those from religionists who attempt to justify their faith. Otherwise there is nothing inherently circular about the concept of faith. It is not clear what your proposed thread would cover.

Dear Leo,

Not arguments *for* faith, but arguments against the alleged circularity of faith.




Wonderful... that clarified everything.

Maybe you need to re-write your essay so that people know what it is exactly you are talking about.

I am a protestant and I have nothing against the saints or any other religion at that.

You say you have nothing against the Saints, but it is the Catholic Saints alone who have shown that they were able to exercise a correct understanding of Christ's Teachings. All other Christians were and are lost, but the Saints, by the Grace they demonstrate in their Miracles, that they not only have Followed Christ, but have caught up to Him. Now, it would only be natural for nominal Christians to be curious about what the Saints had done right. Most Protestants emphatically hate the Saints and offer assertions that their Miracles are of the devil. Then we have mild mannered Protestants who say they don't hate the Saints, but still rather treat them like lepers. Take you, for instance, ... you speak of them as though they are in an entirely different Religion. It seems you think you are too good for them.

Wonderful... that clarified everything.
Maybe you need to re-write your essay so that people know what it is exactly you are talking about.
That's the whole point. Water is working on a premise that doesn't fit into everyone's little boxes.
Water is one of the few people who seems to be looking at both sides to find something useful, instead of sticking to half the evidence and wallowing in the same "you said", "I said", "she said", diatribe.

***applause***

You say you have nothing against the Saints, but it is the Catholic Saints alone who have shown that they were able to exercise a correct understanding of Christ's Teachings. All other Christians were and are lost, but the Saints, by the Grace they demonstrate in their Miracles, that they not only have Followed Christ, but have caught up to Him. Now, it would only be natural for nominal Christians to be curious about what the Saints had done right. Most Protestants emphatically hate the Saints and offer assertions that their Miracles are of the devil. Then we have mild mannered Protestants who say they don't hate the Saints, but still rather treat them like lepers. Take you, for instance, ... you speak of them as though they are in an entirely different Religion. It seems you think you are too good for them.
Leo, Protestants object to saints because saint-worship is idolatrous. "Thou shalt have no other Gods than me" said God, and yet the Catholic church deifies people right up to the present day - in fact I believe I'm right in saying that John Paul II has canonised or at least beatified more people in 26 years than all the popes before him. "Thou shalt not make a graven image" - again, nobody worships the statues of Mary or paintings of the Christ - but if you pray to a saint, you often pray at a statue to that saint. It may seem to a person from middle-America or the United Kingdom that I'm exaggerating, but I'm half Italian (formerly Catholic) and I know that in Europe and undoubtedly South America, saint-worship is a very real thing. It was this that Luther used to justify his break away from the catholic church in the first place.

Besides, when has Reason ever convinced an Atheist of anything. You cannot expect Reason to take the place and do the job of a Religious Experience.That's a non-sequitur. It is only Reason that a skeptical thinker will accept to be convinced, but as you correctly go on to say, Reason can not take the place and do the job of a Religious Experience.

That's a very good story about St. Bernard. Isaac Asimov once got irritated with the editor of some esoteric magazine who had attempted to show that Reason was not necessarily the only path to truth. He wrote back to him, "You tell me that Reason is not the only path of discovery. Your argument however consists of attempting to Reason the point. Don't tell me, show me! Paint me a picture, meditate me a meditation, do something that will directly convince me that does not involve the use of Reason." He got no reply.

I think logically, faith is equivalent to assumption, identity, circularity, etc. I don't see why that's a problem. It's undertaken all the time by most everyone. Hell not most, I'd wagereveryone undertakes it at least unconsciously on a virtually constant basis.

That it is circular does not render it invalid. It simply indicates it cannot be proven. Big deal. You can't prove anything to everyone.

Logic doesn't apply to all aspects of being. It applies to the analysis of it. It's removed from it. It's not it.

I smell perfectionism.

I look forward to your argument.

Assumptions (faith) are requisite for the hueuristic problem solving mechanisms of the mind to reach practical solutions in real time.

I shall soon produce an argument proving that this thread will prove nothing.

AHAHAHAHAHAH! HAHAHA! HAHAHA!

I DARE YOU.

//If you succeed, why, if you succeed... anything.

Anything -- what?


* * *

Faith is simply belief without proof.

Hi there Cris! Nice to see you.


The primary circular arguments regarding faith tend to be those from religionists who attempt to justify their faith. Otherwise there is nothing inherently circular about the concept of faith.

VERY nice. I agree.

Circularity problems usually arise when we try to justify something, yes.


It is not clear what your proposed thread would cover.

There are some old issues waiting ... we'll see.


* * *



Wonderful... that clarified everything.

Maybe you need to re-write your essay so that people know what it is exactly you are talking about.

The opening post is not an essay, and it doesn't say much anyway.


* * *


That's the whole point. Water is working on a premise that doesn't fit into everyone's little boxes.
Water is one of the few people who seems to be looking at both sides to find something useful, instead of sticking to half the evidence and wallowing in the same "you said", "I said", "she said", diatribe.

***applause***

Thank you!

* * *


I think logically, faith is equivalent to assumption, identity, circularity, etc. I don't see why that's a problem. It's undertaken all the time by most everyone. Hell not most, I'd wagereveryone undertakes it at least unconsciously on a virtually constant basis.

That it is circular does not render it invalid. It simply indicates it cannot be proven. Big deal. You can't prove anything to everyone.

Logic doesn't apply to all aspects of being. It applies to the analysis of it. It's removed from it. It's not it.

Wow. Yes.
Faith may logically equal those other things, but like you said, Logic doesn't apply to all aspects of being.
This is where it gets interesting.


I smell perfectionism.

Haha! I'm just trying to be exact.


I look forward to your argument.

Thank you.


Assumptions (faith) are requisite for the hueuristic problem solving mechanisms of the mind to reach practical solutions in real time.

True. But faith is not just about any kind of assumptions ...

* * *


I shall soon produce an argument proving that this thread will prove nothing.

This thread is only an announcement notice anway.

Random related thought: Faith is only possible if there exists a potential for skepticism.

Anything -- what?

If you succeed, you will be past omniscient, maybe past God. But I don't expect you to. No one does. I suppose everyone is a realist just like me. I admire your courage however. To make an announcement like that takes balls - which you don't have. Best of luck chasing that rainbow.

This thread is only an announcement notice anway.

And mine was only a joke announcement notice.

Good to see you back JustARide.

And the other 49%?

Good to see you back JustARide.

And the other 49%?

I wish you'd asked about the other 51%, just for the cheap jibe.

That's the whole point. Water is working on a premise that doesn't fit into everyone's little boxes.
Water is one of the few people who seems to be looking at both sides to find something useful, instead of sticking to half the evidence and wallowing in the same "you said", "I said", "she said", diatribe.

***applause***

How would you know? Maybe if you know what he is talking about, YOU can give us an essay, because he seems to like to keep his Vast Wisdom close to the chest. I guess he's afraid we might steal his ideas and be as smart as he is. I don't think he has anything to worry about.

Leo, Protestants object to saints because saint-worship is idolatrous.

They hate Mary because Mary Worship is idolatrous. They hate saints because saint worship is idolatrous. Wow, I guess it is the rule to hate everything in Heaven, except God... oh wait, they Worship Jesus. Hey, isn't that idolatrous?

You know, that is the problem Muslims have with Protestants. Everything is Idolatry to Protestants except their own Preferred Worship of Somebody who isn't God except by human proclamation.

If you look at it logically, if one can be permitted to worship Jesus, then why not any Saint. Every Saint who has been given by God a noticeable measure of Grace is certainly the recipient thereby of a Divine Endorcement. If God does not hate these people, than why should we.

Protestants simply love excuses to hate. That is what identifies them as Satanic Antichrists.

Isaac Asimov once got irritated with the editor of some esoteric magazine who had attempted to show that Reason was not necessarily the only path to truth. He wrote back to him, "You tell me that Reason is not the only path of discovery. Your argument however consists of attempting to Reason the point. Don't tell me, show me! Paint me a picture, meditate me a meditation, do something that will directly convince me that does not involve the use of Reason." He got no reply.

Asimov is a stupid jack ass. He gave himself his own reply and apparently did not know it: "meditate me a meditation". Asimov refuses to meditate. Asimov just wants to play with words his whole life. The Editor decided he had better things to do with his time.

The opening post is not an essay, and it doesn't say much anyway.



You seem to be proud of your lack of accomplishments. I hope that put that on your tombstone: " He did not really live, and he did not do anything anyway".

Random related thought: Faith is only possible if there exists a potential for skepticism.

Yes I agree -- as only if there is a potential for skepticism, trying to solve it demands acting on faith.
This is how faith makes sense.


* * *

If you succeed, you will be past omniscient, maybe past God.

How on earth have you come to this conclusion?
:confused: :bugeye: :confused:


But I don't expect you to. No one does. I suppose everyone is a realist just like me. I admire your courage however. To make an announcement like that takes balls - which you don't have. Best of luck chasing that rainbow.

I don't have balls, huh?
Alright ...


* * *

How would you know? Maybe if you know what he is talking about, YOU can give us an essay, because he seems to like to keep his Vast Wisdom close to the chest. I guess he's afraid we might steal his ideas and be as smart as he is. I don't think he has anything to worry about.
/.../
I hope that put that on your tombstone: " He did not really live, and he did not do anything anyway".

I am a he?
Hehe.


You seem to be proud of your lack of accomplishments.

Leo, lighten up!

Some braggin never hurts.

How on earth have you come to this conclusion?
:confused: :bugeye: :confused:

You claim you will do the impossible. The mathematical impossibility - never has been done, never will be done. Not that I don't trust you will come up with something fine but - I don't think you will succeed in what you stated as your goal. If you do succeed in the impossible, will you not be clever beyond cleverness?


I don't have balls, huh?
Alright ...

Speaking literally. Or so I hope..

They hate Mary because Mary Worship is idolatrous. They hate saints because saint worship is idolatrous. Wow, I guess it is the rule to hate everything in Heaven, except God... oh wait, they Worship Jesus. Hey, isn't that idolatrous?

You know, that is the problem Muslims have with Protestants. Everything is Idolatry to Protestants except their own Preferred Worship of Somebody who isn't God except by human proclamation.

If you look at it logically, if one can be permitted to worship Jesus, then why not any Saint. Every Saint who has been given by God a noticeable measure of Grace is certainly the recipient thereby of a Divine Endorcement. If God does not hate these people, than why should we.

Protestants simply love excuses to hate. That is what identifies them as Satanic Antichrists.
The only evidence of hatred I see here is in your last line. It may surprise you to learn that neither the Pope nor the Archbishop of Canterbury nor any other prominent Christian leader regards the adherents to the other side as Satanic Antichrists. That is a 16th Century attitude and it's about time it was buried forever.
Asimov is a stupid jack ass. He gave himself his own reply and apparently did not know it: "meditate me a meditation". Asimov refuses to meditate. Asimov just wants to play with words his whole life. The Editor decided he had better things to do with his time.I don't know why you're speaking about Asimov (whom, incidentally, his worst enemy would not ever accuse of being "stupid") in the present tense - it's almost 13 years since he died. Asimov was pointing out that you can't use Reason to promote the supposed (and as far as I can see totally imaginary) benefits of Non-Reason. He was enjoining the editor (or any anti-rationalist) to persuade Asimov by means such as telepathy which would prove the point being made that Reason was not the only answer. Asimov himself would have acknowledged that the editor failed to reply because he had better things to do with his time than attempt the overtly impossible.

You claim you will do the impossible. The mathematical impossibility - never has been done, never will be done. Not that I don't trust you will come up with something fine but - I don't think you will succeed in what you stated as your goal.

I don't see why it should be a "mathematical impossibility". All I have to do is show that faith is not something circular. I already have it outlined in my mind, will take some to pour it into the right words. It will take some preparation.

The only problem, as I see it, is that some seem to think that faith is something otherworldly, unprovable, nebulous and such -- and hence the ideas of faith's circularity. It is basically these notions of faith that need to be unnebuled (I just made up that word).


If you do succeed in the impossible, will you not be clever beyond cleverness?

I do hope to remain human.


“ I don't have balls, huh?
Alright ... ”

Speaking literally. Or so I hope..

Uh.
I am a she-deathbeast.

I don't see why it should be a "mathematical impossibility". All I have to do is show that faith is not something circular. I already have it outlined in my mind, will take some to pour it into the right words. It will take some preparation.

The only problem, as I see it, is that some seem to think that faith is something otherworldly, unprovable, nebulous and such -- and hence the ideas of faith's circularity. It is basically these notions of faith that need to be unnebuled (I just made up that word).

Like I said in the other thread: you have faith in having faith. You have faith in having faith in what you have faith in. Ad nauseam.

That is pretty inescapable. We even have faith that faith is circular. You have faith in your faith that faith is non-circular.

Uh.
I am a she-deathbeast.

That explains a lot.

Like I said in the other thread: you have faith in having faith. You have faith in having faith in what you have faith in. Ad nauseam.

That is pretty inescapable. We even have faith that faith is circular. You have faith in your faith that faith is non-circular.

I will bend you, shake you, pinch you, squeeze you, anything -- but I will show that faith is not circular.
I don't know how yet, but I'll think of something.


That explains a lot.

Like what?

I will bend you, shake you, pinch you, squeeze you, anything -- but I will show that faith is not circular.
I don't know how yet, but I'll think of something.

When you give up, we'll all be here to say, "I told you so." Always happens :p

Now hurry up and post it!

Like what?

I was being facetious. Again.

When you give up, we'll all be here to say, "I told you so." Always happens

Now hurry up and post it!

But what if my finding will be such that the argument will not be of the traditional verbal kind? What if my argument will be in me behaving a certain way?

Give me, and human creativity some credit!


I was being facetious. Again.

Yeah, and when the mother ship comes to save me, you're not invited!

But what if my finding will be such that the argument will not be of the traditional verbal kind? What if my argument will be in me behaving a certain way?

Give me, and human creativity some credit!

I see you have already exhausted all possible avenues and conceded that the verbal approach will not work. Now to grasp at straws... and resort to behaving in a certain way (how is that demonstrable to us?).

And me, give credit? Have I ever been known to utter a positive thing? Give credit to human beings, the most hypocritical race ever known to man? I am not even sure there is a such thing as creativity apart from where we want to see it..

Remember always: As long as having faith in faith is a necessary requirement of faith, there is not a chance in the world for any such plan to achieve fruition. Guess what x^2 + y^2 makes?

Yeah, and when the mother ship comes to save me, you're not invited!

Aww. And I was planning to at least mention your name in passing when I receive the Nobel for my theory.

And me, give credit? Have I ever been known to utter a positive thing? Give credit to human beings, the most hypocritical race ever known to man?

d(((((( not ALL human beings, but the ones who decided to split off their heads from their bodies. Remember, the Native Americans were reported to have noticed whitemen 'spoke with forked tongues'



and i don't mean ALL whitemen neither