Quote:HAPPY EASTER SUNDAY TO ALL!

Fixed that for you, G-C.

Quote:Faith has to be based on logically sound information, to be convincing enough that a person should commit to it. How can a person have faith in something they know to be false? I would suggest that to be an impossibility.

But being 'logically sound' is a long way from being fact.

The Dune series of books are 'logically sound' but they are fiction.

The church of scientology may even be 'logically sound' this does not make it less batshit crazy.

The scientific method is the only way to seperate the facts from the merely 'logically sound'. So far you have stated time and time again that science cannot test god.

Therefore, on the balance of probability, god is not a fact.

(April 24, 2011 at 1:56 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(April 24, 2011 at 1:23 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: Faith - belief that is not based on proof.
Logic - the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.

Faith. To quote Ryft, as he said it best, and that might be best understood by yourself:

Ryft Wrote:When it comes to Christianity, 'faith' is defined by three separate but vitally connected aspects (especially from Luther and Melancthon onwards): notitia (informational content), assensus (intellectual assent), and fiducia (committed trust). So faith is the sum of having the information, being persuaded of its truthfulness, and trusting in it. To illustrate the three aspects: "Christ died for ours sins" (notitia); "I am persuaded that Christ died for our sins" (notitia + assensus); "I deeply commit in trust to Christ who I am persuaded died for our sins" (notitia + assensus + fiducia). Only the latter constitutes faith, on the Christian view.

Faith has to be based on logically sound information, to be convincing enough that a person should commit to it. How can a person have faith in something they know to be false? I would suggest that to be an impossibility.

I have no faith in anything without reason, and I'd suggest that you are the same. I don't have faith in my fellow citizens doing the right thing; I have faith in them acting like humans.

Do you have a problem with any of that?

Holy shit Fr0d0, I knew you were a bit daft, but I didnt realize you were this daft. Where in Luthers crap definition for fiath does logic come into play? Honestly "informational content" is supposed to be logic? But if you have logical proof then faith is no longer needed. And doesnt that mean that any old informational content could be construed as logic from which you come to fith by? So every single writing is logic to which justifies faith, and is therefore logically justified and faithfully justified?

Holy shit you are dense.

frodo Wrote:How can a person have faith in something they know to be false? I would suggest that to be an impossibility.

Not one single moment did I even SUGGEST that faith is automatically false. I even gave you examples of my faith..do you think my faith in my wife being true to me is absolutely false?

No..thats it..Im done discussing faith with you fr0d0. Im not in the mood to see you flip around and rewrite basic definitions.. I will have no part of that.

Quote:How can a person have faith in something they know to be false?

You are failing to account for the factor of 'human stupidity' in your equation, Frods.

Far too many people believe what they are told. They do not test such assumptions at all.

Since Christianity is an entirely artificial concept, half-heartedly catering on individual basis to the individual's cognative and emotional short comings, and is based only loosely on a cosmology which itself is shabbily incomplete and self-contradictory, and is laden with duplicate and ad hoc attempts to disguise each of its factual shortcomings as these shortcomings become intolerably glaring in the course of Christianity's exposure to civilizational progress and cultural diversity, one really can't speak of "true" in any useful sense of the word when describing Christians.

(April 24, 2011 at 2:40 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: But being 'logically sound' is a long way from being fact.

No shit. Take a cookie.

If it were a fact then how could you have a choice to believe Sherlock? Perhaps there is a basic flaw in your logic there?

(April 24, 2011 at 2:40 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: The scientific method is the only way to seperate the facts from the merely 'logically sound'. So far you have stated time and time again that science cannot test god.

Correct. Scientific truth is not divine truth. Scientific truth changes all the time. Science is outside the realm of faith, unless you know of some way of testing for the supernatural, then I guess you should hide away embarrassed with this method you suggest.

---

(April 24, 2011 at 4:07 pm)Minimalist Wrote: You are failing to account for the factor of 'human stupidity' in your equation, Frods.

Far too many people believe what they are told. They do not test such assumptions at all.

Indeed, people are capable of stupidity... take Plumbs statement above ...You would hope that basic common sense might take root some day... we can all hope. However... Mr Plumb is merely deluded if convinced of the correctness of his logic. He isn't convinced despite his own cogitations, but because of them.

Yes, you have faith in the scientific process for delivering accurate and testable results. For Susan's sake: that is not a bad thing. The difference between believing that 2+2=4 and believing that an almighty being created us is not faith: but the amount of that faith.

Validity is a logical concept. Soundness is not. Soundness is about truth. Truth is knowable, but probably either incorrectly gauged or otherwise inaccurate. Granted, that's entirely fatalistic of me.

Please stop saying things like "Logically sound" and using silly definitions of faith: They are hurting my brain. Thanks

(April 24, 2011 at 5:34 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Correct. Scientific truth is not divine truth. Scientific truth changes all the time. Science is outside the realm of faith, unless you know of some way of testing for the supernatural, then I guess you should hide away embarrassed with this method you suggest.

The fact a person can insist something to be true and yet deem it to be, even theoretically, beyond testing, while at the same time consume oxygen and sequester nutrients that can be immediately be used to fertilize a needy plant, irritates me.

Quote:Scientific truth is not divine truth

"Divine truth" is not true or divine.

(April 24, 2011 at 7:20 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Scientific truth is not divine truth

"Divine truth" is not true or divine.

The word "divine" is but the last resort of scoundrels seeking to overawe the not quite gullible. It is devoid of any other use or meaning.