Faith beyond the facts!

Faith beyond the facts! dare I ask this question here :stuck_out_tongue:

If you knew of something to vast &/or fluid to denote as a fact, simply because no-one can understand it, then you have to have faith or denounce it. However if you equally do not have ‘facts’ to prove it wrong, and you assume it is there upon certain other ‘inferring facts‘, then we may assume there to be some basis for your faith.

It is like infinity and statelessness, two notions that are impossible to prove and yet I completely believe in them because I assume there is something to the ideas. Indeed the lack of those ideas, I would argue provide a false or gappy reality map.

Hence when I think of god I consider it in a similar manner, as yet I don’t have any basis and the reality map may be complete without it. …but I don’t know that!

All I can do is eliminate ideas about god that can be shown to be false, while having an open mind as to weather or not there needs to be a thinker out there. Going by e.g. the holographic model of universe, we could say there is just a set of information upon which the universe [the hologram - kinda] is built, but what builds the information set?

Equally if we assume that we can change our thoughts, and in doing so change reality I.e. make decisions and place new information into the world, then thought is a causal agent, or an otherwise agent of change. It is [if this is correct] then logical to assume that this thing we call thought can change information, which in turn is the basis of reality [in most theories], from which we can assume that; ‘if’ there is a mental level of reality outside of life, then it would also be able to change things.

jump if thought/mind is primary or otherwise prior to the material + information is also [law/principles etc surely are prior to the objects which move by them], then we have a thinker which can change the fundamentals of the universe!

This though does not deny causality, once the object exists it then takes on its own causal stream relative to other objects.

Now we should also ask what mind means when not in context to say the human brain, a mind that has no input! In antithisis to which I could state that this mind has the entire eidos of all things, which is massively more input than anything else has.

Are ‘the facts’ then a limit in and of themselves, such that they denounce faith falsely?

Btw this doesn’t have to be faith in god, just faith in something that cannot be described by facts [as they may be e.g. finitely limited]?


why do you need a basis for your faith…
what are inferring facts…please give example…
why not use the term theory or an idea or opinion…

So I don’t believe in flying spaghetti monsters.

e.g. if we don’t or cannot have the facts to prove e.g. infinity does not exist, then unless we replace its space - so to say, then the inference is that there is something we call infinity.

It is always going to be an ‘idea‘, but one you believe in, this is increased if we assume a personhood to the mentality/mind, then further increased if we love that person and devote our lives to them.

when you use the word faith it sounds religious…

Yes, though it doesn’t have to be. Being philosophical is being unlimited too.

this may be good…you have a faith in infinity.
i have an idea that infinity seems right to me…
but i dont have faith in that…it just seems like an idea that is hard to understand…

I don’t know infinity exists nor what it is, but without it what do you replace it with. It is not an idea that’s hard to understand, it is one that cannot be understood, at least in the usual terms of ‘facts’, where we form an idea by giving it edges - so to say. …something that’s entirely impossible with infinity which is by definition unlimited, or without edges.

If I went on to say that infinity is the dimension and mind is its only plausible occupant [as it is the only thing I know of that is not physical ~ aside from information], then the depth of faith gains aggregate. See we are moving away from an idea to a belief.

If I went further still and said that I don’t know of any mind that is not a person, even if we considered other creatures to have mind we could also say there is something person-like in that, if you look into an apes eyes do they not remind you of ‘personhood’. then I have faith further beyond the idea still. Then if I loved that person whom I perceived to be as real as any other holistic persons, the faith gains yet more aggregate over merely an idea.

Unless that is, we consider the term faith to have no value whatsoever? …and yet are we not here giving it value. When someone says they have faith, you know what that means beyond the semantics.

it seems that you want to use the word faith to give you added value…i think that may cause problems with what is the truth…

I never take a position on a given matter, so for me it doesn’t matter. If I held to faith as truth I would indeed be in trouble.

it just seemed that way to me…because i view faith as something that is not necessariiy based on evidence… i did not mean to offend…i have a problem with the word faith…

Would there be ‘reality’ or ‘truth’ if there were nothing to react to that reality. It’s like the old conundrum of, “If a tree fell in a forest and no one was around to hear it, would there still be the noise of the tree falling?” Sure there would, since sound is the disturbance of air around the source that’s measured in wave lengths. The disturbance would be there whether or not there were an entity around that could receive the ‘disturbance,’ recognize it as a ‘disturbance,’ remember similar ‘disturbances,’ process it, and label it as sound–or the sound of a tree falling in a forest.

We cannot ‘know’ the ‘unknowable.’ If we could know the unknowable it would no longer be unknowable, would it?

We may be able to ‘sense’ there are things beyond our understanding–that we ‘don’t know’–but isn’t that because we have no definitive label for it? We can call it whatever we want to call it, but is that ‘knowing’ it?


Easier to know the truth if it were a tsunami. :stuck_out_tongue:

I think we have to have faith in any kind of knowledge, even if it appears to be verified externally.

With this thread I am not saying that faith is philosophy [I know it’s something of a dirty word], I am saying that by adding its meaning we can keep things more open. Equally I do think the realm of facts are themselves limited.

I would have faith in a thing where it entered the world of facts and was dismissed [shown to be false].

would you be able to restate the topic without using
the word faith…

What term would I use? I wouldn’t want to use the term ‘belief’ as that to me represents the negatives of the term ‘faith’. if I said ‘truth beyond the facts’ how would I be able to substantiate that, and would it still be something with personal qualities?

I don’t like the coldness of science and some philosophy, I don’t think the world can be wholly defined like that. A description of a human misses the whole point of humanness ~ what it is to be human! In a similar way ‘the facts’ miss on many holistic and poetic areas.

I’ll be happy to use another term if someone can offer one up.

How about: Trust in Something Beyond the Tangible/Knowable?

Hmm good point, though I would rather trust in the knowable, and have faith in what lies beyond, for beyond is the realm of wisdom. Wisdom would denote there is more than this life, more than the material.


There is “faith” in ideas and there is “Faith” in a process.

You cannot live without both (and do not).

^^ absolutely.

A void?! Like the idea anyways. :slight_smile:

Isn’t that just what a box is? :confused:

How about;