wow ... i really like that. made me think. that second Christian student is very intelligent.

wow. some people are just really ignorant.

But a mind can be proven with logic even without being seen. The ability to reason, to think, to have feelings, to be subjectively conscious can all be proven. This can be universally agreed with, I think, though we cannot say the same about faith.

That was really... stupid.

lol i agree^

Actually, I could probably find many examples of people acting on complete faith. And anyways, isn't the absent of faith pessimism?

What do you mean by "people acting on complete faith"? What I meant in my response is that a mind's existence can be proven with logic. I'm not sure what you mean by your response to mine.

Faith isn't the same as hope. When you lose hope, you may be a pessimist, but when you lose faith—religion wise, you may be a skeptic, but not pessimist unless you truly think the worst of everything. Those without faith do not generally think the worst of everything. That would be a truly faulty view.

it's called skepticism.

I acknowledge that a mind's existence can be proven with logic. There are many different interpretations of faith. These are all the many definitions:
1 Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2 Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3 Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4 often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5 The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6 A set of principles or beliefs

What I meant in my post about "finding many examples of people acting on complete faith" is that some people will go out on a limb and take a chance at something even though the odds are against them.....they have faith that things will work out. Thinking about this further, there might not be a clear line to prove the true existence of faith...we can make interpretations but we can't prove what people are thinking, therefore we can't prove that they have faith. However, that also means that it can't be disproven either.

you cannot prove faith with logic but you can prove logic with faith.

Then you unfortunalty, are Biased.
You hate the professor because he is trying to take prove that the religion doesn't work out? Who cares? It's a debate. " Oh yeah, I hate him, I mean, I've never met him or anything But I just hate him cause he doesn't like my religion."

While I agree with all those interpretations, I must remind you that we're discussing the religious significance of the word faith. So, once more, to lose faith of your religious belief means you've become a skeptic. Skepticism is not tantamount to pessimism the same way that hope is not the same as faith.

One can say people act on faith, others may say they act on impulse, instinct (eg nature), or even reasoning. Sure, one may choose to leave things to faith, but others may leave things to chance (ergo, the famous saying). However, even this rendition of faith does not fit into the context of our discussion, which has more to do with people having faith in their religion.

We need not to prove the existence of faith within the mind, the problem here is proving that faith's credibility with logic.


------
i'll leave this to the insomiac known to me as Mr. Acid. Must sleep.

Okay, then referring faith to religion, people do show and practice their religions with feelings. They attend either their church, sinigouge (sp?), masque, temple, or other place of gathering. They celebrate religious holidays and do other certain things that are related to their religion. Some people do this because they truly have faith in their religion, and others do it because they are forced to do it by somebody else. I guess that it can be "universally agreed" that faith, as far as religion is concerned, exists but it can't be proven or disproven in any one specific person.

PS: I'm off to bed too

man made god as an excuse they could use when they messed up. holler

lol^ or some may say its like a comfort thing


faith is not the thing we are questioning, we are questioning the being the people have faith in

And what happens when you throw in the fact that the article errs a bit--philosophy is not a science?

then you say you can't prove faith with logic but you can prove logic with faith.

Faith in religion exists in whom? There are those who have no faith in religions, such as Atheists and many free-thinkers. How would you explain that? Again, there isn't a need to prove or disprove that faith exists in certain persons, the point of this is proving a faith's credibility. As in, whether or not a follower of a religion has logical reasons to have that faith, i.e. what logical reasons are there to have faith that God exists.

Actually, faith may be proven subjectively. Objectively and logically, though, that is still very much a controversy.

i think you guys have missed the point in proving that the professor has a mind...



he said to prove the existance of Jesus Christ and/or God. Of course you cannot prove "faith" using logic, just like if i told you i were dreaming, you cannot prove that i was lying using logic. it's abstract. being able to prove christianity with logic eliminates the entire point of faith. if you need proof to believe in God, then that's not faith, that's just believing what's there. faith is fully believing in God with your all. So why would the proffessor be talking about proving faith?

He's asking the student to prove the existence of God,... of Jesus. Jesus Christ's existence has been recorded in history, he's not someone that people have made up. He's has existed, there's evidence, people knew him. The concept of him being God and The Son of God is the one in question.

Believing that is what takes faith. The Bible can be seen as a "textbook"... if you will. It shows that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that's "proof" enough for me, whatever you want to call it. And if you say that it isn't enough factual ground in the Bible, why do you believe the textbooks you read? What is real? What is logic?

It's an argueable topic,... but you guys can end up arguing until you both die.

BTW... in saying that a mind can be proven through logic... I guess you can to an extent. What about all the studies of Artificial Intelligence and computers? In a few hundred years... a mind probably wont be able to be proven 100% by logic anymore. Anyways... all the student did was counter the questions that the professor threw at the first Christian student. He asked the same questions that the proffesor asked ... proving a mind using the five senses. proving a mind through logic has nothing to do with what he was talking about.

wow they both had good arguments. makes you think...

i read this story somewhere b4

So are you saying that proving God's existence is not the same as proving one's faith? If so I'd disagree, but I'd like to see how you will answer the question before begin my ramblings.




1) Is the professor asking the student to prove Jesus' existence in history as a human? If so, then there is no point to make except that the professor needs a clue and that this whole story is a charade. However, it's clear that the professor meant to ask in terms of Jesus's existence as the Son of God and the student being to experience Jesus with the five senses. That is the meat of the story that, in my point of view, has been overlooked.

2) Some textbooks contain errors and are antiquated. As for what is 'real', my answer would be facts. Logic? It is reason.

3) Why would AI interrupt the fact that logic can prove a mind? AI may not be a human mind, but it is a mind if it can reason.

4) Obviously the story was written with an intent to prove the professor wrong from a Christian point of view. Proving a mind through logic is simply a way to balance this bias.

5) At any rate, I think it is possible to prove the mind with one of the five senses: to hear. What do you think? If we're actually having this conversation verbally, you would be hearing my mind.

That's what I've been thinking. This story is extremely biased. They make the professor seem like he's the antagonist. He has a point. So does the Christian. Science and religion are two different things. There's no reason to debate on that basis.

that's why i'm agnostic. >_>

yes... proving God's existence is not the same as proving one's faith.
Proving God's existence is trying to prove that God is something concrete.. something that's really there, whereas faith is the belief in God.

(dictionary.com)
faith n. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

I'm not really sure how much you've studied Christian religion or if you have ever been to church. But, what we've been taught since sunday school, as little kids, was that faith was to have complete belief and trust in Jesus Christ, that he is the son of God. To us, faith is almost like following something blindly; but, our trust in him is concrete enough. So, you can't prove faith by trying to prove the existence of God. That just takes away and destroys the entire point of being faithful. by saying that my faith in God is based on tangible evidence of his existence means that i'm truly not faithful at all. We have to believe in him, despite an inability to see, touch, feel, smell, and hear him.



ok then tell me this... can Buddhist experience Buddha with all five senses? what about Allah, or whoever else is a central point in any type of religion? I know Buddhists don't see Buddha as we Christians see Jesus, but still... why are we overlooking all of that? The point is that they cannot. They're all recorded prophets and whatnot in history, but again.. to have faith is to not rely on the five senses.


Of course not all textbooks are correct... but nobody's thrown out the Bible yet.
And... if you live your whole life relying on facts and reason... things that are right out in front of you to think and see and feel... then there's a whole abstract aspect of life that you're missing. but, that's just my opinion...


is reason the only thing a mind can do? can't you love? have opinions? a mind can think, judge, act, feel, have emotions... AI cannot. A mind is what makes us human. AI is just the human mind, attempting to duplicate itself on a computer... but it can't go much farther beyond the ability to reason, calculate things, etc.


maybe it was... or maybe it was just taking what the professor used to attack Christianity to try and prove that his attacks can work against him too. And i still don't think you can prove a mind through the five senses... which doesnt necessarily mean logic.


No i wouldnt be hearing your mind. I would be hearing your voice expressing a thought in your mind. I dont believe that AIM/computer bots have minds... so i'm sayin that if i have a conversation with SmartBot or whatever that AIM bot's name is... i'm not having a conversation with his mind. i'm having a conversation with some computer programs made up of symbols, and some type of code.