Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Knowing the Unknown

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 11:37:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
In each of us, there lies a hope but, also, a fear, a hope for learning something new, a desire for expanding his, or her, perspective, and a longing to grow in intelligence. However, at the same time, we know learning new things may bury old ideas beneath the ash heap of irrelevance, expanding our perspectives is readjusting the lenses of our minds' eyes, and growing always involves death. So, it's with excitement yet trepidation we move forward. No one, at least he, or she, who has a love for knowledge, wants to be left behind. To stay still is to die.

So, with the understanding of a regeneration, a sacrificing of the old self, and a journey into the heart of the unknown do we find ourselves. We are torn between that which is safe and that which is uncertain. It is this tension that allows us to move. It creates the motion by which we live our lives.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2014 3:11:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Totally ties into the thread I just posted. This was the very next thing I looked at. Damn, dat synchronicity doh.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2014 6:29:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/18/2014 3:11:46 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Damn, dat synchronicity doh.

And the Conscience of the Unconscious ;)
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2014 7:55:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/18/2014 3:11:46 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Totally ties into the thread I just posted. This was the very next thing I looked at. Damn, dat synchronicity doh.

Freedo, I didn't see your last thread. Can you give me a link to it? I'd like to read it.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2014 1:45:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/18/2014 7:55:11 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/18/2014 3:11:46 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Totally ties into the thread I just posted. This was the very next thing I looked at. Damn, dat synchronicity doh.

Freedo, I didn't see your last thread. Can you give me a link to it? I'd like to read it.

As you wish.
http://www.debate.org...
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2014 2:09:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 11:37:36 PM, s-anthony wrote:
In each of us, there lies a hope but, also, a fear, a hope for learning something new, a desire for expanding his, or her, perspective, and a longing to grow in intelligence. However, at the same time, we know learning new things may bury old ideas beneath the ash heap of irrelevance, expanding our perspectives is readjusting the lenses of our minds' eyes, and growing always involves death. So, it's with excitement yet trepidation we move forward. No one, at least he, or she, who has a love for knowledge, wants to be left behind. To stay still is to die.

So, with the understanding of a regeneration, a sacrificing of the old self, and a journey into the heart of the unknown do we find ourselves. We are torn between that which is safe and that which is uncertain. It is this tension that allows us to move. It creates the motion by which we live our lives.

Why a lot Christians see atheists as proud and arrogant and dismiss any theory or idea of evolution.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2014 3:26:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Why a lot Christians see atheists as proud and arrogant and dismiss any theory or idea of evolution.

I think, whether Christian or atheistic, people, in general, are afraid of unfamiliar thinking. Both sides have a lot to learn from each other.
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2014 4:20:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/18/2014 3:26:02 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Why a lot Christians see atheists as proud and arrogant and dismiss any theory or idea of evolution.

I think, whether Christian or atheistic, people, in general, are afraid of unfamiliar thinking. Both sides have a lot to learn from each other.

True but as noble as that sounds I just don't believe there is anything a atheist can learn from a christian. Science and religion, logic and faith, just do not mix. And they won't until Christians can offer something concrete they can to be tested.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2014 9:46:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/18/2014 4:20:34 PM, Df0512 wrote:
At 10/18/2014 3:26:02 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Why a lot Christians see atheists as proud and arrogant and dismiss any theory or idea of evolution.

I think, whether Christian or atheistic, people, in general, are afraid of unfamiliar thinking. Both sides have a lot to learn from each other.

True but as noble as that sounds I just don't believe there is anything a atheist can learn from a christian. Science and religion, logic and faith, just do not mix. And they won't until Christians can offer something concrete they can to be tested.

Science is the reality of religion, and the reflection of the creation of God. Faith is the leap of reason. They correspond quite directly with each other.
Nolite Timere
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2014 10:39:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/18/2014 9:46:36 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 10/18/2014 4:20:34 PM, Df0512 wrote:
At 10/18/2014 3:26:02 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Why a lot Christians see atheists as proud and arrogant and dismiss any theory or idea of evolution.

I think, whether Christian or atheistic, people, in general, are afraid of unfamiliar thinking. Both sides have a lot to learn from each other.

True but as noble as that sounds I just don't believe there is anything a atheist can learn from a christian. Science and religion, logic and faith, just do not mix. And they won't until Christians can offer something concrete they can to be tested.

Science is the reality of religion, and the reflection of the creation of God. Faith is the leap of reason. They correspond quite directly with each other.

No they still don't. Your basically just saying that they do. Science is the reality logic, literally. Religion is the reality of faith regardless of how it's defined. Religion has offered nothing concrete. By that I mean, no concrete evidence of the supernatural. So it cannot be the reality of science.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2014 11:55:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/18/2014 4:20:34 PM, Df0512 wrote:
At 10/18/2014 3:26:02 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Why a lot Christians see atheists as proud and arrogant and dismiss any theory or idea of evolution.

I think, whether Christian or atheistic, people, in general, are afraid of unfamiliar thinking. Both sides have a lot to learn from each other.

True but as noble as that sounds I just don't believe there is anything a atheist can learn from a christian. Science and religion, logic and faith, just do not mix. And they won't until Christians can offer something concrete they can to be tested.

I believe religion is the bedrock of all science, and logic without faith does not make sense. At its very core, religion attempted to satisfy the curious mind. When all others had ignorance to offer, the ancient heart yearned for something more conclusive. Saying, "I don't know," would only pacify for so long. Religion said light came forth from darkness, the womb of the unknown gave birth to the world around us. Faith taught there were realities that defied logic, not bound up by the physical properties of space and time.

It is these realities that have fed the thirst for knowledge. Science is only beginning to realize that which religion has always known. It is the view of popular science, today, light does indeed have its origin in darkness, the world and all its inhabitants do exist in a void, and the very nature of light defies logic; even though it may seem as a physical property to us, in itself, it inhabits neither space nor time.
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 2:08:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/18/2014 11:55:42 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/18/2014 4:20:34 PM, Df0512 wrote:
At 10/18/2014 3:26:02 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Why a lot Christians see atheists as proud and arrogant and dismiss any theory or idea of evolution.

I think, whether Christian or atheistic, people, in general, are afraid of unfamiliar thinking. Both sides have a lot to learn from each other.

True but as noble as that sounds I just don't believe there is anything a atheist can learn from a christian. Science and religion, logic and faith, just do not mix. And they won't until Christians can offer something concrete they can to be tested.

I believe religion is the bedrock of all science, and logic without faith does not make sense. At its very core, religion attempted to satisfy the curious mind. When all others had ignorance to offer, the ancient heart yearned for something more conclusive. Saying, "I don't know," would only pacify for so long. Religion said light came forth from darkness, the womb of the unknown gave birth to the world around us. Faith taught there were realities that defied logic, not bound up by the physical properties of space and time.

It is these realities that have fed the thirst for knowledge. Science is only beginning to realize that which religion has always known. It is the view of popular science, today, light does indeed have its origin in darkness, the world and all its inhabitants do exist in a void, and the very nature of light defies logic; even though it may seem as a physical property to us, in itself, it inhabits neither space nor time.

"and logic without faith does not make sense" This is where you guys are losing me. You don't have to have faith in something to find that something logical. The two terms, by definition, have nothing to do with each other. I read all the other stuff you wrote and it sounds good, but it really doesn't matter if we can't agree on the difference between these 2 terms. And you are just filling in to many blanks on your own to connect the dots between science and religion,
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 9:52:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
"and logic without faith does not make sense" This is where you guys are losing me. You don't have to have faith in something to find that something logical. The two terms, by definition, have nothing to do with each other. I read all the other stuff you wrote and it sounds good, but it really doesn't matter if we can't agree on the difference between these 2 terms. And you are just filling in to many blanks on your own to connect the dots between science and religion,

Faith is a belief in, a trust in, and a conviction for that which you believe to be the truth. That which you believe must make sense to you or you wouldn't believe it. Not only do we not believe in that which we find illogical but we also discard it. To say people of faith intentionally put their trust in that which they believe to be nonsense makes no sense.
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 12:53:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 9:52:53 AM, s-anthony wrote:
"and logic without faith does not make sense" This is where you guys are losing me. You don't have to have faith in something to find that something logical. The two terms, by definition, have nothing to do with each other. I read all the other stuff you wrote and it sounds good, but it really doesn't matter if we can't agree on the difference between these 2 terms. And you are just filling in to many blanks on your own to connect the dots between science and religion,

Faith is a belief in, a trust in, and a conviction for that which you believe to be the truth. That which you believe must make sense to you or you wouldn't believe it. Not only do we not believe in that which we find illogical but we also discard it. To say people of faith intentionally put their trust in that which they believe to be nonsense makes no sense.

Just because something makes sense does not make it logical. People can certainly have faith in something that doesn't make sense because what makes sense is subjective. Faith according to Hebrews 11:1 (AMS) is defined as: faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen. Meaning having faith in something regardless of having evidence that it exist or evidence of its truth. There is no rule that says something has to makes sense before you can have faith in it and there is no rule that says something has to be logical before it can make sense. It is completely subjective.

Although there is still an element of subjectivity in logic, logic is assessed according to strict principles of validity(just goggled it). In this case those principles of validity are evidence of it's existence or truth. Why, because those are the principles of science. Science is information or truth gained through observation and/or experimentation. Sure you can observe someone being religious but you can not observe the supernatural. There is no evidence of it. Therefore it can not be tested. Therefore religion has no place in science. And faith is literally believing in something even though there is no evidence of it.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 5:19:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Just because something makes sense does not make it logical.

Give me an example of something that makes sense but is not logical.

People can certainly have faith in something that doesn't make sense because what makes sense is subjective.

So, are you saying people have faith in something that doesn't make sense to them or to you?

Faith according to Hebrews 11:1 (AMS) is defined as: faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen. Meaning having faith in something regardless of having evidence that it exist or evidence of its truth.

Do you believe things in which you have no evidence of truth?

There is no rule that says something has to makes sense before you can have faith in it and there is no rule that says something has to be logical before it can make sense. It is completely subjective.

Being subjective does not mean you believe in things that do not make sense or are illogical. Being subjective means you believe in things that make sense to you. Do you believe in things that do not make sense or are illogical?

Although there is still an element of subjectivity in logic, logic is assessed according to strict principles of validity(just goggled it). In this case those principles of validity are evidence of it's existence or truth. Why, because those are the principles of science. Science is information or truth gained through observation and/or experimentation. Sure you can observe someone being religious but you can not observe the supernatural. There is no evidence of it. Therefore it can not be tested. Therefore religion has no place in science. And faith is literally believing in something even though there is no evidence of it.

Is one of the most fundamental principles of logic, "That which is, is"? What if I were to say that's true, and "That which is, isn't," is also true?
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 6:09:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 5:19:01 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Just because something makes sense does not make it logical.

Give me an example of something that makes sense but is not logical.

Things that make sense are subjective. So it doesn't matter what example I give if you disagree with what I'm saying.

People can certainly have faith in something that doesn't make sense because what makes sense is subjective.

So, are you saying people have faith in something that doesn't make sense to them or to you?

I;m saying people can have faith in things that don't make sense to them. Making sense is not a prerequisite of faith. People believe in miracles which are explainable by scientific law. Or blind faith in which you must have regardless of reasoning.

Faith according to Hebrews 11:1 (AMS) is defined as: faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen. Meaning having faith in something regardless of having evidence that it exist or evidence of its truth.

Do you believe things in which you have no evidence of truth?

Sure. I believe my 4 year old autistic son will grow to be an independent successful man one day. I have know evidence of that but I still have faith in him. But then, I also find that to be logical based on the amount of learning and hard work me and his mother will put into making that happen. I do not believe in things I can not find logical.

There is no rule that says something has to makes sense before you can have faith in it and there is no rule that says something has to be logical before it can make sense. It is completely subjective.
Being subjective does not mean you believe in things that do not make sense or are illogical. Being subjective means you believe in things that make sense to you

I never said this and I totally agree.

. Do you believe in things that do not make sense or are illogical?

The 2 are not the same. You are using them interchangeably. I do believe in things that do not make sense to me but I do not believe in things I can not find logical. Quantum entanglement makes no sense to me. I cant find it intelligible. But I find it logical because it's already been proven to be real.

Although there is still an element of subjectivity in logic, logic is assessed according to strict principles of validity(just goggled it). In this case those principles of validity are evidence of it's existence or truth. Why, because those are the principles of science. Science is information or truth gained through observation and/or experimentation. Sure you can observe someone being religious but you can not observe the supernatural. There is no evidence of it. Therefore it can not be tested. Therefore religion has no place in science. And faith is literally believing in something even though there is no evidence of it.

Is one of the most fundamental principles of logic, "That which is, is"? What if I were to say that's true, and "That which is, isn't," is also true?

Well yes. They are basically the same statements.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 8:02:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Give me an example of something that makes sense but is not logical.

Things that make sense are subjective. So it doesn't matter what example I give if you disagree with what I'm saying.

Sorry, but that's not the thing I asked you to do. I said give me an example of something that makes sense but is illogical.

So, are you saying people have faith in something that doesn't make sense to them or to you?

I;m saying people can have faith in things that don't make sense to them. Making sense is not a prerequisite of faith. People believe in miracles which are explainable by scientific law. Or blind faith in which you must have regardless of reasoning.

So, would this be like saying I believe light is both a particle and a wave or the idea light in itself (if it were a conscious observer) does not experience time or space? These ideas defy logic; they are paradoxical and do not make sense. Yet, even logicians accept that which is illogical; they have faith, even though the laws of logic begin to break down at the quantum level, science is leading us in the right direction. It isn't only those who believe in myth that have faith in that which is mysterious but also the most ardent of empiricists.

Do you believe things in which you have no evidence of truth?

Sure. I believe my 4 year old autistic son will grow to be an independent successful man one day. I have know evidence of that but I still have faith in him. But then, I also find that to be logical based on the amount of learning and hard work me and his mother will put into making that happen. I do not believe in things I can not find logical.

Faith must have its doubts; however, it must also have its assurances. It is faith in crossing a bridge that leads us to the other side. It's not complete assurance; for, that is certainty; and, it's not complete doubt; for, that is despair. It is both faith and not-faith; it is both assurance and doubt; it is both that which we know and that which we don't; it is both logical and paradoxical.

Being subjective does not mean you believe in things that do not make sense or are illogical. Being subjective means you believe in things that make sense to you

I never said this and I totally agree.

. Do you believe in things that do not make sense or are illogical?

The 2 are not the same. You are using them interchangeably. I do believe in things that do not make sense to me but I do not believe in things I can not find logical. Quantum entanglement makes no sense to me. I cant find it intelligible. But I find it logical because it's already been proven to be real.

If it doesn't make sense and it's unintelligible, with which principles of logic does it correspond?

Although there is still an element of subjectivity in logic, logic is assessed according to strict principles of validity(just goggled it). In this case those principles of validity are evidence of it's existence or truth. Why, because those are the principles of science. Science is information or truth gained through observation and/or experimentation. Sure you can observe someone being religious but you can not observe the supernatural. There is no evidence of it. Therefore it can not be tested. Therefore religion has no place in science. And faith is literally believing in something even though there is no evidence of it.

Is observation relative?

Is one of the most fundamental principles of logic, "That which is, is"? What if I were to say that's true, and "That which is, isn't," is also true?

Well yes. They are basically the same statements.
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 10:07:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 8:02:21 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Give me an example of something that makes sense but is not logical.

Things that make sense are subjective. So it doesn't matter what example I give if you disagree with what I'm saying.

Sorry, but that's not the thing I asked you to do. I said give me an example of something that makes sense but is illogical.

....I know what you asked and you have my answer. I don't make sense of things that are illogical. People do, thus miracles and blind faith. That is my answer.

So, are you saying people have faith in something that doesn't make sense to them or to you?

I;m saying people can have faith in things that don't make sense to them. Making sense is not a prerequisite of faith. People believe in miracles which are explainable by scientific law. Or blind faith in which you must have regardless of reasoning.

So, would this be like saying I believe light is both a particle and a wave or the idea light in itself (if it were a conscious observer) does not experience time or space? These ideas defy logic; they are paradoxical and do not make sense. Yet, even logicians accept that which is illogical; they have faith, even though the laws of logic begin to break down at the quantum level, science is leading us in the right direction. It isn't only those who believe in myth that have faith in that which is mysterious but also the most ardent of empiricists.

No it isn't like that at all. Light is tangible. It can be seen and felt, regardless of how illogical it's properties are. Here is an experiment: go into a dark room and turn on a flash light. If you can see, you have your evidence confirming it's existence. That experiment is you principle of validity confirming it's logicality. Even if the properties of light aren't logical. There is nothing in religion that would enable you to preform such in experiment. Because there is no evidence of the supernatural.

Do you believe things in which you have no evidence of truth?

Sure. I believe my 4 year old autistic son will grow to be an independent successful man one day. I have know evidence of that but I still have faith in him. But then, I also find that to be logical based on the amount of learning and hard work me and his mother will put into making that happen. I do not believe in things I can not find logical.

Faith must have its doubts; however, it must also have its assurances. It is faith in crossing a bridge that leads us to the other side. It's not complete assurance; for, that is certainty; and, it's not complete doubt; for, that is despair. It is both faith and not-faith; it is both assurance and doubt; it is both that which we know and that which we don't; it is both logical and paradoxical.

This is not true. Faith does not require doubt either. Nor does it require an assurance. It can and it can not. You gave one example the fit with your description of faith but that is not the absolute law of faith. It seems like you are making up laws of having faith. There just isn't. People can have faith in what ever they want in whatever fashion they chose.

Being subjective does not mean you believe in things that do not make sense or are illogical. Being subjective means you believe in things that make sense to you

I never said this and I totally agree.

. Do you believe in things that do not make sense or are illogical?

The 2 are not the same. You are using them interchangeably. I do believe in things that do not make sense to me but I do not believe in things I can not find logical. Quantum entanglement makes no sense to me. I cant find it intelligible. But I find it logical because it's already been proven to be real.

If it doesn't make sense and it's unintelligible, with which principles of logic does it correspond?

The principles of science. Doesn't make sense at all,but the principles of science have proven its existence logical. Once again logical ans sense , as we are using it, are not interchangeable.

Although there is still an element of subjectivity in logic, logic is assessed according to strict principles of validity(just goggled it). In this case those principles of validity are evidence of it's existence or truth. Why, because those are the principles of science. Science is information or truth gained through observation and/or experimentation. Sure you can observe someone being religious but you can not observe the supernatural. There is no evidence of it. Therefore it can not be tested. Therefore religion has no place in science. And faith is literally believing in something even though there is no evidence of it.

Is observation relative?

Is observation relative to faith no. The definition of faith literally says evidence of things unseen.

Is one of the most fundamental principles of logic, "That which is, is"? What if I were to say that's true, and "That which is, isn't," is also true?

Well yes. They are basically the same statements.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 10:28:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Sorry, but that's not the thing I asked you to do. I said give me an example of something that makes sense but is illogical.

....I know what you asked and you have my answer. I don't make sense of things that are illogical. People do, thus miracles and blind faith. That is my answer.

That sounds exactly like the answer I would expect to get from a religious person about atheists.

So, would this be like saying I believe light is both a particle and a wave or the idea light in itself (if it were a conscious observer) does not experience time or space? These ideas defy logic; they are paradoxical and do not make sense. Yet, even logicians accept that which is illogical; they have faith, even though the laws of logic begin to break down at the quantum level, science is leading us in the right direction. It isn't only those who believe in myth that have faith in that which is mysterious but also the most ardent of empiricists.

No it isn't like that at all. Light is tangible. It can be seen and felt, regardless of how illogical it's properties are. Here is an experiment: go into a dark room and turn on a flash light. If you can see, you have your evidence confirming it's existence. That experiment is you principle of validity confirming it's logicality. Even if the properties of light aren't logical. There is nothing in religion that would enable you to preform such in experiment. Because there is no evidence of the supernatural.

Light is a physical property; there is no denying that; it inhabits both time and space, but it's not in spite of its illogical properties; it's because of them. Einstein's theory is anything traveling at the speed of light in a vacuum would not experience time; in other words, the moment of departure would be the exact moment of arrival. It's because light travels at such a velocity, a measurable physical velocity, from its reference frame, it would not experience (if it could) time or space; the moment of emission would be the moment of absorption.

Faith must have its doubts; however, it must also have its assurances. It is faith in crossing a bridge that leads us to the other side. It's not complete assurance; for, that is certainty; and, it's not complete doubt; for, that is despair. It is both faith and not-faith; it is both assurance and doubt; it is both that which we know and that which we don't; it is both logical and paradoxical.

This is not true. Faith does not require doubt either. Nor does it require an assurance. It can and it can not. You gave one example the fit with your description of faith but that is not the absolute law of faith. It seems like you are making up laws of having faith. There just isn't. People can have faith in what ever they want in whatever fashion they chose.

So, without doubt, what use is faith? Without assurance, what is faith? Do you need faith, having not known uncertainty? Does faith even make sense apart from doubt?

If it doesn't make sense and it's unintelligible, with which principles of logic does it correspond?

The principles of science. Doesn't make sense at all,but the principles of science have proven its existence logical. Once again logical ans sense , as we are using it, are not interchangeable.

Ok. So, that which doesn't make sense is logical? I get it and agree.

Is observation relative?

Is observation relative to faith no. The definition of faith literally says evidence of things unseen.

Again, sorry, but that's not the question I asked. I asked, "Is observation relative?".
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 11:06:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 10:28:57 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Sorry, but that's not the thing I asked you to do. I said give me an example of something that makes sense but is illogical.

....I know what you asked and you have my answer. I don't make sense of things that are illogical. People do, thus miracles and blind faith. That is my answer.

That sounds exactly like the answer I would expect to get from a religious person about atheists.

Maybe but then I never said I was atheist. The existence of a God is not completely illogical to me. It is religion and the bible that are illogical to me. I don;t know if God exists. If god does exist he certainly doesn't exist the way the bible describes him. At least that's my opinion.

So, would this be like saying I believe light is both a particle and a wave or the idea light in itself (if it were a conscious observer) does not experience time or space? These ideas defy logic; they are paradoxical and do not make sense. Yet, even logicians accept that which is illogical; they have faith, even though the laws of logic begin to break down at the quantum level, science is leading us in the right direction. It isn't only those who believe in myth that have faith in that which is mysterious but also the most ardent of empiricists.

No it isn't like that at all. Light is tangible. It can be seen and felt, regardless of how illogical it's properties are. Here is an experiment: go into a dark room and turn on a flash light. If you can see, you have your evidence confirming it's existence. That experiment is you principle of validity confirming it's logicality. Even if the properties of light aren't logical. There is nothing in religion that would enable you to preform such in experiment. Because there is no evidence of the supernatural.

Light is a physical property; there is no denying that; it inhabits both time and space, but it's not in spite of its illogical properties; it's because of them. Einstein's theory is anything traveling at the speed of light in a vacuum would not experience time; in other words, the moment of departure would be the exact moment of arrival. It's because light travels at such a velocity, a measurable physical velocity, from its reference frame, it would not experience (if it could) time or space; the moment of emission would be the moment of absorption.

Clearly you know more about light than I do and that's awesome stuff, but it doesn't really add or take away from the debate.

Faith must have its doubts; however, it must also have its assurances. It is faith in crossing a bridge that leads us to the other side. It's not complete assurance; for, that is certainty; and, it's not complete doubt; for, that is despair. It is both faith and not-faith; it is both assurance and doubt; it is both that which we know and that which we don't; it is both logical and paradoxical.

This is not true. Faith does not require doubt either. Nor does it require an assurance. It can and it can not. You gave one example the fit with your description of faith but that is not the absolute law of faith. It seems like you are making up laws of having faith. There just isn't. People can have faith in what ever they want in whatever fashion they chose.

So, without doubt, what use is faith? Without assurance, what is faith? Do you need faith, having not known uncertainty? Does faith even make sense apart from doubt?

Yes. These is a prerequisites you created. Faith is equivalent to complete trust or confidence in something. It can exist how ever someone chooses it to. It's not some magical belief system that can only exist under certain conditions.

If it doesn't make sense and it's unintelligible, with which principles of logic does it correspond?

The principles of science. Doesn't make sense at all,but the principles of science have proven its existence logical. Once again logical ans sense , as we are using it, are not interchangeable.

Ok. So, that which doesn't make sense is logical? I get it and agree.

Yes that is what I am saying. But I am not saying that is the rule or law of logic.

Is observation relative?

Is observation relative to faith no. The definition of faith literally says evidence of things unseen.

Again, sorry, but that's not the question I asked. I asked, "Is observation relative?".

Well I don't understand your question. Relative to what? Why not explain the question instead of sarcastically offering me an insincere apology and repeating the same question. It's a bit demeaning.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 12:31:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
That sounds exactly like the answer I would expect to get from a religious person about atheists.

Maybe but then I never said I was atheist. The existence of a God is not completely illogical to me. It is religion and the bible that are illogical to me. I don;t know if God exists. If god does exist he certainly doesn't exist the way the bible describes him. At least that's my opinion.

I'm not calling you an atheist. My original response was Christians and atheists could learn a lot from each other, and, then, from there, the debate continued.

Light is a physical property; there is no denying that; it inhabits both time and space, but it's not in spite of its illogical properties; it's because of them. Einstein's theory is anything traveling at the speed of light in a vacuum would not experience time; in other words, the moment of departure would be the exact moment of arrival. It's because light travels at such a velocity, a measurable physical velocity, from its reference frame, it would not experience (if it could) time or space; the moment of emission would be the moment of absorption.

Clearly you know more about light than I do and that's awesome stuff, but it doesn't really add or take away from the debate.

So, without doubt, what use is faith? Without assurance, what is faith? Do you need faith, having not known uncertainty? Does faith even make sense apart from doubt?

Yes. These is a prerequisites you created. Faith is equivalent to complete trust or confidence in something. It can exist how ever someone chooses it to. It's not some magical belief system that can only exist under certain conditions.

These are not my prerequisites, alone. They are the prerequisites of the standard English definition of faith. If I said, "I have faith," and you had never experienced doubt, you wouldn't have the slightest idea as to that which faith is. If I said, "Turn on the light!" and darkness did not exist, that would not make sense. It is doubt that gives faith meaning; it is darkness that defines light.

Ok. So, that which doesn't make sense is logical? I get it and agree.

Yes that is what I am saying. But I am not saying that is the rule or law of logic.

Again, sorry, but that's not the question I asked. I asked, "Is observation relative?".

Well I don't understand your question. Relative to what? Why not explain the question instead of sarcastically offering me an insincere apology and repeating the same question. It's a bit demeaning.

Sorry. It is not my intention to be condescending. The question I'm asking is "If observation is not relative to faith, to what is it relative?".
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 2:00:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 12:31:40 PM, s-anthony wrote:
.

Maybe but then I never said I was atheist. The existence of a God is not completely illogical to me. It is religion and the bible that are illogical to me. I don;t know if God exists. If god does exist he certainly doesn't exist the way the bible describes him. At least that's my opinion.

I'm not calling you an atheist. My original response was Christians and atheists could learn a lot from each other, and, then, from there, the debate continued.

I never said you called me an atheist. I was simply saying that I my self don't reside on either side of that fence. I am open to all possibilities as long as I can find them logical.

Light is a physical property; there is no denying that; it inhabits both time and space, but it's not in spite of its illogical properties; it's because of them. Einstein's theory is anything traveling at the speed of light in a vacuum would not experience time; in other words, the moment of departure would be the exact moment of arrival. It's because light travels at such a velocity, a measurable physical velocity, from its reference frame, it would not experience (if it could) time or space; the moment of emission would be the moment of absorption.

Clearly you know more about light than I do and that's awesome stuff, but it doesn't really add or take away from the debate.

So, without doubt, what use is faith? Without assurance, what is faith? Do you need faith, having not known uncertainty? Does faith even make sense apart from doubt?

Yes. These is a prerequisites you created. Faith is equivalent to complete trust or confidence in something. It can exist how ever someone chooses it to. It's not some magical belief system that can only exist under certain conditions.

These are not my prerequisites, alone. They are the prerequisites of the standard English definition of faith. If I said, "I have faith," and you had never experienced doubt, you wouldn't have the slightest idea as to that which faith is. If I said, "Turn on the light!" and darkness did not exist, that would not make sense. It is doubt that gives faith meaning; it is darkness that defines light.

No one has ever not experienced doubt, so that isn't really that relevant. And you can't say what would happen to something that doesn't exist. But on that note, why couldn't that person just say I have faith in everything and doubt nothing. Sounds like you talking about experiencing doubt in a general sense. I'm talking about experiencing doubt in a specific situation. If I am playing a baseball game, I don't have to doubt I can win before I have faith that I can win. I can be completely confident in my ability and not doubt it at all.

Having doubt is not in the standard English definition of faith.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

http://dictionary.reference.com...

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Here we have 4 different links all defining the word faith. None of which mention anything about having doubt. To me faith would be the thing keeping someone from having doubt. Again, if I am playing a baseball game, I don't have to doubt I can win before I have faith that I can win. Also the third link posted actually defines faith as: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Thus adding to my original point that faith does not require logic.

Ok. So, that which doesn't make sense is logical? I get it and agree.

Yes that is what I am saying. But I am not saying that is the rule or law of logic.

Again, sorry, but that's not the question I asked. I asked, "Is observation relative?".

Well I don't understand your question. Relative to what? Why not explain the question instead of sarcastically offering me an insincere apology and repeating the same question. It's a bit demeaning.

Sorry. It is not my intention to be condescending. The question I'm asking is "If observation is not relative to faith, to what is it relative?".

Observation is relative to science. And logic is relative to science. Logic can only be achieved by adhering to set principles of validity. In this case science in which information is gathered through observation and experimentation.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 2:59:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
No one has ever not experienced doubt, so that isn't really that relevant. And you can't say what would happen to something that doesn't exist. But on that note, why couldn't that person just say I have faith in everything and doubt nothing. Sounds like you talking about experiencing doubt in a general sense. I'm talking about experiencing doubt in a specific situation. If I am playing a baseball game, I don't have to doubt I can win before I have faith that I can win. I can be completely confident in my ability and not doubt it at all.

No one has ever not experienced doubt because no one has ever not experienced faith. No one has ever not experienced darkness because no one has ever not experienced light. Doubt does not exist in spite of faith; it exists because of faith; darkness does not exist in spite of light; it exists because of light. Again, it would make no sense to say, "I have faith," if there were no doubt. Just like it would make no sense to say, "Outside, it is dark," if there were no light. To say, "I have faith in the fact oxygen is going into my lungs," makes no sense, because I never had reason to doubt it. In saying, "I have faith in winning this ball game," it would be pointless if you never had reason to doubt it in the first place.

Having doubt is not in the standard English definition of faith.

http://www.merriam-webster.com......

http://dictionary.reference.com......

http://www.thefreedictionary.com......

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com......

Here we have 4 different links all defining the word faith. None of which mention anything about having doubt. To me faith would be the thing keeping someone from having doubt. Again, if I am playing a baseball game, I don't have to doubt I can win before I have faith that I can win. Also the third link posted actually defines faith as: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Thus adding to my original point that faith does not require logic.

They don't have to mention doubt because without it those definitions would be meaningless and irrelevant.

Sorry. It is not my intention to be condescending. The question I'm asking is "If observation is not relative to faith, to what is it relative?".

Observation is relative to science. And logic is relative to science. Logic can only be achieved by adhering to set principles of validity. In this case science in which information is gathered through observation and experimentation.

So, are you saying observation and logic are relative? Because, if they are, saying they have a single or authoritative meaning is a contradiction.
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 4:12:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think I'm going to stop here. We are talking in circles. You aren't basing your definitions of these terms on standard English definitions. You are basing them on your own philosophy. And you don't have anything to back them up except continues examples of light and darkness. I can't argue what you yourself define those terms. And you are defining them. If you won't accept the general definition as stated in all 4 links I've posted, and the scripture itself, there really isn't any point in continuing.
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 11:55:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If you know something, it's not unknown. You can't know the unknown. The unknown ceases to be unknown when you know it. And then you have to ask, was it really unknown to start with, or was it only you who was unknowing?
user_name
Posts: 120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 1:29:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 11:55:05 AM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
If you know something, it's not unknown. You can't know the unknown. The unknown ceases to be unknown when you know it. And then you have to ask, was it really unknown to start with, or was it only you who was unknowing?

Ask the second question in a clearer manner, please.
Best wishes,
user-name.
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 6:25:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 1:29:59 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 11:55:05 AM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
If you know something, it's not unknown. You can't know the unknown. The unknown ceases to be unknown when you know it. And then you have to ask, was it really unknown to start with, or was it only you who was unknowing?

Ask the second question in a clearer manner, please.

The thing that to you is unknown, is it only unknown to you or was it known by somebody before you? If it was known to somebody before you, then it was not unknown, it was only you who was unknowing, right? I thought it was simpler the way I said it the first time. Sorry.
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 9:07:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 2:59:05 PM, s-anthony wrote:

So, are you saying observation and logic are relative? Because, if they are, saying they have a single or authoritative meaning is a contradiction.

I don't think he is arguing that. I just think science has a semantic effect first, and second religion has a pragmatic element. Trying to argue with this guy is pointless.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 9:41:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If you know something, it's not unknown. You can't know the unknown. The unknown ceases to be unknown when you know it. And then you have to ask, was it really unknown to start with, or was it only you who was unknowing?

If you were, merely, to know something without any ignorance of it, you would have no possibility of knowing it. Why...? Because, knowledge is meaningless without ignorance. It is your ignorance that allows you to know. If you were, merely, to know light without any ignorance of it, meaning all you knew were light, you would in fact be unaware of its existence. Light must be unknown before it can be known.
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 10:00:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 9:41:35 PM, s-anthony wrote:
If you know something, it's not unknown. You can't know the unknown. The unknown ceases to be unknown when you know it. And then you have to ask, was it really unknown to start with, or was it only you who was unknowing?

If you were, merely, to know something without any ignorance of it, you would have no possibility of knowing it. Why...? Because, knowledge is meaningless without ignorance. It is your ignorance that allows you to know. If you were, merely, to know light without any ignorance of it, meaning all you knew were light, you would in fact be unaware of its existence. Light must be unknown before it can be known.

ignorance is the lack of knowlede. If you tell the judge that you were unaware that the speed limit was 40 when you got a ticket for doing 60, the Judge would say "ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law. Though the speed limit may have been unknown to you, and there may have been no signs on that road posting the speed limit, the fact that the speed limit was unknown to you did not make you innocent of violating it.

I don't understand your logic with the light example. If you were light, you would reflect on objects around you. The only way you would not know you were shining would be if there was nothing else there.......or if you had no conscience and were nothing more than light, with no ability to recognize anything even if the light shows it is there.

If you know something, you are not ignorant of it. If you are not sure of something, then you really don't know it. You can't know the undnown, and if you know something, what you know cannot be ignored except by willfull ignorance which would be self-delusional.