Quote:You're assuming weakling that faith doen't involve reasoning

Well...faulty reasoning, Frods but I guess that is "reasoning." I might go so far as to call it wishful thinking.

(July 23, 2011 at 6:21 pm)edk141 Wrote: Rewind to the bit where "faith goes beyond reason". You lost me there. Are you saying that although reason doesn't support faith it doesn't go against it either, or are you saying your faith is supported by reason?

Quote:What you have empirical evidence for, you don't need reason for.

Now you have the choice to abandon reason, or join the thinking. Which will it be?

Could you rephrase that for my benefit? I really don't understand what you're trying to say at all

I think he means that if you have empirical evidence for something you don't need [to apply] reason to explain the same something. If my interpretation of his words is correct how would you arrive at the empirical evidence if you didn't apply reason?

Quote:Now you have the choice to abandon reason, or join the thinking. Which will it be?

The only way I can interpret this sentence is that he's giving me the choice between abandoning reason or joining the thinking which can only mean that in his opinion the thinking don't reason.

(July 23, 2011 at 6:21 pm)edk141 Wrote: Rewind to the bit where "faith goes beyond reason". You lost me there. Are you saying that although reason doesn't support faith it doesn't go against it either, or are you saying your faith is supported by reason?

I did't say that. Weakling did. Faith is pure reason, as proved in the statement about faith provided.

(July 23, 2011 at 6:21 pm)edk141 Wrote:

Quote:What you have empirical evidence for, you don't need reason for.

Now you have the choice to abandon reason, or join the thinking. Which will it be?

Could you rephrase that for my benefit? I really don't understand what you're trying to say at all

Sure. Empirical evidence is the record of one's direct observations or experiences. I don't need to reason that a chair I see in front of me exists. I can see and feel it.

Belief in God, conversely, is an entirely cerebral exercise. You can have no empirical evidence for him.

---

(July 24, 2011 at 2:20 am)weakagnostic Wrote: The only way I can interpret this sentence is that he's giving me the choice between abandoning reason or joining the thinking which can only mean that in his opinion the thinking don't reason.

Well you seem to be demonstrating an inability to reason weakling.

Abandon reason (don't think) or join the thinking (do think)

(July 24, 2011 at 4:03 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Belief in God, conversely, is an entirely cerebral exercise. You can have no empirical evidence for him.

Sounds like it's all in your head fr0ds.

(July 23, 2011 at 5:10 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Let me try again for you guys...

(July 23, 2011 at 5:48 am)weakagnostic Wrote:

They don't. You obviously misunderstand what faith is.

"Faith:

Being persuaded and fully committed in trust, involving a confident belief in the truth, value, and trustworthiness of God. 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.

Consequently, notitia and fiducia without assensus is blind and therefore not faith. This shipwrecks the egregious canard that faith is merely a blind leap. Faith goes beyond reason—i.e., into the arena of trust—but never against reason. From the Enlightenment onwards, faith has been subject to constant attempts at redefining it into the realm of the irrational or irrelevant (e.g., Kant's noumenal category); but all such attempts are built on irresponsible straw man caricatures that bear no resemblance to faith as held under the Christian view: notitia, assensus, and fiducia." - Ryft


Any clearer?

Whole thing quoted, my emphasis, you did say that.

But anyway, what path of pure reasoning could lead you to believe that God exists?

I beg your pardon. Ryft said that faith goes into the area of trust - but never against reason. See that definition of his for the path.

I'm looking, and I can't understand how reason alone leads even to the realization of Christianity as a concept let alone that it is true. Even if you have the Bible (nullifying your "pure reason" argument, but oh well), how do you reason that it is anything other than a story book?