Logic Restriction

[PuppyChow]

Didn't read the three pages of topic, but in general, I agree with the OP. Essentially what it comes down to is that us Christians believe at least (in my case) the New Testament and it's general teachings regarding Jesus and morality. These accounts are from a long time ago, yes, and no concrete historical evidence of these miracles has yet been found. But that doesn't mean it's not there, and even if it ISN'T there, it doesn't mean it didn't happen (this is assuming the Bible is not an accepted historical document). And yes, science is not in line with bringing Lazarus back form the dead, for instance, but believers (at least in my case) usually believe that God is the sole entity that can disregard laws of science, since He created them.

For us, the Bible is our logical proof. If you say it's illogical to believe that it's a logical proof of God, well, then we just go back to "it's called faith for a reason ."

[maverixk]

I applaud your faith...but just so you know that post is going to most likely get a lot of criticism.

[johannhowitzer]

And once again I want to come in here and throw the whole thing back to the principle of intellectual honesty - this time because of the word "faith."

We've defined belief as something someone sees as most likely to be true.  Religious belief must fall under this umbrella, or our definition isn't correct.  What is "faith" exactly?  Willful belief of something one knows to be false?  No, that's denial.  Belief of something that hasn't been shown to be most likely true?  Well, then you'd default to some belief that's in the same realm of thought, but different in nature.

I understand the word "faith" like most people understand the word "faithful."  You can be faithful to a marriage partner, your responsibilities on the job, your nation, etc... just like you can be faithful to a belief system.  That is to say, you do not abandon it based on some new evidence - you examine that evidence closely before you allow yourself to be convinced.  A sort of loyalty.  Beyond that, I don't believe the word "faith" has any meaning beyond "belief."

[PuppyChow]

I applaud your faith...but just so you know that post is going to most likely get a lot of criticism.

I've been around the block in this section. Don't worry, I know.

And once again I want to come in here and throw the whole thing back to the principle of intellectual honesty - this time because of the word "faith."

We've defined belief as something someone sees as most likely to be true.  Religious belief must fall under this umbrella, or our definition isn't correct.  What is "faith" exactly?  Willful belief of something one knows to be false?  No, that's denial.  Belief of something that hasn't been shown to be most likely true?  Well, then you'd default to some belief that's in the same realm of thought, but different in nature.

I understand the word "faith" like most people understand the word "faithful."  You can be faithful to a marriage partner, your responsibilities on the job, your nation, etc... just like you can be faithful to a belief system.  That is to say, you do not abandon it based on some new evidence - you examine that evidence closely before you allow yourself to be convinced.  A sort of loyalty.  Beyond that, I don't believe the word "faith" has any meaning beyond "belief."

You are correct. We are choosing to believe something is true when rationally, it cannot be proven true, though it cannot be proven false either. Is that irrational? Yes, maybe. Even probably. I like to think I'm on the whole a rational guy, and I really have trouble explaining why I have faith that the Bible is telling the truth. Honestly, I can't explain it.

[OldTrees]

We are choosing to believe something is true when rationally, it cannot be proven true, though it cannot be proven false either. Is that irrational? Yes, maybe. Even probably. I like to think I'm on the whole a rational guy, and I really have trouble explaining why I have faith that the Bible is telling the truth. Honestly, I can't explain it.

No, it is not irrational to believe the sun will exist tomorrow. I cannot prove that the sun will not explode before tomorrow despite the very low chance of such an event occurring. Likewise I cannot prove that the sun will explode. Therefore I am believing the sun will exist tomorrow despite not proving it true or false.

[TakoMan02]

It's good to keep a healthy balance between good morals as well as good understanding of reality. You can't solve issues when you're studying a book from ~2000 years ago. You just can't.

[maverixk]

It's good to keep a healthy balance between good morals as well as good understanding of reality. You can't solve issues when you're studying a book from ~2000 years ago. You just can't.

Sure you can. It all depends on the issue and what's in the book. If your issue is you don't know what 2+2 is and the book says that if you have two cows here, and two there, then you have four cows then your issue is solved. There's plenty of issues that can be solved by studying the bible.

[Bloodshadow]

Does that mean science is a religion too and that you shouldn't believe it because science can't even prove science? Meaning, you can't prove the scientific method with science, we just assume it to be true. And assuming science to be true, that is a proven fact.

How do you "prove" the scientific method? The scientific method is a process, not a belief. Comparing the scientific method to religion is like comparing a verb to a noun. Your argument makes no sense.

It can't be proven, thats what i was trying to say.

You don't get it. I'm saying that the scientific method does not need to be proven, since the word "proof" does not apply to it. It's like trying to eat a religion. It doesn't make sense. Your argument is invalid.

[OldTrees]

Does that mean science is a religion too and that you shouldn't believe it because science can't even prove science? Meaning, you can't prove the scientific method with science, we just assume it to be true. And assuming science to be true, that is a proven fact.

How do you "prove" the scientific method? The scientific method is a process, not a belief. Comparing the scientific method to religion is like comparing a verb to a noun. Your argument makes no sense.

It can't be proven, thats what i was trying to say.

You don't get it. I'm saying that the scientific method does not need to be proven, since the word "proof" does not apply to it. It's like trying to eat a religion. It doesn't make sense. Your argument is invalid.

Actually the scientific method's ability/inability to reach accurate conclusions consistently can be tested or attempted to logically prove.

After seeing multiple examples of the layers of positive and negative controls used in experimentation I am convinced that the method used in experimentation can reasonably reduce false positive beliefs in its field through being falsifiable.

[Chromatophore]

I'm not sure i understand this but to prove the scientific method we would use what?  The scientific method?  That could (surely?) be used to demonstrate internal consistency.

[OldTrees]

I'm not sure i understand this but to prove the scientific method we would use what?  The scientific method?  That could (surely?) be used to demonstrate internal consistency.

Hypothesis: One can use boolean logic to see the benefits of a belief being falsifiable.
Observations: One can repeat observations and use other observers to see if the observations are objective enough data to be used.
Conclusions: One can use boolean logic and background knowledge to test an experiment for the possibility for false positives/negatives.

[Korugar]

Okay...first to the idea of omnipotence. Many Christians say and believe that this means God can do anything. On the other hand, we also say that God is completely good, thus, God cannot sin. Wait a minute, isn't there a contradiction here? They can't both be right, can they? Well, no, they can't both be right, but since one of your premises is wrong, it doesn't really mean anything. Omnipotent means all powerful, and another way of saying it is that there is nothing God is not powerful enough to do. For a different example, we know that God could not make a round square. Why? By definition. If it's round, it can be one of many shapes, but it can't be a square. So, while it's true that God can break many of the laws of our universe(like Puppychow's example of Lazarus, since He can take the physical body and heal it, as well as take the spiritual essence, AKA soul, from heaven and return it to the body, thereby resurrecting someone) He cannot change the nature of some things. The idea behind them. Does that make sense?