Is there hope without a God? (1 Viewer)

[dan964]

It's funny how christians are so willing to redefine standard English words. I'm surprised they haven't tried to capitalise the Word.

ah, no but your other arguments tend to be more convincing though.

Faith comes from the latin fide, or the Greek pistis, same word the often "believe" is used (because unlike in Greek, faith doesn't have a verb). The Greek verb based on pistis (which is pisteuo) is actually closer but not quite to the word "trust" hence the difficulty. It is we modernists who reinterpret words such as faith, to mean superstitution. The word confidence literally means "with faith" or at least its route meaning. And this term, for Christians is often linked in with evidence and such. So I don't see any problem with the definition used by myself and other fellow Christians, we are only trying to be consistent linguists. Also we are also addressed a false strawman commonly perpetrated by those of non-theistic beliefs....


here are the modern definitions of faith
noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing:
faith in another's ability.

2.
belief that is not based on proof:
He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

I highlight this one, because this is the definition you are most likely using. Unfortunately while
in the case of some religions it might cut it, in this discussion it doesn't (see below***). Hence I think either (1) or (6)/(7) more accurately describe the nature of the Christian faith...



3.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion:
the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.:
to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

5.
a system of religious belief:
the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

6.
the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.:
Failure to appear would be breaking faith.

7.
the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.:
He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.



A quick google search is sufficient...
https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=greek word pistis


also to stir the pot, isn't the atheists the ones who redefine "nothing"? and then call that learning.
I call that inconsistency.

Also meaning of words change all the time, since the faith in question is several millenia old, it makes sense that Christians would be referring to an older definition. (some Christians prefer to use the word trust, but that is a personal opinion).

====
***So let us actually address what is really at hand then. The issue is not the existence of faith, trust or confidence; but what that trust is in. IT IS ONLY REALLY at this point then you claim that Christians have no evidence, but that requires a very SPECIFIC and narrow definition of evidence. This subtle difference is key.

1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.


2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:
His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.

3.
Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

If we consider the 3rd definition and apply it to common events in the passion, then you see why Christians quantify certain things as evidence that you would reject on a given basis.

 

[dan964]

God is dead and we have killed him.

love a good Nietsche, clearly he forgot all those die hard soccer fans; or better the singing shows !!!

or if its Jesus, he'll should apparently back, eta 3 days or so. they tried killing him the first time !!!

 

[Drsoccerball]

I love how tense these type of threads are ahahah

 

[braintic]

I love how tense these type of threads are ahahah

Yep - PAST tense.

 

[Drsoccerball]

Yep - PAST tense.

Funny guy

 

[braintic]

Funny guy

Where?

 

[Flop21]

I don't understand? Hope for what?

 

[Paradoxica]

I don't understand? Hope for what?

asking the important questions

time to get semantic and pedantic

 

[dan964]

Yep - PAST tense.

Pass tents
Haha good joke, love it.

 

[dan964]

Fun[ny] guy

mushroom

 

[braintic]

Funny guy

Where?

mushroom

Found him.

 

[braintic]

By a ratio of 2 to 1, I declare the matter resolved.

 

[elseeto]

I think there can be hope without a god...I think the way religion offers hope is by offering people a purpose. There are plenty of other ways people can find purpose and a life meaning outside of religion

 

[[ ]]

define HOPE, do you mean it objectively? if so, HOPE for what? If you mean it subjectively than certainly that HOPE can still exist

 

[dan964]

define HOPE, do you mean it objectively? if so, HOPE for what? If you mean it subjectively than certainly that HOPE can still exist

Hope is to look forward to something, with desire, expectation with some degree of confidence that the thing can happen.

 

[[ ]]

Hope is to look forward to something, with desire, expectation with some degree of confidence that the thing can happen.

Either way I don't see how the existence of GOD equates to the existence of HOPE

 

[dan964]

Either way I don't see how the existence of GOD equates to the existence of HOPE

Because the argument is without a good God who can carry through on his promises, who is control of the future, then the hope we have is uncertain, and is no better than wishful thinking. The different is that (for Christians at least) is a certain hope, grounded in the goodness of the maker.

The main point is that it is not futile to have hope if one knows God.

 

[[ ]]

Because the argument is without a good God who can carry through on his promises, who is control of the future, then the hope we have is uncertain, and is no better than wishful thinking. The different is that (for Christians at least) is a certain hope, grounded in the goodness of the maker.

The main point is that it is not futile to have hope if one knows God.

Isn't that just too metaphysical? and as you also said, the hope we have is "uncertain", this certainly doesn't mean that the existence of god equals there is hope

 

[dan964]

Isn't that just too metaphysical? and as you also said, the hope we have is "uncertain", this certainty [sic] doesn't mean that the existence of god equals there is hope

Your original post's logic doesn't follow from what I am say but I suspect that is because of the typo so I will respond to what I think you are trying to say. I believe it is that particular kind of hope of a better future/life apart from suffering that the question is leaning into, rather than just hope in general. And the distinction I am making is between hope that is uncertain and a hope that is. The latter can never exist without the existence of God.

I said the hope that those who deny the existence of God is uncertain because it is not grounded in anything (because there is no guarantee that what it is will happen).

OTOH For Christians, our knowledge of God (and thereby our affirmation of the existence of God), is grounded in what he has spoken and we have seen how he has acted in faithfulness. This is where our hope is grounded. There is an element of trust, taking God / Jesus at his word.

Secondly, because of Jesus' resurrection, there is hope for us for after we die. those who do not believe or accept the resurrection do not have such expectation, rather for them death is the end. This for us is a sure and true reality in which our hope is grounded in, so we actually have confidence wit hope. This is something (the resurrection claims) that is testable as it is something that has a bearing on history.

So you do have to assert more than the existence of God to assert a sure hope. Hope without any certainty is kind of useless and is better off being defined as "wishful thinking", but in our language we often say "I hope to pass my exams", but if you haven't done any prep for those exams, then it is a hope unfounded.

When it comes to hope in a person (or God) it is dependent on the character of that person
(in particular their ability/power to carry out/control the future, and their steadiness/faithfulness to carry out the future promised), because Christians believe in the testimony of the Scriptures is true and therefore we can know that God is faithful to keep his promises (and is able to), and so we can eagerly expect what he has promised to happen. And if he doesn't, in the end it reflects badly on him. This is where the assessments should really be made, (rather than in purely a philosophical framework)

But it is important to note the argument is in the negative. It is actually (as you are correct to mention) to see it from the negative.

Statement A: There is a God
Statement B: There is a 100% sure hope (something positive).

These are 2 different questions.

The question of thread is asking is
~A -> ~B ?
(where ~ is NOT operator)

What you are asking is
A -> B ?
of which it depends on how you qualify A. Because different religions qualify A differently, then A does not imply B directly necessarily.

The reason we can say ~A -> ~B, is because we can look at what atheism says and follow its logic consistently to the end.
IN the end the logic of atheism/nihilism/agnosticism removes the grounds for faith, which is required for a certain hope.

 

[[ ]]

Your original post's logic doesn't follow from what I am say but I suspect that is because of the typo so I will respond to what I think you are trying to say. I believe it is that particular kind of hope of a better future/life apart from suffering that the question is leaning into, rather than just hope in general. And the distinction I am making is between hope that is uncertain and a hope that is. The latter can never exist without the existence of God.

I said the hope that those who deny the existence of God is uncertain because it is not grounded in anything (because there is no guarantee that what it is will happen).

OTOH For Christians, our knowledge of God (and thereby our affirmation of the existence of God), is grounded in what he has spoken and we have seen how he has acted in faithfulness. This is where our hope is grounded. There is an element of trust, taking God / Jesus at his word.

Secondly, because of Jesus' resurrection, there is hope for us for after we die. those who do not believe or accept the resurrection do not have such expectation, rather for them death is the end. This for us is a sure and true reality in which our hope is grounded in, so we actually have confidence wit hope. This is something (the resurrection claims) that is testable as it is something that has a bearing on history.

So you do have to assert more than the existence of God to assert a sure hope. Hope without any certainty is kind of useless and is better off being defined as "wishful thinking", but in our language we often say "I hope to pass my exams", but if you haven't done any prep for those exams, then it is a hope unfounded.

When it comes to hope in a person (or God) it is dependent on the character of that person
(in particular their ability/power to carry out/control the future, and their steadiness/faithfulness to carry out the future promised), because Christians believe in the testimony of the Scriptures is true and therefore we can know that God is faithful to keep his promises (and is able to), and so we can eagerly expect what he has promised to happen. And if he doesn't, in the end it reflects badly on him. This is where the assessments should really be made, (rather than in purely a philosophical framework)

But it is important to note the argument is in the negative. It is actually (as you are correct to mention) to see it from the negative.

Statement A: There is a God
Statement B: There is a 100% sure hope (something positive).

These are 2 different questions.

The question of thread is asking is
~A -> ~B ?
(where ~ is NOT operator)

What you are asking is
A -> B ?
of which it depends on how you qualify A. Because different religions qualify A differently, then A does not imply B directly necessarily.

The reason we can say ~A -> ~B, is because we can look at what atheism says and follow its logic consistently to the end.
IN the end the logic of atheism/nihilism/agnosticism removes the grounds for faith, which is required for a certain hope.

Okay... I can't follow the A and B part (maybe because I'm too dumb) so I'm just going to clarify what I think you mean here. As, the existence of god provides a mental basis for the existence of hope in people who believes in religion, those who deny the existence of HOPE cannot ground itself with a certain divine thing that is able to decide whether how everything will go on, thus unable to make sure whether hope for them really exits. This is proven in your example for Christians, as they are certain with the existence of hope rather than atheists (particularly Nihilists) as we cannot base our desire of hope on a divine might, making us unsure of what will happen next or whether we could rely on it. In your exam example it is further proven, as if we do not study and prepare for the exam, the hope for getting a good mark then lies on an extremely good luck, which is uncertain.