Faith... and Trust: The Same Things? (page 16)

cofty

The fact is that God being REAL and PROVEN can be as real for one believer as the sandwich being eaten is real for the skeptic reading these words.

Sorry but this is not a fact.

It is another example of believers hijacking language.

PSacramento

Sorry but this is not a fact.

It is another example of believers hijacking language.

How would you have me express it then?

I said that it is a fact that, for a believer, God can be as real as the food being eaten by a skeptic.

For that to be a fact, all it takes is for a believer to believe that.

Sure its a philosophical comment but it is a factual as any other philosophical comment.

Food being real to skeptic means that H/she believes it is reals based on his/her 5 senses and how he/she preceives reality.

For some beleivers, they perceive God in that very same way.

So, it is a fact that for some believers, God is as real as a tactile object like food.

cofty

Food being real to skeptic means that H/she believes it is reals based on his/her 5 senses and how he/she preceives reality.
For some believers, they perceive God in that very same way.

That is my objection right there.

I can see my steak right in front of me.

I can smell it.

I can hear it sizzling

I can feel the heat radiating from it, I can press it and tell how it is cooked - medium rare.

Best of all I can taste it.

Here is the most important point - everybody else in the room can confirm precisely the same data.

We can use scientific instruments to confirm lots of information about my steak. We can test it to see exactly how much protein, fat and calories it contains.

We can look at my brain with an MRI scanner and see it react to input from each of my five senses as I look at, see, smell, hear, feel and taste my steak.

There is absolutely no comparison between how real my steak is and the voices and visions that exists only in the subjective imagination of a believer.

To use words like - know, see and hear in this context is to abuse language. It is disingenuous to use metaphor as if it were intended to be understood literally.

PSacramento

That is my objection right there.

I can see my steak right in front of me.

Some can see God.

I can smell it.

Some can smell God

I can hear it sizzling

His Word is quite noticible to some.

I can feel the heat radiating from it, I can press it and tell how it is cooked - medium rare.

Some have felt His touch.

Best of all I can taste it.

Got me there my friend, lol

Here is the most important point - everybody else in the room can confirm precisely the same data.

We can use scientific instruments to confirm lots of information about my steak. We can test it to see exactly how much protein, fat and calories it contains.

We can look at my brain with an MRI scanner and see it react to input from each of my five senses as I look at, see, smell, hear, feel and taste my steak.

There is absolutely no comparison between how real my steak is and the voices and visions that exists only in the subjective imagination of a believer.

You reality seems to be subjective also, subjective to OTHERS confirming what you think(?) you know?

To use words like - know, see and hear in this context is to abuse language. It is disingenuous to use metaphor as if it were intended to be understood literally.

No, because language is and always have been based on a common point of reference.

That you don't have that common point of reference with a beleiver is irrelevant.

Red is red, regardless to the fact that a blind person has no idea what red is.

bohm

When someone claim he is napoleon, does his belief then make that statement as true as our belief he is not? Why not?

cofty

You reality seems to be subjective also, subjective to OTHERS confirming what you think(?) you know?

I just explained the exact opposite.

Your reply suggests you failed totally to understand my point.

Some can see God. Some can smell God

No that's you using language carelessly again.

PSacramento

When someone claim he is napoleon, does his belief then make that statement as true as our belief he is not? Why not?

If he claimed to be Napoleon Bonaparte, the historical figure, that would be one thing, if he claimed to be a guy named Napoleon, that would be another, yes?

This is a thread about trust and faith, correct? things that are highly subjective yes?

bohm

Boneparte. And for the sake of it he believe it as strongly as i believed the dinner i just had existed.

cofty

This is a thread about trust and faith, correct? things that are highly subjective yes?

My objection is that some believers won't admit its highly subjective. They adamantly insist their visions and voices are objective facts. It is disingenuous.

PSacramento

I just explained the exact opposite.

You said :

Here is the most important point - everybody else in the room can confirm precisely the same data.

Seems subjective to external confrimation, no?

Your reply suggests you failed totally to understand my point.

Perhaps.

No that's you using language carelessly again.

No, it really isn't.

If a person says they saw God and go ahead and describe what they saw, can you say they didn't simply because YOU didn't see it?

Now, we can certiably evaluate what is being described and see if it describes soemthing that does eixts and that we know NOT to be god, that would most certainly make that claim invalid but if there is nothing that we know of that matches the description cane we dismiss it simply because we have not seen it?

Faith... and Trust: The Same Things?

Share this