The Creationist method..

[seebs]

Originally posted by Vorkosigan

"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."

And how do you show the connections?

You simply can't get away from the *assumption* of basic logic. I don't think it's possible to make the world go without it.

 

[Neo]

Originally posted by seebs


And how do you show the connections?

You simply can't get away from the *assumption* of basic logic. I don't think it's possible to make the world go without it.

Reasonable assumptions do not require faith.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Neo

Reasonable assumptions do not require faith.

They may not require as much faith as other assumptions, but they certainly aren't proven, and they aren't following from axioms.

Assumption: Belief without proof.
Faith: Belief without proof.

 

[Neo]

Originally posted by seebs


They may not require as much faith as other assumptions, but they certainly aren't proven, and they aren't following from axioms.

Assumption: Belief without proof.
Faith: Belief without proof.

Reasonable assumption has nothing to do with faith.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Neo

Reasonable assumption has nothing to do with faith.

You keep saying this, but proof by assertion isn't proof. Many reasonable assumptions are later found to be wrong. A friend of mine spent eighteen years assuming that the evidence of his senses was probably accurate - then he found out he was colorblind. He passed all the normal tests, but he can't see a hot pink frisbee on green grass without looking closely.

Reasonable assumptions are, indeed, faith. Faith, among other things, that they're particularly reasonable.

 

[Neo]

Originally posted by seebs


You keep saying this, but proof by assertion isn't proof. Many reasonable assumptions are later found to be wrong. A friend of mine spent eighteen years assuming that the evidence of his senses was probably accurate - then he found out he was colorblind. He passed all the normal tests, but he can't see a hot pink frisbee on green grass without looking closely.

Reasonable assumptions are, indeed, faith. Faith, among other things, that they're particularly reasonable.

There is a big difference between assumption based on reason, and assumption based on faith. Not all reasonable assumptions are accurate, but since they are reasonable, they have nothing to do with faith.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Neo

There is a big difference between assumption based on reason, and assumption based on faith. Not all reasonable assumptions are accurate, but since they are reasonable, they have nothing to do with faith.

You keep asserting this... and it's still not true. Believing something to be true, when it isn't proven, is faith. Maybe it's not *strong* faith, but it's faith nonetheless.

Your definitions are both circular and false.

Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition:

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence

One of these is "assumption", the other is "faith". Both agree that it's a thing which does not rest on logical proof. There's no logical proof of logic; the system itself forbids circular arguments.

 

[jon1101]

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.

What do you mean by prove that God exists?

-jon

 

[Neo]

Why is it so difficult for you to understand the difference between assumption based on reason, and assumption based on faith? Should I give examples to help you understand?

 

[Neo]

Originally posted by Cancer To Iniquity


What do you mean by prove that God exists?

-jon

If your belief in God was based on logical proof, and not faith, you could prove his existence.

Prove -
v.

To establish the truth or validity of by presentation of argument or evidence

 

[Blackhawk]

okay i have to come back into this one.

"If your belief in God was based on logical proof, and not faith, you could prove his existence."

I do not think anyone has said it is based on logical proof. i think we are speaking of reason.

Do you think that one can use reason to believe in something that they can't prove logically?

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Neo
Why is it so difficult for you to understand the difference between assumption based on reason, and assumption based on faith? Should I give examples to help you understand?

You might try the alternative; assume I'm pointing out an underlying similarity which doesn't go away no matter how much you wave your hands at it.

In the end, it all comes down to picking axioms. You form beliefs based on these, and you gradually work your way up... but they're all still axioms.

I have "reasons" for faith, just as I have "reasons" to believe that all four of my cats are somewhere in my house, even though I've never seen more than three at a time. The reasons are of a different sort, but they're still reasons.

 

[Neo]

Originally posted by Blackhawk
okay i have to come back into this one.

"If your belief in God was based on logical proof, and not faith, you could prove his existence."

I do not think anyone has said it is based on logical proof. i think we are speaking of reason.

Do you think that one can use reason to believe in something that they can't prove logically?

You can't separate reason and logic.

Reason - An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence

Logic - The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning; A system of reasoning

 

[Neo]

Originally posted by seebs


I have "reasons" for faith

Faith is a belief that is without logical proof, and you can't separate logic and reason. If there is no logic in faith, there is no reason.

 

[Blackhawk]

Okay here is my last post on the subject but I thought this was interesting.

I went to dictionary.com and found these statements in the defeinitions of assumption and faith.

assumption

2: a hypothesis that is taken for granted; "any society is built upon certain assumptions"
2. The act of taking for granted, or supposing a thing WITHOUT PROOF; supposition; UNWARRANTABLE claim.



Faith

KNOWLEDGE is an essential element in all faith, and is sometimes spoken of as an equivalent to faith (John 10:38; 1 John 2:3). Yet the two are distinguished in this respect, that faith includes in it assent, which is an act of the will in addition to the act of the understanding.

Faith, therefore, has its seat in the moral part of our nature fully as much as in the intellectual. The mind must first be enlightened by divine teaching (John 6:44; Acts 13:48; 2 Cor. 4:6; Eph. 1:17, 18) before it can discern the things of the Spirit.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Neo

Faith is a belief that is without logical proof,

Such as the belief that logical proofs are valid or informative. It would be self-contradictory to claim that such a thing were "proven"; logic itself asserts that you can't use a conclusion in the process of proving it, that would be begging the question.

and you can't separate logic and reason. If there is no logic in faith, there is no reason.

Logic is not all proofs and disproofs. Without proof, and without justification, are very different things. I have good reason to believe that the world I perceive is real; I don't have logical proof.

 

[Neo]

Originally posted by seebs


Such as the belief that logical proofs are valid or informative. It would be self-contradictory to claim that such a thing were "proven"; logic itself asserts that you can't use a conclusion in the process of proving it, that would be begging the question.

I've also observed others using logic, and it works for them. I don't need to have faith in logic.

Logic is not all proofs and disproofs. Without proof, and without justification, are very different things. I have good reason to believe that the world I perceive is real; I don't have logical proof.

Everything that you perceive does exist, it may not exist in the way that it appears to exist, but it does exist.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Neo

I've also observed others using logic, and it works for them. I don't need to have faith in logic.

Uhm... Generalization from others' experience is a kind of application of logic. Remember? Logic is the thing under discussion, you can't use any logic in trying to show that it works, that's begging the question.

Everything that you perceive does exist, it may not exist in the way that it appears to exist, but it does exist.

So, when I look at a bright light, then look away, there's really a strange black pulsing thing out there in the world somewhere?

Nonsense! Perceptions can, indeed, be simply *false* with respect to the content of the world; people hallucinate, too.

 

[Neo]

Originally posted by seebs
So, when I look at a bright light, then look away, there's really a strange black pulsing thing out there in the world somewhere?

I said that everything that you perceive exists, but it may not exist in the way that it appears. What you were seeing does exist, but not outside of you, in the way that it appeared.

Nonsense! Perceptions can, indeed, be simply *false* with respect to the content of the world; people hallucinate, too.

Hallucinations and illusions do exist.

 

[Neo]

Originally posted by seebs


Uhm... Generalization from others' experience is a kind of application of logic. Remember? Logic is the thing under discussion, you can't use any logic in trying to show that it works, that's begging the question.

Are you trying to use logic to disprove the efficiency of logic?