-
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.
The Creationist method..
- Thread starter Neo
- Start date
seebs
God Made Me A Skeptic
- Apr 9, 2002
- 31,917
- 1,530
- 20
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Originally posted by Neo
Because it's logical.
No, it isn't. That's perfectly circular, and circular reasoning is not good logic.
Seriously: Why do you believe that this particular tool is a good one?
Upvote
0
Blackhawk
Monkey Boy
- Feb 5, 2002
- 4,930
- 73
- 53
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
"Faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence"
Does this definition say that faith is a belief that does not rest on reasonable evidence? No. Do I need faith if something is proved no. But I am not saying that i can prove anything. I am just saying that I have reasons for my faith. I am not 100% on just about anything. But I can be 80% sure that my wife loves me. Hopefully someday I can be 90 or even 95% sure of this but I do not think i can ever be 100% sure. but if I was then what is the use of even talking about it?
Does this definition say that faith is a belief that does not rest on reasonable evidence? No. Do I need faith if something is proved no. But I am not saying that i can prove anything. I am just saying that I have reasons for my faith. I am not 100% on just about anything. But I can be 80% sure that my wife loves me. Hopefully someday I can be 90 or even 95% sure of this but I do not think i can ever be 100% sure. but if I was then what is the use of even talking about it?
Upvote
0
Blackhawk
Monkey Boy
- Feb 5, 2002
- 4,930
- 73
- 53
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
"
Are you trying to tell me that logic isn't logical? Thats ridiculous!"
He is saying that you can't prove that logic is logical by logic. that is ciruclar. it would be the same as me saying I believe that Jesus is God because Jesus is God.
Are you trying to tell me that logic isn't logical? Thats ridiculous!"
He is saying that you can't prove that logic is logical by logic. that is ciruclar. it would be the same as me saying I believe that Jesus is God because Jesus is God.
Upvote
0
Did you not read the definition of 'logical' that I posted? Since faith is without logic, it is also without reason.
Upvote
0
I don't need to prove that logic is logical, it's logical by definition. It's like asking me to prove that the color green is actually green. Stop being ridiculous.
Upvote
0
seebs
God Made Me A Skeptic
- Apr 9, 2002
- 31,917
- 1,530
- 20
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
No... I'm telling you that logic doesn't provide you with any *reason* to believe in logic. It's merely a tool. Saying that you believe in logic because it's logical is like saying you believe in phone psychics because you called one and she said they were real.
Upvote
0
Blackhawk
Monkey Boy
- Feb 5, 2002
- 4,930
- 73
- 53
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
"Did you not read the definition of 'logical' that I posted? Since faith is without logic, it is also without reason."
i read it i just did not see where it said that faith is without logic at all. I think the key word here is "proof"
"I don't need to prove that logic is logical, it's logical by definition. It's like asking me to prove that the color green is actually green. Stop being ridiculous."
We are not asking for a definition of logic. Wewant to know why you trust logic. To say that you trust something because it is something is corcular. But I will leave these arguments for Seebs.
blackhawk
i read it i just did not see where it said that faith is without logic at all. I think the key word here is "proof"
"I don't need to prove that logic is logical, it's logical by definition. It's like asking me to prove that the color green is actually green. Stop being ridiculous."
We are not asking for a definition of logic. Wewant to know why you trust logic. To say that you trust something because it is something is corcular. But I will leave these arguments for Seebs.
blackhawk
Upvote
0
Faith is not reasonable, because it is not logical. What about that do you not understand?
I 'trust' logic because it works.
Upvote
0
Didn't you read the other posts on this thread? Apparently not...
Faith -
n.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence
Give me an example of faith working.
Upvote
0
He is saying that you can't prove that logic is logical by logic. that is ciruclar.
This is a common and somewhat naive point of view. Logic and reason are known to be successful tools because when we use them in conjunction with data gained from interactions with reality, we get information that is both reliable and useful.
Once we use logic and reason to evaluate our interactions with reality, we gain useful and reliable knowledge that refines our usage of logic and reason, enabling further fruitful exploration of the world. However, during that cycle from logic to world to logic, which you incorrectly label a "circle," a critical element has changed: we have more knowledge than at the previous iteration. Thus, we are not looking at a "circle," but a positive feedback loop. Eventually, we gain enough knowledge to understand why logic and reason exist, and what their roots are, and why they work.
Consequently, no special epistemological analysis is necessary to understand the problem you pose. It is the constant iteration of such positive feedback loops that gives modern knowledge-production methods such speed and power.
Vorkosigan
This is a common and somewhat naive point of view. Logic and reason are known to be successful tools because when we use them in conjunction with data gained from interactions with reality, we get information that is both reliable and useful.
Once we use logic and reason to evaluate our interactions with reality, we gain useful and reliable knowledge that refines our usage of logic and reason, enabling further fruitful exploration of the world. However, during that cycle from logic to world to logic, which you incorrectly label a "circle," a critical element has changed: we have more knowledge than at the previous iteration. Thus, we are not looking at a "circle," but a positive feedback loop. Eventually, we gain enough knowledge to understand why logic and reason exist, and what their roots are, and why they work.
Consequently, no special epistemological analysis is necessary to understand the problem you pose. It is the constant iteration of such positive feedback loops that gives modern knowledge-production methods such speed and power.
Vorkosigan
Upvote
0
Blackhawk
Monkey Boy
- Feb 5, 2002
- 4,930
- 73
- 53
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
"Logic and reason are known to be successful tools because when we use them in conjunction with data gained from interactions with reality, we get information that is both reliable and useful."
How do you know this? Also how can you use thing you are test logic by logic? I think that we have to have some assumptions or have faith in some things just because or we will not get anywhere.
blackhawk
How do you know this? Also how can you use thing you are test logic by logic? I think that we have to have some assumptions or have faith in some things just because or we will not get anywhere.
blackhawk
Upvote
0
" Logic and reason are known to be successful tools because when we use them in conjunction with data gained from interactions with reality, we get information that is both reliable and useful."
How do you know this?
blackhawk
"Useful" and "reliable" are both values. One does not "know" them in the naive sense that your curt question implies. I describe something as "useful" if I feel that it enables me to undertake tasks in a way I feel is more effective or efficient. You might have another label for "usefulness."
This idea of usefulness is rather widely shared even if it is fuzzy; it is why industry, business and the military consult scientists, not priests and shamans, when they wish to understand the world in order to carry on their activities in a manner they consider more efficient.
The same is true of "reliable." For most people, something is considered "reliable" if it can be counted on when needed. Knowledge produced through logic and evidence is of that nature.
Again, you might have another definition of "reliable" that suits your needs. It may be that you are not interested in knowing, for example, that 500 milligrams of amoxicillin, take three times a day after meals, is effective in eliminating certain infections. That knowledge, produced by logic and evidence, may not be "reliable" or "useful" in your view. But most people find such knowledge reliable and useful. That is why, when we want to find out about the world, we employ logic and reason in conjunction with experiment, and not faith.
This is not to say that "faith" does not have a role in the scheme of things. It is just to note that the kind of knowledge it produces is not considered reliable or useful, by entities such as industry and business, that urgently require useful and reliable knowledge about the world.
Vorkosigan
How do you know this?
blackhawk
"Useful" and "reliable" are both values. One does not "know" them in the naive sense that your curt question implies. I describe something as "useful" if I feel that it enables me to undertake tasks in a way I feel is more effective or efficient. You might have another label for "usefulness."
This idea of usefulness is rather widely shared even if it is fuzzy; it is why industry, business and the military consult scientists, not priests and shamans, when they wish to understand the world in order to carry on their activities in a manner they consider more efficient.
The same is true of "reliable." For most people, something is considered "reliable" if it can be counted on when needed. Knowledge produced through logic and evidence is of that nature.
Again, you might have another definition of "reliable" that suits your needs. It may be that you are not interested in knowing, for example, that 500 milligrams of amoxicillin, take three times a day after meals, is effective in eliminating certain infections. That knowledge, produced by logic and evidence, may not be "reliable" or "useful" in your view. But most people find such knowledge reliable and useful. That is why, when we want to find out about the world, we employ logic and reason in conjunction with experiment, and not faith.
This is not to say that "faith" does not have a role in the scheme of things. It is just to note that the kind of knowledge it produces is not considered reliable or useful, by entities such as industry and business, that urgently require useful and reliable knowledge about the world.
Vorkosigan
Upvote
0
jon1101
Well-Known Member
Biased definitions are a rather meaningless way of proving something illogical. I mean, if we define faith as belief without logic, then there's no debating the logic of faith, but you have yet to show that Christianity fulfills this definition.
how about the following from American Heritage dictionary?
The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
-jon
Upvote
0
If your belief in God did rest on logical proof or material evidence, your belief wouldn't be faith, and you would be able to prove that God exists.
Upvote
0
seebs
God Made Me A Skeptic
- Apr 9, 2002
- 31,917
- 1,530
- 20
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
And how do we conclude it's reliable and useful? By logic!
Sorry, but strictly speaking, it's not allowed to use the system in the process of supporting the system.
Oh, can you explain why they exist? I'd like to see that.
I agree - but I still say that the decision to believe that this is all meaningful, and that the system of evaluation you describe is a good one, is pure faith. Only someone who accepts your methods is obliged to accept your conclusions; otherwise, they're just statements, and you can't go from one to another with any kind of logical force unless someone chooses to accept logic.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
