Faith

[Falconer02]

think a lot of skeptics resent the fact that faith in God is required for Salvation

Nah we're just all   to the religious dogma and usually don't care much about it. It's when this one belief system is spoken rudely and forced upon individuals-- that's when skeptics resent it. When people throw their beliefs as fact but they can't even surpass elementary skepticism, there's an obvious problem when they think they can just skip a bunch of dire steps to actually make sense of something.

Believing because we have seen with our eyes is worth little. Jesus told Thomas, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Very convenient.

It is because of the constraints of what we can understand that limits the debate.  Would you agree that there are answers to things that a human brain lacks the ability to comprehend?  An example is "something always existing" and another is realized when every bit of reasoning of human logic concludes that "It is impossible for us to exist".  Facing such limitations one can only speculate.

Speculating is one thing-- defining speculations as fact and truth is another.

I didn't allude to it being faulty, I alluded to it being simplistic.  It goes to my assumption that Falconer02 believes he is free to choose (I think he does, and assume it based on the position of his argument) and also that he contends a belief in God prohibits free will.  If he does believe in freedom to choose then his position on God's omnipotence is faulty unless he also believes that us watching a sporting event prevents free will.

Well for the record I am a compatibilist though admittedly I am pliable on the issue and completely open to other POVs though. This example is a bit flimsy and Falcon9 has already answered it much more elegantly than I could have. But going further into your example (and to try to turn it back on the path of religious-faith grounds), suppose a person records the game, watches it, tells you he knows the outcome of the game, and then says you must place a bet on his favorite team in the game or his friend will torture you. What if you don't like his team? What if you don't want to take this gamble? What if you aren't interested in football? How is this a free and fair choice?

Oh and thank you for sharing your story with me  

[gadi50]

People create their own religion these days but they won't classify it as such. Everyone has their own set of beliefs about why they think good and evil exist, how they think people should behave, and what they believe the consequences should be. Ask anyone and they have an opinion on these things even if they do not believe in a higher power. Most people today want to move away from organized religion for various reasons so most people don't see themselves as "religious". And they if everybody were like that there would be no deaths in the world.

[ladygolfer215]

Ah, you equate straying away from Religion to straying away from Belief in God.  I do not believe the two are synonymous.  I believe that people stray away from Religion because churches do not change to keep up with the times.  I do not believe that necessarily means that people do not believe in God. 

[gadi50]

Religion can be very oppressive. People still believe in god, but have realized it does not take a church to worship god. and that is totally cool if they stiff believe in god.  http://

[falcon9]

Religion can be very oppressive. People still believe in god, but have realized it does not take a church to worship god. and that is totally cool if they stiff believe in god. 

What a bummer ... 'god' gets stiffed again?   O_O

[Abrupt]

Rather than assuming what you meant, why not just indicate which word was "missing"?

Because I choose not to.  You are the one making an attack just for the sake of being on the offensive and you are the one in error.  There is no real point in me in instructing you in your mistake, other than to point out that you made one.

Quantum entanglement theory doesn't actually avoid causality however, that's a long and complex discussion.  As to using Heisenberg's uncertainty principle to support your contention, we aren't thinking similarly on opposite sides of this argument; I simply recognized the analogy you were attempting to use.

Once again you failed in reading what I posted as you did in the instance being discussed above.  I actually hinted at the causality associations with entanglement theory and indicated that I avoided incorporating that into my argument.  Now you are just being a *bleep* (well more so than in general) as you recognizing my intended analogy would indeed denote similar thinking.  Have I wounded you in some way?  You approach me in a manner that I have seen before where people in authority over me (or on a parallel standing) have treated me as a threat.  I learned early to never show to much when at a new job or team endeavor and I tend to subdue this natural impulse even in things such as this.

Whether you believe your assertion to be inaccurate or not, no logical argument can be made that we do not exist, (although such arguments were strenuously attempted during college philosophy courses).  As to the "come from nothing" premise you raise, please refer to my recent post in another thread concerning emergent phenomenon theory?

I have not made any attempts to argue that we do not exist and in fact have stipulated that we do.  My argument is that by the limits of our reason when taken to an origin we cannot conclude other than our existence should be an impossibility.  Link to the post please as navigating blindly isn't very interesting to me.

As I understand the premise, you're saying that there are no rational basis for our existance?  That's a contendable premise however, it doesn't make sense to jump to a faith-based attribution given insufficient information, (i.e., the W.A.G.).  The limits of reason do not constitute an excuse for jumoing off the deep end.  One must walk before they can run, run before they can jump and jump before they can fly.  Those who try to fly from the get-go end up like Icarus.

There is nothing that I have said that includes any faith based attribution regarding a lacking of a rational basis for our existence.  If you are going to post snipe at least follow the dialog.

Indeed; a simplistic analogy is usually inherently inaccurate instead of being simplistically accurate.

A simplistic analogy is always superior where it is sufficient.  It is the fool that seeks the complex when the simple works. 

No doubt Falconeer02 can address that point as he chooses.  Were I to venture to speculate; there are three options, (plus secondary variations on those three), available when considering "free will".  The first being that we have what is known as "free will", (e.g., the ability to make our own decisions without external control).  The second option; that we do not have "free will".  The third option; that we have a limited degree of "free will", (that is, either the 'illusion' of free will or, the freedom of choice within limited parameters but, not on a macro-level).  Incidentally, neither the first nor the third reflect my stance on the subject, I merely present the available options.  If yet another option occurs to you, (or anyone), please indicate them.

I cannot think of others off the top of my head (didn't really try to honestly) but I recall reading many arguments involving Clarence Darrow where I am sure some others were mentioned -- but there are only so many variations I suspect until the point is a variation on similar.

[Abrupt]

It did; I recognize sophistry when someone tries it - no matter what punctuation is used.  The questions asked remain unanswered; how do you know?

Since I think you are the only person that read what I said that is having difficulty understanding it I leave you with this quote:

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. "  Inigo Montoya.

(that is +1 point for me for using a reference to "The Princess Bride" by the way)

To reiterate the point of contention; the presumption you are presenting is that 'faith is a test'.  Firstly, this a priori assumption is not a given and it constitutes an inherent claim, (that the concept of religious 'faith' itself requires "faith").  Secondly, it is this same religious 'faith' which is intended to support the secondary premise that "It is faith that God rewards, and not knowledge".  No doubt I'm not the only one to twig to the circularity of such a pseudo-syllogism.

I did not say that faith is a test  Your comprehension has been exceedingly poor of late.  I am currently suffering the effects of a severe Migraine and wonder if you are in a similar plight?

The context you and Falconeer were discussing was that of the concept of "free will".  You maintained that this was/is a complex question and that "it is also a question that has an answer that is beyond our ability to understand even if an answer were given us."  The latter assertion quoted implicitly requires 'faith' because it was asserted that an answer would be beyond our ability to understand.  This assertion also glosses over our ability to learn to understand what we don't and directly suggests that an answer we could not understand is effectively no answer.

Since you are the one with a problem with faith I cannot understand why you are using it as an argument.  You have said that faith is irrational so you are effectively, according to your standards, making an irrational argument.  I do not know how to respond to this other than to again ask you if you are feeling well?

On the contrary, being aware of all of the variations of all variables, (manifested or, unmanifested), would essentially constitute a deterministic/clockwork universe where choice is possible however, the outcomes of choices are knowable in advance.  If outcomes are accurately, (rather than generally), knowable in advance then there are none of those "unknown variables" you previously mentioned.  Nonlinear advance knowledge wouldn't disqualify a denial of free will however, neither does it support that double negative.

I agree in the sense that if you were indeed aware of all (I am careful to actually agree with you on anything anymore (even in part) since you resorted to contextonomy to deliberately misrepresent me in a debate we were having in another thread.  I abandoned further dialog with you because I do not respect dishonesty and consider it a weak trait unworthy of reciprocation).  My argument was regarding the divine spark of life given to mankind.  What if this divine spark is in essence a part of Him and as such would fall outside of certain predictability other than could be applied to Himself.  This is just speculation, an argument just to be made to demonstrate an alternative and nothing more.  I don't feel comfortable speculating too much on God's design withing giving it more serious thought.

For more on this subject, I'll again refer you to a recent post I made in another thread regarding emergent phenomenon, (which may parallel the concepts you've touched upon without necessarily involving parallel universes).

I am not familiar with it -- not by that name anyways -- is it something along the lines of the Entropy arguments?  Again I might be interested in reading it if you supplied a link.  I am concerned though as you seem to generally prefer to be deliberately convoluted in your writings and my worries are that you might intentionally make an already complex topic overly obfuscated.  Pardon my manners if I seem harsh but Migraines are where my handle comes from in real life (the other names I get called when under their effects would not be appropriate for a handle).

[Abrupt]

It is because of the constraints of what we can understand that limits the debate.  Would you agree that there are answers to things that a human brain lacks the ability to comprehend?  An example is "something always existing" and another is realized when every bit of reasoning of human logic concludes that "It is impossible for us to exist".  Facing such limitations one can only speculate.

Speculating is one thing-- defining speculations as fact and truth is another.

I agree, but some abstractions can only be discussed in such uncertain ways if they are to be discussed at all.

I didn't allude to it being faulty, I alluded to it being simplistic.  It goes to my assumption that Falconer02 believes he is free to choose (I think he does, and assume it based on the position of his argument) and also that he contends a belief in God prohibits free will.  If he does believe in freedom to choose then his position on God's omnipotence is faulty unless he also believes that us watching a sporting event prevents free will.

Well for the record I am a compatibilist though admittedly I am pliable on the issue and completely open to other POVs though. This example is a bit flimsy and Falcon9 has already answered it much more elegantly than I could have. But going further into your example (and to try to turn it back on the path of religious-faith grounds), suppose a person records the game, watches it, tells you he knows the outcome of the game, and then says you must place a bet on his favorite team in the game or his friend will torture you. What if you don't like his team? What if you don't want to take this gamble? What if you aren't interested in football? How is this a free and fair choice?

Oh and thank you for sharing your story with me  

I had never heard of a compatibilist before and had to look the term up.  I have never met one before, well none that identified themselves as such I suppose, pleasure to meet you.  I didn't find Falcon9's reply particularly elegant for him and I prefer you riposte method.  I know what it is you are referring to, but I already told you I don't believe in that 'torture' bit.  I have used concordances and lexicons to trace those words back and find the original meanings are quite different.  With that removed your argument has less potency as the "friend will torture you" becomes more like "you will go to sleep".  It is still valid though, but it doesn't entirely remove free will only applies a little coercion -- although in your example it is undeniably strong, in mine it is less so.

Regarding sharing my story with you.  You are welcome, though I must confess I didn't reveal everything.  There are parts that are unflattering that are omitted, and other points that I evade in order to protect my anonymity (not that I am anyone famous or distinct but I am always cautious about such details).

[falcon9]

The questions asked remain unanswered; how do you "know that knowing", (which is sophist because the conclusion is the premise), this would have the effect described?  Further, isn't is true that the assumption that "knowing" this would cause loss of "salvation" is itself a matter of "faith/belief"?  The process eschews reasoning and relies upon "faith" being both the premise and conclusion, (given that you stated "I know that 'knowing' ...").
 

Since I think you are the only person that read what I said that is having difficulty understanding it I leave you with this quote:
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. "  Inigo Montoya.

Your attempt to dodge the question was too obvious; perhaps your migraine has addled you?  Again, the dodged question was, 'how do you know? (if you've forgotten the context of your own assertion, scroll up or tacitly admit to dodging).

To reiterate the point of contention; the presumption you are presenting is that 'faith is a test'.  Firstly, this a priori assumption is not a given and it constitutes an inherent claim, (that the concept of religious 'faith' itself requires "faith").  Secondly, it is this same religious 'faith' which is intended to support the secondary premise that "It is faith that God rewards, and not knowledge".  No doubt I'm not the only one to twig to the circularity of such a pseudo-syllogism.

I did not say that faith is a test.

No?  Then who wrote "The testing of faith is something that sometimes occurs to religious people ... " if not you?

Your comprehension has been exceedingly poor of late.  I am currently suffering the effects of a severe Migraine and wonder if you are in a similar plight?

No however, your migraine does seem to be inhibiting your process of discernment; my comprehension of what you wrote is unimpaired.

The context you and Falconeer were discussing was that of the concept of "free will".  You maintained that this was/is a complex question and that "it is also a question that has an answer that is beyond our ability to understand even if an answer were given us."  The latter assertion quoted implicitly requires 'faith' because it was asserted that an answer would be beyond our ability to understand.  This assertion also glosses over our ability to learn to understand what we don't and directly suggests that an answer we could not understand is effectively no answer.

Since you are the one with a problem with faith I cannot understand why you are using it as an argument.  You have said that faith is irrational  ...

Obviously not, since you proceed to misunderstand the point that your contention, (an answer would be impossible for us to understand and thus, implicitly requires 'faith' to buy that concept), it makes sense that you are claiming not to understand the argument.  To clarify my position then; an argument which requires 'faith' is not rational and I reject it as irrational.

... so you are effectively, according to your standards, making an irrational argument. 

Not at all; I'm using the circular basis of your implicit premise above to support my contention that 'faith' is an irrational foundation to argue that it is actually a requirement of "salvation" NOT to know, (but to instead, "have faith").

I agree in the sense that if you were indeed aware of all (I am careful to actually agree with you on anything anymore (even in part) since you resorted to contextonomy to deliberately misrepresent me in a debate we were having in another thread. 

More accurately, you accused me of resorting to "contextonomy" after I effective demonstrated that you resorted to it previously.  Oddly, you didn't support your contention and merely left the empty claim swinging in the wind.

I abandoned further dialog with you because I do not respect dishonesty and consider it a weak trait unworthy of reciprocation). 

Coincidentally, that's pretty much what ended dialog with "SurveyMack10"; her dishonest debate tactics, (I mean, the ones which her own quoted words demonstrated, not mere empty accusations such as yours).

My argument was regarding the divine spark of life given to mankind. 

Now you're explicitly making the claim that a "divine spark of life" was "given to mankind".  I don't suppose you're going to bother substantiating a "divine" attribution, are you?

What if this divine spark is in essence a part of Him and as such would fall outside of certain predictability other than could be applied to Himself.  This is just speculation, an argument just to be made to demonstrate an alternative and nothing more.  I don't feel comfortable speculating too much on God's design withing giving it more serious thought.

No, it went beyond speculation when you derived further assumptions from that unsupported a priori assumption.  Presumably, your a priori assumptive claim is intended to be supported by 'faith' alone?  And that brings us back around to 'faith' being an irrational basis, (given that it has no rational basis nor a requirement to provide one).

 

I am not familiar with it -- not by that name anyways -- is it something along the lines of the Entropy arguments? 

No, it can be found under the name mentioned; 'emergent phenomenon'.  The "Entropy argument" I estimate you're referring to often misuses the thermodynamic argument as a classic misrepresentation of a fundamental scientific concept, (entropy).  Entropy refers to the number of available energy microstates in a thermodynamic system, for instance; it has very little to do with the spatial order of matter. An energy microstate is simply any mechanism that can carry energy (e.g., each way a molecule can vibrate or rotate). Thermodynamics is about the bookkeeping of energy; not spatial order. The distinction is crucial.  Neither is gravity "entropic" (http://www.100wizard.com/experiments-show-gravity-is-not-an-emergent-phenomenon-technology-review.html)

"Emergence is the process of deriving some new and coherent structures, patterns and properties in a complex system. Emergent phenomena occur due to the pattern of interactions between the elements of a system over time. Emergent phenomena are often unexpected, nontrivial results of relatively simple interactions of relatively simple components. What distinguishes a complex system from a merely complicated one is that some behaviours and patterns emerge in complex systems as a result of the patterns of relationship between the elements." --
http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Emergent_phenomenon/

Again I might be interested in reading it if you supplied a link. 

If the above link is insufficient to outline the emergent phenomenon theory, these and more are also available:

http://jap.physiology.org/content/104/6/1844
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Emergent+phenomenon


There are some dissenting views concerning emergent phenomenon theories, of course, (lest you believe my link cites are 'cherry-picked').

http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/31949/frontmatter/9780521831949_frontmatter.pdf
http://www.complexsystems.org/publications/pdf/emergence3.pdf

I am concerned though as you seem to generally prefer to be deliberately convoluted in your writings and my worries are that you might intentionally make an already complex topic overly obfuscated.  Pardon my manners if I seem harsh but Migraines are where my handle comes from in real life (the other names I get called when under their effects would not be appropriate for a handle).

Whether or not my reasoning, (and the basis for it), appears to be convoluted, I have endeavored to pare them down within the posting constraints of this forum.  Scary as the thought may be, I could elaborate in even more detail however, since I am not deliberately attempting to make these complex concepts even more complex.  On the contrary, oftentimes it isn't easy to reduce complexity into simplistic terms).  

Although I am peripherally aware of migraine symptoms, (my girlfriend has suffered from them since before she met me), I'm unsure of the wisdom of engaging in this debate while suffering from those symptoms.

[falcon9]

Rather than assuming what you meant, why not just indicate which word was "missing"?

Because I choose not to.  You are the one making an attack just for the sake of being on the offensive and you are the one in error.  There is no real point in me in instructing you in your mistake, other than to point out that you made one. ]/quote]


The "point" in your indicating something which was "missing" is the same as the point a diagnostician would make by informing a patient that they have a ailment but, they must guess what it is.

Once again you failed in reading what I posted as you did in the instance being discussed above.  I actually hinted at the causality associations with entanglement theory and indicated that I avoided incorporating that into my argument. 

Oh?  I wasn't the one who used "entanglement" when they 'meant' Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, (that was you, by admission).  Any  causality 'hints' would then have referred more to HUP than to entanglement theories.  If you don't wish your mis-statements to be misinterpreted, be more specific.

Now you are just being a *bleep* (well more so than in general)

Now you're playing the schoolyard ad hominem card to cover your vagueness?  Wow, impressive argument. 

... as you recognizing my intended analogy would indeed denote similar thinking.  Have I wounded you in some way? 

Although you've been unable to "wound" me with mere text, I refer you to your recent attempt: "Now you are just being a *bleep* (well more so than in general)".

I have not made any attempts to argue that we do not exist and in fact have stipulated that we do.  My argument is that by the limits of our reason when taken to an origin we cannot conclude other than our existence should be an impossibility.  Link to the post please as navigating blindly isn't very interesting to me.

I'm astounded to have come across two different people who cannot recall their own words and 'insist', (however 'politely'), that I look up their words for them.  To paraphrase your assertion then; you stipulated that, according to current knowledge and reasoning, we logically shouldn't exist, (despite the apparent manifestation of our existance).  I dissented and referred to emergent phenomenon theory as an alternate explanation for our existance.

As I understand the premise, you're saying that there are no rational basis for our existance?  That's a contendable premise however, it doesn't make sense to jump to a faith-based attribution given insufficient information, (i.e., the W.A.G.).  The limits of reason do not constitute an excuse for jumping off the deep end.  One must walk before they can run, run before they can jump and jump before they can fly.  Those who try to fly from the get-go end up like Icarus.

There is nothing that I have said that includes any faith based attribution regarding a lacking of a rational basis for our existence.  If you are going to post snipe at least follow the dialog.

If you're going to snip the context which you're 'sniping' at, (contextonomy on your part), at least either confirm or deny the tacit religious assumption that some 'god' created the universe then.  Such an admission would explicitly be supported by 'faith' and therefore, couldn't be honestly denied, (which is likely why you went with "There is nothing that I have said that includes any faith based attribution regarding a lacking of a rational basis for our existence" instead).

A simplistic analogy is always superior where it is sufficient.  It is the fool that seeks the complex when the simple works. 

It is even more foolish to try to reduce a manifestly complex concept down to inaccurately simplistic terms, (which would make such an analogy insufficient once it has been demonstrated to be inaccurate - which it was).  Your debating is not benefiting from your migraine, man.

[CharmedPhoenix]

One does not need to belong to a religion in order to believe in God.  I believe in God, but not religion.  Religion isn't necessary for everyone.  If belonging to a religion makes you happy and works for you go for it.   

[ppv2]

God is still necessary.

[falcon9]

God is still necessary.

For what purpose?

[Abrupt]

Since I think you are the only person that read what I said that is having difficulty understanding it I leave you with this quote:
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. "  Inigo Montoya.

Your attempt to dodge the question was too obvious; perhaps your migraine has addled you?  Again, the dodged question was, 'how do you know? (if you've forgotten the context of your own assertion, scroll up or tacitly admit to dodging).

I am not dodging anything.  Your lack of understanding in what I wrote has me so boggled that I wouldn't know how to explain it any simpler.  Knowing is certainty, faith is trust.  Doing something because you know the outcome is not equal to the character involved when doing the same based on trust of the outcome.  Does that clarify to the level you need or is there something else?

I did not say that faith is a test.

No?  Then who wrote "The testing of faith is something that sometimes occurs to religious people ... " if not you?

Of course I wrote that, but that is not what you accused me of writing.  Testing faith does not imply in any way that faith is a test and you have committed a form of inductive conversion fallacy.

Your comprehension has been exceedingly poor of late.  I am currently suffering the effects of a severe Migraine and wonder if you are in a similar plight?

No however, your migraine does seem to be inhibiting your process of discernment; my comprehension of what you wrote is unimpaired.

Not sure what the deal is then since I assure you that you are slipping from the level I originally judged you as being capable of debating at.

Since you are the one with a problem with faith I cannot understand why you are using it as an argument.  You have said that faith is irrational  ...

Obviously not, since you proceed to misunderstand the point that your contention, (an answer would be impossible for us to understand and thus, implicitly requires 'faith' to buy that concept), it makes sense that you are claiming not to understand the argument.  To clarify my position then; an argument which requires 'faith' is not rational and I reject it as irrational.

You are the one suggesting that faith supplies the answer.  Even including any amount of faith you wish I contend that the answer would not be anything we could understand ("void" and "infinity" would be far easier to fully realize than an answer involving origin, and as common and seemingly simple as those terms are they can only be abstractly appreciated by the human brain as we cannot picture "void" or "infinity")

... so you are effectively, according to your standards, making an irrational argument.

Not at all; I'm using the circular basis of your implicit premise above to support my contention that 'faith' is an irrational foundation to argue that it is actually a requirement of "salvation" NOT to know, (but to instead, "have faith").

You are mixing arguments.  You are taking a specific comment of mine to Falconer02 regarding free will and omnipotence and mixed it into our debate and expanded it to somehow include faith.  Now you are trying to backtrack and bring in salvation (again it doesn't have anything to do with the "It is a complex question..." bit.  While you do have a viable question hidden in your comment I am not going to speculate on answering it unless you can figure out the question and ask it independent of the contested "It is a complex question..." bit.

I agree in the sense that if you were indeed aware of all (I am careful to actually agree with you on anything anymore (even in part) since you resorted to contextonomy to deliberately misrepresent me in a debate we were having in another thread.

More accurately, you accused me of resorting to "contextonomy" after I effective demonstrated that you resorted to it previously.  Oddly, you didn't support your contention and merely left the empty claim swinging in the wind.

Again with your imagination and use of your accusations alone as supporting evidence.  You accused me of performing the act possibly a half dozen times and never provided any evidence other than your accusations.  Then, you actually pre-qualified your use of contextonomy at one point to demonstrate how it can be used damagingly (why does that word sound odd to me), and I didn't mind that at all, but later you committed the act multiple times without qualification and so I abandoned any further debate with you (and no I didn't even attempt to highlight what you did at that point as I really didn't care except for the loss of some worthy and fun debate).

I abandoned further dialog with you because I do not respect dishonesty and consider it a weak trait unworthy of reciprocation).

Coincidentally, that's pretty much what ended dialog with "SurveyMack10"; her dishonest debate tactics, (I mean, the ones which her own quoted words demonstrated, not mere empty accusations such as yours).

Again you were the one who accused me so many times of the act and it is something I would never do as it is a weak trait and its deliberate usage admits defeat and inferiority.  As humble as I try to be my pride and honor prevents me from ever doing that.  Even without pride, my competitive nature and joy of figuring things out would never allow me to act in that way.

My argument was regarding the divine spark of life given to mankind.

Now you're explicitly making the claim that a "divine spark of life" was "given to mankind".  I don't suppose you're going to bother substantiating a "divine" attribution, are you?

I am making no claims.  I was giving alternate possibilities to the choices given that could qualify the conditions of the argument.  Since the argument was regarding divine omnipotence and free will my possibilities are rather unlimited and do not even require my belief in the suppositions.  Since I stated that I have no idea of the internal workings of such and also considering that I do not require myself to rationalize them for my acceptance, I merely speculated on how things might work and be valid to our understanding.  I seriously doubt any guess I made would be correct, mind you, and no weight is to be given such a guess other than would it qualify the conditions.  There was no right or wrong answer I could give and it seems that you somehow think there was.

What if this divine spark is in essence a part of Him and as such would fall outside of certain predictability other than could be applied to Himself.  This is just speculation, an argument just to be made to demonstrate an alternative and nothing more.  I don't feel comfortable speculating too much on God's design withing giving it more serious thought.

No, it went beyond speculation when you derived further assumptions from that unsupported a priori assumption.  Presumably, your a priori assumptive claim is intended to be supported by 'faith' alone?  And that brings us back around to 'faith' being an irrational basis, (given that it has no rational basis nor a requirement to provide one).

Yet regardless of whether I generated the answer on a random wheel of words it wouldn't matter.  It is pure speculation and guesswork and any logical deduction would be entirely coincidental since it is absolutely unknown and abstract.  You are arguing a point you cannot win, and the reason you cannot win is because I cannot lose, unless there is a way to lose a question that has no right or wrong answer.  Faith doesn't consider reasoning's, so rational or irrational have no meaning in the context.

I am not familiar with it -- not by that name anyways -- is it something along the lines of the Entropy arguments?

No, it can be found under the name mentioned; 'emergent phenomenon'.  The "Entropy argument" I estimate you're referring to often misuses the thermodynamic argument as a classic misrepresentation of a fundamental scientific concept, (entropy).  Entropy refers to the number of available energy microstates in a thermodynamic system, for instance; it has very little to do with the spatial order of matter. An energy microstate is simply any mechanism that can carry energy (e.g., each way a molecule can vibrate or rotate). Thermodynamics is about the bookkeeping of energy; not spatial order. The distinction is crucial.  Neither is gravity "entropic" (http://www.100wizard.com/experiments-show-gravity-is-not-an-emergent-phenomenon-technology-review.html)

"Emergence is the process of deriving some new and coherent structures, patterns and properties in a complex system. Emergent phenomena occur due to the pattern of interactions between the elements of a system over time. Emergent phenomena are often unexpected, nontrivial results of relatively simple interactions of relatively simple components. What distinguishes a complex system from a merely complicated one is that some behaviours and patterns emerge in complex systems as a result of the patterns of relationship between the elements." --
http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Emergent_phenomenon/

Again I might be interested in reading it if you supplied a link.

If the above link is insufficient to outline the emergent phenomenon theory, these and more are also available:

http://jap.physiology.org/content/104/6/1844
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Emergent+phenomenon


There are some dissenting views concerning emergent phenomenon theories, of course, (lest you believe my link cites are 'cherry-picked').

http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/31949/frontmatter/9780521831949_frontmatter.pdf
http://www.complexsystems.org/publications/pdf/emergence3.pdf

Sounds interesting and I still haven't managed enough free time to give credit to reading it, but bookmarked the links for when such becomes available.  I appreciate the inclusion of the dissenting views as well.

I am concerned though as you seem to generally prefer to be deliberately convoluted in your writings and my worries are that you might intentionally make an already complex topic overly obfuscated.  Pardon my manners if I seem harsh but Migraines are where my handle comes from in real life (the other names I get called when under their effects would not be appropriate for a handle).

Whether or not my reasoning, (and the basis for it), appears to be convoluted, I have endeavored to pare them down within the posting constraints of this forum.  Scary as the thought may be, I could elaborate in even more detail however, since I am not deliberately attempting to make these complex concepts even more complex.  On the contrary, oftentimes it isn't easy to reduce complexity into simplistic terms).  

Although I am peripherally aware of migraine symptoms, (my girlfriend has suffered from them since before she met me), I'm unsure of the wisdom of engaging in this debate while suffering from those symptoms.

I hurt terribly regardless of the activity and sometimes focusing on things can reduce it (although other times it makes it much worse).

[Abrupt]

Because I choose not to.  You are the one making an attack just for the sake of being on the offensive and you are the one in error.  There is no real point in me in instructing you in your mistake, other than to point out that you made one.

The "point" in your indicating something which was "missing" is the same as the point a diagnostician would make by informing a patient that they have a ailment but, they must guess what it is.

Actually it would be equivalent to the diagnostician telling the patient that they are missing a thumbnail when the patient only has one hand and only one thumb on that hand.  In fact the missing word appears twice in my answer.

Once again you failed in reading what I posted as you did in the instance being discussed above.  I actually hinted at the causality associations with entanglement theory and indicated that I avoided incorporating that into my argument. 

Oh?  I wasn't the one who used "entanglement" when they 'meant' Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, (that was you, by admission).  Any  causality 'hints' would then have referred more to HUP than to entanglement theories.  If you don't wish your mis-statements to be misinterpreted, be more specific.

Well I don't require my answers to be perfect and I wanted to answer and drew a complete blank on HUP (so complete that I couldn't even think of a way to google fish for keywords).  I made no misstatements as there are many common examples of the usage of entanglement for information transfer and violations of causality at that end.  I avoided arguing causality and instead asked if such information would be of any value (actually this involved HUP here as well but HUP is being challenged in this sense with Quantum Memory theories).

Now you are just being a *bleep* (well more so than in general)

Now you're playing the schoolyard ad hominem card to cover your vagueness?  Wow, impressive argument. 

Name calling is not ad hominem, especially when it is true.  There is ample evidence on these board for your propensity to display your ability to be a *bleep*.  I know this, you know this, others know this.  That isn't an insult unless, I suppose, you seriously don't recognize this in yourself (I have met many self delusional people in many different areas, myself included).  As an example I will give you a recent posting of yours in a thread titled "Praying For Yourself":

"Prayer" is a self-delusional appeal to dubious 'authority'.

Considering that the thread was written by people who believe in prayer and wanted to ask serious questions regarding what is appropriate, how do you see your answer qualifying as anything other than being a *bleep*?  *bleep*.  (lol couldn't resist that last bit, but I know that doesn't really bother you to be called that).

... as you recognizing my intended analogy would indeed denote similar thinking.  Have I wounded you in some way?

Although you've been unable to "wound" me with mere text, I refer you to your recent attempt: "Now you are just being a *bleep* (well more so than in general)".

No that wasn't meant to wound you at all but to bolster you up and get you back on your A game.  You are not fragile in that sense and you would never admit it if you were.  Subtle works on you though, and terse too.  If I approached you purely with that intention though my answers would be extremely short as you are most assured and most dangerous when given a lot to work with and I do give a lot to work with (maybe that is what bothers you, that I don't have as many chinks as you are used to and your typical approaches just don't quite fit with me).

I have not made any attempts to argue that we do not exist and in fact have stipulated that we do.  My argument is that by the limits of our reason when taken to an origin we cannot conclude other than our existence should be an impossibility.  Link to the post please as navigating blindly isn't very interesting to me.

I'm astounded to have come across two different people who cannot recall their own words and 'insist', (however 'politely'), that I look up their words for them.  To paraphrase your assertion then; you stipulated that, according to current knowledge and reasoning, we logically shouldn't exist, (despite the apparent manifestation of our existance).  I dissented and referred to emergent phenomenon theory as an alternate explanation for our existance.

My saying that comprehension of reasoning denotes that we shouldn't exist is not the same as me saying that we don't exist.  You are reaching incredibly far to make that conclusion.  I still haven't read the emergent phenomenon but would be intrigued to see an explanation for origin that is within the confines of human logic.  In order to qualify as an explanation for the above it must explain the void to existence dilemma.  I will get around to reading it though but cannot really go far on speculation of what it theorizes.

There is nothing that I have said that includes any faith based attribution regarding a lacking of a rational basis for our existence.  If you are going to post snipe at least follow the dialog.

If you're going to snip the context which you're 'sniping' at, (contextonomy on your part), at least either confirm or deny the tacit religious assumption that some 'god' created the universe then.  Such an admission would explicitly be supported by 'faith' and therefore, couldn't be honestly denied, (which is likely why you went with "There is nothing that I have said that includes any faith based attribution regarding a lacking of a rational basis for our existence" instead).

"Snipe", not "Snip" those are very different words.  Of course I believe God created the universe.  That, though, doesn't satisfy the unexplained of the 'hows' before that.  What I mean is even with my faith in knowing that God created the universe it still isn't understandable to the human brain.  The questions that typically follow to reach that are the "where did God come from" with the reply of "God always was/is" and such which are impossible for a human brain to understand.  So, even with faith there is no human comprehensible answer, there is only an acceptance of the answer with the understanding that we are mentally unable to understand it.

A simplistic analogy is always superior where it is sufficient.  It is the fool that seeks the complex when the simple works. 

It is even more foolish to try to reduce a manifestly complex concept down to inaccurately simplistic terms, (which would make such an analogy insufficient once it has been demonstrated to be inaccurate - which it was).  Your debating is not benefiting from your migraine, man.

A complex problem can be demonstrated by parallelism of another similar and familiar example, which is what I did.  If someone demonstrated it to be inaccurate they failed to show it to me.  I don't know I had a few rather good points in there.  My '*bleep*' bit was good and I know that a few people who managed to read through my post had a good laugh at that part.  While it may have seemed a little base, your response was exactly as I anticipated which signifies to me that I was spot on at least in parts.  You have probably noticed that I have adjusted on you a bit, exposing a flank here, redeploying there, etc, and am giving you full knowledge of that.