Well we had to establish the single question from the wider topic you had asked about to be able to answer. I don't see why you should have a problem with that. You didn't ask me to widen the subject - you widened it yourself.
The meaning of the word faith in this context is commonly "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."
"being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see"
Do you know that my definition here is wrong? My assertion is that God cannot be conclusively proved by it's nature. You'd need to re-define God for that to be possible, so that's why belief is an exception. I have tried to explain this to you in several different ways but obviously you've missed it.
The logic of this idea is neutral in conclusive terms I believe. That is the purpose of it's creation. Like I've said before, I'm sure there are other things in the universe that are unique in one form or another. Why single out 'faith' as not another of those? You deny uniqueness.
'Shielding science and logic' is a typical now for you, bit of an emotive exaggeration. You see you have to conjoin the two to make a point. You can't deal with the exact problem. Logic on it's own suffices. But only with science can you claim 'shielding' like the pair (science & logic) are somehow inseparable. The logical statement is that in this instance 'proof' doesn't apply.
The meaning of the word faith in this context is commonly "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."
"being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see"
Do you know that my definition here is wrong? My assertion is that God cannot be conclusively proved by it's nature. You'd need to re-define God for that to be possible, so that's why belief is an exception. I have tried to explain this to you in several different ways but obviously you've missed it.
The logic of this idea is neutral in conclusive terms I believe. That is the purpose of it's creation. Like I've said before, I'm sure there are other things in the universe that are unique in one form or another. Why single out 'faith' as not another of those? You deny uniqueness.
'Shielding science and logic' is a typical now for you, bit of an emotive exaggeration. You see you have to conjoin the two to make a point. You can't deal with the exact problem. Logic on it's own suffices. But only with science can you claim 'shielding' like the pair (science & logic) are somehow inseparable. The logical statement is that in this instance 'proof' doesn't apply.
