Architeuthus
Squid
What we are not talking about is your unsupported claims regarding how you say we use the word.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Are we talking about how faith is actually practised in religion or how you use the word? Because those are not necessarily the same.
I never made any claims about how you use the word, except to note that there are many senses in which the word is used, and that we talking about 'faith' in the religious sense here.What we are not talking about is your unsupported claims regarding how you say we use the word.
I never made any claims about how you use the word
we talking about 'faith' in the religious sense here.
Yes, you did -- repeatedly.
Well, yes, we are, which is why I gave an explicitly religious definition from a systematic theology book.
The word 'faith' has multiple uses. Sometimes it simply refers to confidence, which may or may not be justified. That appears to be the way Berkhof is using the word in this excerpt. For the purposes of this discussion, it seems that the OP is most interested in 'faith' in the religious sense.
The evidence Berkhof alludes to can also be claimed as evidence for virtually every theology ever conceived. Moreover, the first line of argument (Scripture as the inspired word of God) appears to be circular, in that it already assumes the existence of God.
You can use the word however you want to. No one is stopping you. However, your usage of the word is not universal.If you won't accept our right to use the word our way in religious contexts, then no sensible discussion is possible. Consequently, I'm putting you on "ignore."
And as many know, that faith can be misplaced.Different definition
Just as I would have faith in my wife or my car starting up.
Buh-bye
I'm not sure the computer analogy works. It's not as if a computer reasons it's way through logic en route to a particular end. My understanding of computers is more akin to a enormous group of switches...when one is flipped it begins a sort of cascade of switches flipping on or off. Programming is essentially "setting the switches" to flip a certain way. Setting these switches is a logical process...but it isn't as if the computer "uses logic" in a manner like you and I do.
So if logic must be assumed, why do computers work? Must there notbe a "logical structure to reality" for a computer to work, just as there must be a mechanical structure to reality for a machine to work, or the existence of wind and waves for a boat to work?.The problem brought up in the OP is essentially the problem of hard solipsism. It's an unfortunate reality that the laws of logic are not self-confirming - we cannot take them as given until we assume them as given. And at a certain level, we do in fact have to have faith. Even if we can put two stones with two stones and end up with four stones, how can we tell that the stones even exist? How do we know we're not brains in a vat?
The logical absolutes must be assumed, as they are the basis of any understanding of the world. However, as always, Ockham's Razor is a very useful tool here. We need to assume something. Assuming that the logical absolutes are true gives us a very basic, very useful framework to work off of. Assuming that god exists does not, as even once you assume that, you have to proceed to assume the logical absolutes, or assume quite a lot about god's character.
At the end of the day, though, I'm interested in what works, and going this far into the abstract seems rather pointless to me. You can assume that the logical absolutes aren't true, that reality is an illusion, and that science doesn't work. And then you'll almost certainly get killed the next time you try to cross the street.
The way I imagine it is that logic is a physical process, so the potential for liogic must be embedded in reality. Just as "the apple is green" is true (corresponds), so logical statements have their correlates, in the very nature of existence. If this structure wasnt there, the computer program - using logic - would be jammed. The metaphysical ""signal" of the logic stream would hit a dead end, an impasse. Like trying to walk into a gale force wind blwing in the other direction, or trying to build life without carbon so to speak....I'm not sure the computer analogy works. It's not as if a computer reasons it's way through logic en route to a particular end. My understanding of computers is more akin to a enormous group of switches...when one is flipped it begins a sort of cascade of switches flipping on or off. Programming is essentially "setting the switches" to flip a certain way. Setting these switches is a logical process...but it isn't as if the computer "uses logic" in a manner like you and I do.
And as many know, that faith can be misplaced.
So if logic must be assumed, why do computers work? Must there notbe a "logical structure to reality" for a computer to work, just as there must be a mechanical structure to reality for a machine to work, or the existence of wind and waves for a boat to work?.
So if logic must be assumed, why do computers work?
Genesis is wrong.
Today in America look at the preachers, their church and see the wealth.
Because it's in a book written and compiled by men who had all the power and wealth.
On the basis of what evidence?Faith is beliving in Jesus Christ and what He did, what He promised, what He will do, believing the Bible as being the word of God, believing the prophets, believing the apostles, the Church and the Saints.
That's not a definition, that's an example. That's like if I asked for a definition of cat, and someone told me "whiskers is a cat". That's nice, but it doesn't help me as much as you might think.Faith is beliving in Jesus Christ and what He did, what He promised, what He will do, believing the Bible as being the word of God, believing the prophets, believing the apostles, the Church and the Saints.
In the evidence of the example of thousands of people who live in communion with Christ, in the evidence of the lives of the Saints, in the evidence of the life in the Church of Christ, in the evidence of history, in the evidence of the Bible, in the evidence of our existance, in the evidence of this universe, in the evidence of our souls...On the basis of what evidence?
Many of the things you claim as evidence for Christianity are also claimed as evidence for other theologies. So why should we accept it as evidence for Christianity and not some other religion?In the evidence of the example of thousands of people who live in communion with Christ, in the evidence of the lives of the Saints, in the evidence of the life in the Church of Christ, in the evidence of history, in the evidence of the Bible, in the evidence of our existance, in the evidence of this universe, in the evidence of our souls...
There is no lack of evidence, just people who deny the truth and won't accept it because they prefer to live in a lie
How do you know the computer even exists? How do you know you're not a brain in a vat being fed this sensory information about a universe where the logical absolutes work, but in "reality", they don't?
Again, the problem essentially boils down to being unable to justify trust in our senses in any objective way.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?