Is faith without proof the same as faith with "proof"?

Consider this hypothetical scenario: if an individual asserts their belief in Santa Claus, does that assertion carry any "equivalent" weight to the conviction that rain will fall tomorrow based upon our empirical observations and accumulated experience?

Eric Wells3 said:If someone claims they believe in Santa Claus, does that carry the same weight as believing it will rain tomorrow based on actual experience and observation?

Every belief rests on some shred of proof.
And every proof requires a baseline of faith...😉

Rachel Bishop said:Every single religion possesses at least some form of evidence

And I must ask, what sort of empirical evidence could one possibly provide to prove the existence of Santa Claus? On that particular matter, there isn't even a single witness to be found.😁

Eric Wells3 said:And what exactly would constitute proof of Santa Claus? There isn't even a single witness to the matter.😁

You're being incredibly blunt... as if everything needs a blueprint laid out for you...😉

A child accepts their parents' word as sufficient proof of Santa Claus... therefore, parental testimony serves as evidence. 😉 Not to mention the reliable witnesses who have seen him at every major department store like Macy's before Christmas... 😉 or on movies and TV specials...
To reiterate...
Every faith requires some form of evidence, yet no single piece of proof is ever enough on its own; it requires consent and a certain amount of faith in the evidence itself and its reach...
Thus, assessing the value of proof lies beyond the proof itself, following entirely different rules. 😉

There’s such a thing as a "metric" for faith. And that metric? It’s all about justification.

I mean, sure, you can believe in just about anything under the sun. But the real question is how much actual justification there is behind that belief.

If you look at this through the lens of strict Epistemology, even what we call "knowledge" is basically just defined as a justified belief.

There’s honestly no distinction to be made between faith and its object. If the thing you believe in actually exists, then it serves as its own proof—but if the object of that faith doesn't exist? Then the whole belief is just an illusion. It’s like when people sit in a movie theater thinking characters are actually moving through space, when in reality, they're just static images flickering on a screen. Every belief held in a cinema is essentially an illusion, simply because there's zero evidence to back it up.
The same logic applies to the relationship between facts and evidence. You see these novice scientists constantly peddling this idea that a fact needs scientific proof just to qualify as a fact... as if that makes any sense.

Munch said:Suppose someone claims they believe in Santa Claus; does that carry the same weight as believing it’s going to rain tomorrow based on our own observations and experience?

But how much value do those same "observations and experiences" actually hold if, say, a cold front gets stuck over the Rockies and the rain misses us entirely, or arrives twelve hours late?
Are these "observations" even worth anything when everything is so inherently relative?
And what about the poor soul who relies on such "observations," only to grab an umbrella for no reason and get soaked because they didn't have one when they actually needed it?

There’s really only one thing you don't have to take someone else's word for—the only thing where we actually have undeniable proof that it exists exactly as we experience it. And that's the "I." Every single fundamental, permanent truth in this world is contained right there within the "I." Anyone out there hunting for truth outside of themselves is just going to end up blindly believing in whatever they want, and they're inevitably going to be wrong because they lack actual proof.

"I think, therefore I am"!

Sandra Wilson68 said:There is really only one thing you don't need to take on faith—something for which we possess actual, undeniable proof of its existence exactly as we perceive it—and that is the SELF. All the fundamental, enduring truths of this world reside within that Self; anyone attempting to hunt them down externally is, to varying degrees, merely forced to rely on blind belief, and in doing so, they inevitably stumble into error.

Consequently, we end up with a multitude of competing "Selves" and a chaotic collection of supposedly "eternal truths," where every single one fights the other, desperately trying to convince the rest that it alone holds the monopoly on reality. 🙂

copperowl2:

>>And so there's plenty of "I" and tons of "eternal truths of this world"
>>where every single one fights against the other, just trying to convince everyone else
>>that it's the only right way.

Look, I’m not talking about any truth related to this world—that stuff changes depending on which "I" you're looking through. I'm talking about the truth regarding the SELF, which is identical for every single "I."

The world is relative and constantly shifting. It's here one second, gone the next. Because everything in this physical realm is so unstable, nothing in the world can serve as solid proof for anything that could actually be called an absolute truth. You shouldn't even bother believing it.

But on the flip side, the SELF (every individual's consciousness) is the only thing capable of observing and perceiving both itself and the world. That existence is so certain that you don't even need "faith" to believe in it; you just know it's real. It's the one single thing in the entire universe that all human selves could actually agree on.

And that’s huge. Honestly, that’s the whole point, because the SELF is EVERYTHING. The SELF is the core of reality. Once we finally grasp the truth of the SELF, we'll understand the truth of the world too. Just like how we can all agree on the SELF right now, eventually, we'll all be able to agree on the world.

So, you really believe you’re experiencing that "I" right now?

If you actually are living it, then surely you realize it evolves right along with the world around you, which means it’s impossible for it to offer any kind of rigid, unchanging Eye doctrine.

On the other hand, if you aren't truly living it, how could you ever hope to reach the core of that "I"? Any insight you might stumble upon will always be fleeting, relative, and fundamentally unstable.

In either scenario, the end result remains exactly the same.

That’s why what you’re putting forward feels so incredibly hazy.
It’s almost as if you’ve missed some vital links in the chain, or perhaps you just lack any sense of concrete certainty.

People essentially fabricated religion as a way to make their miserable lives feel more meaningful. There is zero empirical evidence for any of it; you can't exactly provide proof that Jesus descended from the heavens to deliver a sermon or strike a deal with humanity. You get my point?
Or take Santa Claus, for example. Have you ever actually looked up at the sky and witnessed a sleigh being pulled by reindeer? No, you haven't. Have you ever caught sight of some red-suited figure leaping across rooftops? Of course not.
In reality, Coca-Cola is the entity that actually invented the myth of Santa Claus. Understand?
According to my old professor, the whole Santa Claus persona was just some guy who came up with the idea for Coca-Cola and spent his time handing out free sodas all over town—whether it was Chicago, Seattle, or wherever he happened to be living at the time. Get it?

copperowl2:

"You really think you're living that life now?"

You can't ever truly live as yourself. You’re always living through something else. Take a thought, for example. It feels like the most "you" thing there is because it springs right out of your head, but it isn't actually you. A thought is just a mental action performed by the Self. It's a tool the Self uses to recognize itself, but that makes the thought a vehicle rather than the driver. Beyond just thinking, you've also got your physical movements, your struggles, and all those mental processes like perceiving, feeling, remembering, and understanding. None of that is the core; they're just the ways the Self operates.

If you’re actually living it, you have to be aware that...
Everything changes along with their own world, and that’s just how it goes.
"That's not even enough to offer a solid Eye doctrine."

No, the "I" never changes. It *can't* change. What changes is everything else—that "other" stuff that isn't the "I." And that "other" is just the physical and mental actions of the "I." Basically, the universe is constantly shifting because the universe is nothing more than the physical and mental activity of the "I." As long as the "I" is acting, the world exists. The second that action stops, the world vanishes. Where does all that energy and matter go when the "I" stops exerting itself? Nowhere. It’s gone. Where do perception, feeling, memory, thought, and understanding go when the "I" stops perceiving, feeling, remembering, thinking, and understanding? They don't exist. People screw up by wasting their lives trying to uncover truths about a world that doesn't actually exist independently. Or rather, a world that only exists as the physical and mental output of the "I"—something that can be created, altered, or wiped out at any moment. If you actually give a damn about Truth, you need to stop looking outward and finally turn your attention to the "I." Study the "I," because it's the only thing that truly, absolutely, and finally exists. It’s the only thing that was never created, never changes, and never disappears.

If you aren't living it, you’re never going to reach the core.
That’s just how it works. Every single realization you ever stumble upon—it always leads right back to that same point.
"It’s all just shifting, relative, and totally unstable."

Trying to live as the SELF, piercing through to its core to truly "know" it? Forget it. It might be possible, sure, but by the time you get there, you won't find anything left to know because the SELF will just be a void—pure "nirvana." That’s why I’d much rather understand my own existence through actual physical and mental action. You know, through movement, effort, and then observing that movement, feeling it, remembering it, and processing it. The big mistake people make when hunting for Truth is trying to use the SELF—their thoughts and actions—to figure out how the world works. They’ve got it backwards. You should be using the world—your physical and mental engagement with reality—to figure out the truth about the SELF.

And the result stays exactly the same.

The results aren't going to be the same, and they can't be. The "I" is the cause of the world; the world is just the consequence. The problem is that people don't realize their own "I" is the root of everything, and trying to study the universe won't help them figure that out. It’s impossible. Through physical or mental actions alone, you can't see that there's an "I" at the foundation of existence acting as your core essence. All you can actually uncover through your own actions is your own "I"—proving to yourself that it's the actual driver behind everything you do. That’s why you have to start by dissecting your own behavior. You need to ask *why* you do what you do and why those actions are necessary. Only then can you see how your "I" relates to those actions and the rules it follows to make them happen. Once you realize there is a specific LAW governing your existence—a law that wouldn't even allow your "I" to exist if it weren't constantly performing these exact same physical and mental patterns—then it becomes easy. Once you grasp the Law of your own being, you won't have any trouble seeing that the entire universe operates under that exact same principle. Bottom line: searching for the truth about the world before finding the truth about yourself is a total waste of time.

"Look, what you're saying right now is pretty damn vague."
It’s like you’re missing some vital links, or maybe you just lack any real sense of certainty.

Nothing is vague here. If you think my logic is flawed, just say so. I’m happy to break down any single thought until you’re convinced there isn't a single gap in the chain.

Later.

Sandra Wilson68 said:To truly live as the SELF, to penetrate its very core and achieve true realization, is an impossibility. Or rather, if it were possible, you wouldn’t actually discover anything, because by that point, the SELF has become a void—nothingness, a state of "nirvana."

The theory suggesting that nirvana is mere Nihilism, a total vacuum, stems from those Buddhist schools that failed to grasp the original, esoteric teachings of the Buddha.
One might be tempted to label them heretics.
That specific branch of Buddhism, built upon a flawed premise, is what we call the "Eye doctrine"—a distorted inversion of the original Buddha teaching known as the "Heart doctrine."

In reality, that supposed nothingness is actually FULLNESS.
This FULLNESS is mislabeled as NIHILISM simply because it remains transcendent to our limited human senses.
The truth is that this SELF, as you define it, seeks a way to be realized, but the motive isn't to attain an understanding of emptiness; it is to attain knowledge of fullness.
There is clearly a reason why the SELF desires to be known.
However, that reason doesn't seem to be entirely clear to you.

Once the human SELF finally comprehends the LAW governing its own existence, there will be no difficulty in verifying and confirming that the entire world (the universe) operates under that exact same LAW. It would eventually lead to the realization that seeking the truth about the world before seeking the truth about oneself is a misguided approach.

And then, in the name of some brand-new "truth," people will inevitably launch persecutions, hatred, and wars. Just as history has consistently shown us.

To verify, to confirm, to understand, "there will be no problem"—these are just the same old tired cliches.

Sorry, but that was a pretty unconvincing attempt!

🙏

copperowl2:

”The truth is that I, as you call it, am seeking
a way to be realized, but the reason isn't
to attain an understanding of emptiness, but rather knowledge of fullness.”

What even is this "fullness" of the Self to you? How can you aim to realize your "fullness" before you actually realize your Self and prove whether it’s "fullness" or "emptiness"? Before any actual realization happens, all you're doing is "believing without proof" that the Self consists of some kind of "fullness" or "emptiness." You can take all those Buddha stories about fullness or emptiness—or the ramblings of people interpreting Buddha later on—and toss them straight in the trash. For the Self, the only thing that matters is your own direct experience, not what Buddha said or what his followers claim.

”Clearly, there is a reason why the Self wants to be
known. But that reason, from what I can
see, isn't entirely clear to you.”

You're lecturing me about Buddha's experience of "fullness/emptiness," claiming it isn't "entirely clear" to me, just like it wasn't to the interpreters of Buddha's experience. From what you're saying, I'm drawing the conclusion that Buddha's experience IS perfectly clear to you. Props to you! That means you've had it too and you've confirmed its "fullness" over its "emptiness."

”to verify, to be convinced, to understand, 'there will be
no problem'—those are just old, tired clichés.
Sorry, pretty unconvincing attempt!”

I see two opposing "attempts" here: 1. my attempt to convince you about the "emptiness" of the Self, and 2. your attempt to convince me of its "fullness."

Your conviction regarding the "fullness" of the Self is based on your faith in Buddha's words or the words of his interpreters, not on experience as evidence. There's nothing you can do with that kind of faith. It holds zero value, not even for you, because you DON'T KNOW if what you believe is actually true.

Meanwhile, my conviction about the "emptiness" of the Self is based on an experience that every human being has—including you—and it was that very experience I wanted to talk about, the one that doesn't require "belief." And even before I started talking about it, you already dismissed it as "old, tired clichés."

OK. Discussion over.

I believe in myself, and I don't need anyone to prove it to me.

👋

Sandra Wilson68 said:How can one even begin to aim for an understanding of their own "fullness" before they've actually encountered the Self and determined whether that state is one of "fullness" or "emptiness"?

How can YOU claim the Self is nothing more than emptiness, just pure Nihilism, before you have actually verified if it truly is—nothing? If I am merely believing without evidence, then you are simply talking out of turn.

Before any real realization occurs, all you can do is "believe without proof" that the Self consists of either "fullness" or "emptiness." You might as well toss Buddha's teachings regarding fullness or emptiness—or the interpretations offered by those who followed him—into the trash, because when it comes to the Self, the only thing that carries weight is one's own direct experience, not the words of Buddha or his various commentators.

I find myself agreeing with you on this point: those who blindly follow the experiences of others without verifying them personally are simply lost.
But Buddha isn't merely some historical figure from the past.
Buddha represents every enlightened being.

Sandra Wilson68:

You keep lecturing me about Buddha's experience of "fullness versus emptiness," claiming it isn't "entirely clear" to me or even to his interpreters. From your choice of words, I can only conclude that Buddha's experience is perfectly clear to YOU. Well, bravo! That implies you've had the experience yourself and have confirmed its "fullness" rather than its "emptiness."

Precisely!

Sandra Wilson68:

I see two opposing "efforts" happening here: first, my attempt to convince you of the Self's "emptiness," and second, your attempt to persuade me of its "fullness."

Your conviction regarding the "fullness" of the Self relies entirely on your faith in Buddha's words or the words of his followers, rather than on experiential proof. Such faith leaves you paralyzed; it holds no real value, not even for yourself, because you don't actually KNOW if what you believe to be true is reality.

Even if what you say were accurate, it would still be—once again—MY OWN EXPERIENCE.
Are you really trying to force YOUR experience onto me?
If you insist that my faith, my knowledge, and my experience amount to NOTHING, then you aren't actually applying your knowledge to anything.
In that case, everything you're presenting is nothing more than hollow theory!

Sandra Wilson68:

And my conviction regarding the "emptiness" of the Self is based on an experience that every human being possesses...

Wonderful!
Then go ahead and tell them.
I honestly look forward to seeing how "every human being" receives your message and decides to follow your lead.

🙂

Mickey Mouse said:Suppose someone claims they believe in Santa Claus. Does that really carry the same weight as believing it’s going to rain tomorrow based on our own observations and experience?

I suspect there might be two distinct meanings of the word "believe" being conflated here. Using the term "believe" when you say "I believe it will rain tomorrow" isn't quite the same thing as, say, having faith in Santa Claus (or God).

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say: I have faith in the existence of Santa Claus, as opposed to simply "believing" it will rain tomorrow. Or maybe we should distinguish between "faith" and "belief" entirely?
I imagine in English, we could differentiate this by using "faith" versus "belief."
🙂

Infinite

"How can YOU claim that I am just an empty void, NOTHING,
before you've actually convinced yourself that it really is—NOTHING. If I
believe without proof, then you're just talking out of your ass."

I've realized that I am a "void," and so are you, countless times over, but you refuse to take your own experience into account. Get this: there is no other way to prove the existence of your Self to yourself—your actual Self—than through the physical and mental actions that the Self is capable of performing. We're talking about exerting effort, moving, perceiving, feeling, remembering, thinking, and understanding. Descartes, or anyone else for that matter, can use any one of these physical or mental acts to prove their own existence to themselves, not just through the mental act of thinking. So, just like Descartes said, “I think, therefore I am,” proving his existence through thought, he could have just as easily said, “I move, therefore I am”; “I feel, therefore I am”; “I perceive, therefore I am,” and so on.

Now here’s the question: what happens if the Self stops using its physical and mental abilities? Does it even have any proof of its existence left? What if the Self stops exerting effort, stops moving, stops perceiving, feeling, remembering, thinking, and understanding? Try it yourself—stop exerting effort and moving, stop perceiving, feeling, remembering, thinking, and understanding, and tell me what's left of your Self. Nothing! It'll be like it never existed. There won't even be a consciousness of "emptiness" or "fullness." There won't be any consciousness at all. Because you can't have consciousness of anything, let alone your Self, or whether it is "empty" or "full," as long as the Self isn't using its physical and mental abilities and actions. Those exact abilities and actions are what make the Self "full," and only while they are being used. The second those actions stop, the Self is absolutely nothing. Where is any kind of Self if it isn't exerting effort, moving, or perceiving? If it perceives nothing, feels nothing, thinks nothing, and understands nothing? It's nowhere. It doesn't exist—not the Self, nor any of its "emptiness" or "fullness."
______________

”But Buddha isn't just a historical figure.
Buddha is every enlightened being.”

What "enlightenment"? Give me a break, that's nonsense. Not in the sense that a person can't "become enlightened"—meaning realizing oneself as "light"—but in the sense that "enlightenment" itself can't happen without using those specific physical and mental abilities the Self possesses. How could the Self even know it has been "enlightened" if it didn't somehow perceive, feel, experience, remember, and understand it? The point remains: if the Self shuts down all its physical and mental abilities and actions, nothing is left. Not even the Self. There is nothing.

And quit telling me I'm "talking out of my ass" without checking, experiencing, or having proof when I say the Self is "emptiness" and "nothing." If you don't believe me, I've explained how it works, so go check for yourself and see. That's better than just taking Buddha's word for it.

”Are you trying to FORCE me to accept YOUR experience?”

No. My experience of my Self is mine alone, and I'm the only one who can grasp it, just like your experience of your Self is yours and no one else's. I just want to convince you that you can't have an experience of your Self without some of the physical or mental abilities and actions that your Self is capable of performing, and that your Self is empty and nothing without them. If you don't believe me, test it yourself. And during that test, don't confuse your Self with the physical and mental actions it performs. The Self is the one performing those actions and acting as their cause; the actions themselves are the consequence, and they can't exist on their own without the Self to perform them.

Look, if there were actual, hard evidence for every single claim made by any religion, we wouldn't even call it faith anymore; it would just be science or maybe history, you know?
Every single belief system out there has this foundational core that simply can't be proven—like the resurrection of Jesus, or how the message was supposedly whispered directly into Muhammad's ear, and all that stuff—but people just swallow it whole because someone told them that's just the way it is, period, and if they don't, they're headed straight for hell 🙂... I mean, that's just how the logic goes, I guess.