The failure of reasoning:

When one thinks of the power of reasoning and rational thinking, it sounds like a "sound" position but unfortunately this power only takes you so far when it comes to God. The issue with reasoning is that it does well until it comes to knowing the truth about something because reasoning centers around suggestions to consider as true. Individuals whom have become "prisoners of reasoning" have a tough time with the gospels when they are nonbelievers because they are looking for what makes sense (rather it's true) or not, it just has to make sense, this includes any evidence that is presented. The whole thing becomes circular in the sense that they make it all subject to their reasoning, which they are an unfortunate prisoner of. So the question is this: If you know that your mind is not perfect, making your reasoning subject to the truth, when the truth is presented to you, what measures do you take in order to discerning the truth?

a reply to: auto3000

If you know that your mind is not perfect, making your reasoning subject to the truth, when the truth is presented to you, what measures do you take in order to discerning the truth?

Who has the perfect mind and is able to present the truth? My reasoning leads me to believe you are on the verge of a Christian bit of proselytizing.

Let's hear it....

a reply to: auto3000

So are you saying that religion makes no sense? But people should believe it anyways? Or that religious people are the ones who are "prisoners of reason? Your words are very confusing. Could you be a bit more clear?

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: auto3000

So are you saying that religion makes no sense? But people should believe it anyways? Your words are very confusing. Could you be a bit more clear?

I think he is saying that people whom don't have a particular religion or belief in god are 'prisoners' to what they subjectively consider to be reasoning.

If that's what he means, then his concept in the OP is based off of a false premise, being that "reasoning" isn't entirely subjective. In fact, It's far more accurate when reasoning is based off of Objective observations, which would totally invalidate the argument he's making.

From my point of view the only failure with reasoning, is that logical thinking and awareness is not merited higher in humanity than following circular faith instead of increasing awareness to the point when even a soul trapped in a human body can understand and be ready for spiritual experience.

It is not the spiritual realm that is at fault. It is humanities religions that are so flawed they instead become a awareness lowering dogma that are counterproductive to the purpose of understanding the spiritual realm and connecting with it.

When you have a religion saying it is right and everyone else is wrong you become small minded and refuse to test a spiritual tool because it is not part of your faith and you never know if there is something to the tool or not. You will never understand the science of the spiritual realm and how it is manifested in Quantum Physics limiting again the level of understanding you can have how creation is connected on all levels.

If a soul seek objective logical spiritual understanding it will in the end find it.

originally posted by: auto3000
When one thinks of the power of reasoning and rational thinking, it sounds like a "sound" position but unfortunately this power only takes you so far when it comes to God.

Very true. You have to abandon reason and critical thinking to accept that a God exists.

The issue with reasoning is that it does well until it comes to knowing the truth about something because reasoning centers around suggestions to consider as true.

Reasoning centers around what can logically said to be true. If a given "truth" is not logically possible, it ceases to be a matter of truth, and becomes the subject of personal belief and faith that it is true.

Individuals whom have become "prisoners of reasoning" have a tough time with the gospels when they are nonbelievers because they are looking for what makes sense (rather it's true) or not, it just has to make sense, this includes any evidence that is presented.

A critical evaluation of the gospels or any other anecdotal evidence is not particularly tough at all. Accepting that the gospels and any other anecdotal evidence as anything more than anecdotal is what rationalists have a tough time with, as there is no logical basis for it, it can only be accepted on faith.

"Prisoners of faith" have the same trouble, but with the inverse of understanding how anyone can not take the gospels and other evidence as more than anecdotal.

The whole thing becomes circular in the sense that they make it all subject to their reasoning, which they are an unfortunate prisoner of.

You are describing the circular reasoning of individuals with faith in illogical concepts. Rationalists and critical thinkers have no such circular logic.

So the question is this: If you know that your mind is not perfect, making your reasoning subject to the truth, when the truth is presented to you, what measures do you take in order to discerning the truth?

The first step in evaluating any proposed truth critically is to see if it is logically consistent. If has any logical contradictions or inconsistency, we are required to identify what these are and if it is possible to overcome these contradictions and inconsistencies.

If they can't be removed, then the proposition can not be claimed to be true. If they can be removed, the next step is to investigate the evidence for the proposition and see if it is reliable. If it isn't, then we have a proposition that may be true, but is lacking reliable evidence. If the evidence does turn out to be reliable, we go on to the next step.

We then take the evidence and the proposition and see if it contradicts our current understanding and available evidence for that understanding. If the evidence falls in line with what we already know and have evidence for, then it is safe to claim the proposition is true. If the evidence contradicts what we know or the evidence we already have, then it's time to formulate a predictive hypothesis and test the new evidence through experiment.

If this testing leads to confirmation of the hypothesis, then we need to revisit what we already know and attempt to find out why it is contradicted by this new hypothesis. We are required to write a detailed theory and try to explain the inconsistency and attempt to reconcile our findings with what we already know.

Nothing is ever literally proven to be true, ever, using this method. Things are only given varying degrees of certainty to be true, and other things that are shown not possible to be true are thrown out, through examination and testing.

If a proposed "truth" is untestable or not logically possible, if the evidence that is given is unreliable, and if the proposition contradicts what we already know, then there is no reason to accept the proposition as factual.

It can be accepted as factual on faith however, as faith is the belief of something without evidence. Faith can be employed by anyone, to believe anything, logical or not. Those who have faith in impossible or irrational things have no grounds to insist others believe their accepted "truth", and they have no logical argument to claim what they believe is objective fact.

Agnostic theists are an example of people who both have faith and accept critical reasoning. They accept that there is incomplete knowledge for us to logically make any claim about whether or not a God exists, but they have faith that He exists nonetheless.

To be a rational, logical, critical thinker is not to be a prisoner of anything. Any idea can be entertained and tested for logical consistency. It's up to the individual to decide whether or not they accept an idea based on reason and evidence, or faith if evidence is lacking, unreliable, or the idea has logical flaws.

A rational person who has faith in something illogical accepts that they cannot logically make any claims about that things existence. Faith is subjective and personal, reason and logic is objective.

a reply to: auto3000
Did someone say circular?

If you know that your mind is not perfect, making your reasoning subject to the truth, when the truth is presented to you, what measures do you take in order to discerning the truth?

Ones mind need not be perfect to utilize critical thinking skills.

"prisoners of reasoning"

You serious!? God forbid anyone go "looking for what makes sense".

a reply to: olaru12

Converting?....interesting theory....it doesn't require a perfect mind to present the truth...it takes one to establish it objectively to be referenced by imperfect minds who otherwise could not know what truth is.

originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: olaru12

Converting?....interesting theory....it doesn't require a perfect mind to present the truth...it takes one to establish it objectively to be referenced by imperfect minds who otherwise could not know what truth is.

Exactly, and through objective observation we have observed everything that definitely shows any religious-based-deity to be impossible.

a reply to: Klassified

This diagram that you posted...is the thinking of religious people...those of tradition. You got the wrong guy.

a reply to: Ghost147

Here's the flaw in that belief, all things are not known through observation, that's why certain realities are conceptual by nature as opposed to physically perceivable.

a reply to: auto3000

and no..that which is conceptual by nature like human emotion is not created by humans because they are abstract and therefor are not subject to human thinking but instead the human mind is subject to it.

originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: Ghost147

Here's the flaw in that belief, all things are not known through observation, that's why certain realities are conceptual by nature as opposed to physically perceivable.

If it can't be known through observation or logic, can't be physically percieved, and is purely the result of conceptual whimsy, it can't be claimed to exist or be reality.

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: olaru12

Converting?....interesting theory....it doesn't require a perfect mind to present the truth...it takes one to establish it objectively to be referenced by imperfect minds who otherwise could not know what truth is.

Exactly, and through objective observation we have observed everything that definitely shows any religious-based-deity to be impossible.

Your response is when referring to "factual knowledge", the thread is about truth not fact.

a reply to: spygeek

Correction, if you can't physically perceive it then your'e not understanding what "know" actually means. You seem to think that a human can only know that which is subject to him...this is known as "the god complex".

originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: Ghost147

Here's the flaw in that belief, all things are not known through observation, that's why certain realities are conceptual by nature as opposed to physically perceivable.

It doesn't matter if 'all things aren't known through observation', the observations we have made all show a natural origin, natural functionality, and no need for a creator that has been described in religions thus far.

originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: spygeek

Correction, if you can't physically perceive it then your'e not understanding what "know" actually means.

know
nəʊ/
verb

1. be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.

If you can't perceive it, you can't know it.

You seem to think that a human can only know that which is subject to him...this is known as "the god complex".

I have no idea what gave you this impression. A person can only know that which is subject to reliable, repeatable observation and inquiry, by themselves or others.

originally posted by: auto3000
the thread is about truth not fact.

Truth is based on fact. If it has no factual basis, it cannot be said to be objectively true. This thread appears to be about your personal truth, however misinformed an unsubstantiated..

originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: Klassified

This diagram that you posted...is the thinking of religious people...those of tradition. You got the wrong guy.

Glad to hear that.

a reply to: Woodcarver

sorry that I'm just getting to answering your post, no the conclusion is this: When dealing with things like religion, you are dealing with "truth claims" your reasoning is worthless because it's based upon a mind of limited knowledge. It's like having knowledge of medicine but trying to understand diesel mechanics. Truth claims require spiritual discernment not factual approaches, even if the subject is not religion based, if it's a truth based conversation and not a fact based, time is wasted trying to use reasoning in order to discern the truth.

a reply to: Ghost147

In order for me to intellectually respond I must know something: are you stating your feelings about the case or are you stating the reality of the case?