Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Faith vs. Logic

Sophisto
Posts: 121
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 8:31:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Who shall win? Is it even a fair fight? Faith has endurance, logic has power. Believers are still capable of logic; homo sapiens don't end outside the laboratory. Logicians still use secular faith in ultimately inconsequential things. It seems that they actually complement each other. Skeptical? Your experts can debate all day, but at the end, you have faith in logic and logic has mercy over faith.
Schzincko
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 1:55:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 8:31:13 PM, Sophisto wrote:
Who shall win? Is it even a fair fight? Faith has endurance, logic has power. Believers are still capable of logic; homo sapiens don't end outside the laboratory. Logicians still use secular faith in ultimately inconsequential things. It seems that they actually complement each other. Skeptical? Your experts can debate all day, but at the end, you have faith in logic and logic has mercy over faith.

Logic>Faith, because one's logic feeds their faith.

Saying it in that way implies that you might be suggesting that having faith is illogical, and we don't want that at all, I'm sure.

If you meant to aim for more of like a faith versus observation, then I would side with observation because it is more concrete.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 2:38:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 1:55:43 AM, Schzincko wrote:
At 6/22/2014 8:31:13 PM, Sophisto wrote:
Who shall win? Is it even a fair fight? Faith has endurance, logic has power. Believers are still capable of logic; homo sapiens don't end outside the laboratory. Logicians still use secular faith in ultimately inconsequential things. It seems that they actually complement each other. Skeptical? Your experts can debate all day, but at the end, you have faith in logic and logic has mercy over faith.

Logic>Faith, because one's logic feeds their faith.

Saying it in that way implies that you might be suggesting that having faith is illogical, and we don't want that at all, I'm sure.

If you meant to aim for more of like a faith versus observation, then I would side with observation because it is more concrete.

Faith > Logic.

Look around you. Do you think the world mankind has created is dominated by Logic?

I've never met any functional human being that required everything in their life to be logical.

Faith is described in the bible as something desired and unseen. Something hoped for yet realized.

Observation a sensory perception or measurement of an event.

It seems redundant to say "observation" is more concrete. Like saying between apples and oranges I prefer apples because they are redder.

Look up any decisions making progress and most of the logic involved is heuristics and resource analyses.

Show me the scientific data and observations that guarantee a stock price. Atheist ask did Moses write the torah? Yes he did. How do I know so, because the evidence is just as strong for Shakespeare writing his plays, or Plato writing the Second Letter where it is written "no writing of Plato exists or ever will exist".

Atheist ask how people can have faith in something they can not see. Read the scriptural definition for Faith again. Now how is it so many Atheist put their support behind things like Dark Energy, Quantum Gravity etc.. Things unseen and have zero, zilch, observational evidence for. And see if you link to the gravity lensing effects as evidence for Dark Energy I'll just claim it's space dust and gases, and therefore still NO evidence.

Why believe something some one says, let alone what they say they saw. Reality (stimuli) cause a physical process to occur in the mind. This process is how we perceive things. Now example someone sees an apple, certain areas it he brain light up and they see red and an apple shape. Science can point to these areas in the brain. No one says that because a process inside the brain is happening that there is NO apple. No way says that! But if the perception is a perception of God or something spiritual then, then it is just a perception with no stimuli. Or an hallucination. How do we know the difference? By consensus. If 9 people see a duck and the 1 person sees a cat. Who do we assume has a flawed perception? The 1 seeing a cat. But this same logic is NOT applied to a situation when more then 1 person have the same perception of something spiritual.

Faith > Logic because even Atheist put logic to the way side to hold on to what they believe, or rather I should say so they can hold on to what they identify with.
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 7:54:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 2:38:54 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/23/2014 1:55:43 AM, Schzincko wrote:
At 6/22/2014 8:31:13 PM, Sophisto wrote:
Who shall win? Is it even a fair fight? Faith has endurance, logic has power. Believers are still capable of logic; homo sapiens don't end outside the laboratory. Logicians still use secular faith in ultimately inconsequential things. It seems that they actually complement each other. Skeptical? Your experts can debate all day, but at the end, you have faith in logic and logic has mercy over faith.

Logic>Faith, because one's logic feeds their faith.

Saying it in that way implies that you might be suggesting that having faith is illogical, and we don't want that at all, I'm sure.

If you meant to aim for more of like a faith versus observation, then I would side with observation because it is more concrete.

Faith > Logic.

Look around you. Do you think the world mankind has created is dominated by Logic?

I've never met any functional human being that required everything in their life to be logical.

Faith is described in the bible as something desired and unseen. Something hoped for yet realized.

Observation a sensory perception or measurement of an event.

It seems redundant to say "observation" is more concrete. Like saying between apples and oranges I prefer apples because they are redder.

Look up any decisions making progress and most of the logic involved is heuristics and resource analyses.

Show me the scientific data and observations that guarantee a stock price. Atheist ask did Moses write the torah? Yes he did. How do I know so, because the evidence is just as strong for Shakespeare writing his plays, or Plato writing the Second Letter where it is written "no writing of Plato exists or ever will exist".

Atheist ask how people can have faith in something they can not see. Read the scriptural definition for Faith again. Now how is it so many Atheist put their support behind things like Dark Energy, Quantum Gravity etc.. Things unseen and have zero, zilch, observational evidence for. And see if you link to the gravity lensing effects as evidence for Dark Energy I'll just claim it's space dust and gases, and therefore still NO evidence.

Why believe something some one says, let alone what they say they saw. Reality (stimuli) cause a physical process to occur in the mind. This process is how we perceive things. Now example someone sees an apple, certain areas it he brain light up and they see red and an apple shape. Science can point to these areas in the brain. No one says that because a process inside the brain is happening that there is NO apple. No way says that! But if the perception is a perception of God or something spiritual then, then it is just a perception with no stimuli. Or an hallucination. How do we know the difference? By consensus. If 9 people see a duck and the 1 person sees a cat. Who do we assume has a flawed perception? The 1 seeing a cat. But this same logic is NOT applied to a situation when more then 1 person have the same perception of something spiritual.

Faith > Logic because even Atheist put logic to the way side to hold on to what they believe, or rather I should say so they can hold on to what they identify with.

Faith is useless, it has no remote differentiating factors between 2 contradictory claims. We need to stop using faith as a virtue. I mean someone has faith in the christian god and someone has faith there is no god. How do we tell which is true? Oh thats right we can't.
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 8:09:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 8:31:13 PM, Sophisto wrote:
Who shall win? Is it even a fair fight? Faith has endurance, logic has power. Believers are still capable of logic; homo sapiens don't end outside the laboratory. Logicians still use secular faith in ultimately inconsequential things. It seems that they actually complement each other. Skeptical? Your experts can debate all day, but at the end, you have faith in logic and logic has mercy over faith.

What kind of faith? Blind faith is defers from faith that comes from logical concluson.
Never fart near dog
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 8:22:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 2:38:54 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/23/2014 1:55:43 AM, Schzincko wrote:
At 6/22/2014 8:31:13 PM, Sophisto wrote:
Who shall win? Is it even a fair fight? Faith has endurance, logic has power. Believers are still capable of logic; homo sapiens don't end outside the laboratory. Logicians still use secular faith in ultimately inconsequential things. It seems that they actually complement each other. Skeptical? Your experts can debate all day, but at the end, you have faith in logic and logic has mercy over faith.

Logic>Faith, because one's logic feeds their faith.

Saying it in that way implies that you might be suggesting that having faith is illogical, and we don't want that at all, I'm sure.

If you meant to aim for more of like a faith versus observation, then I would side with observation because it is more concrete.

Faith > Logic.

Look around you. Do you think the world mankind has created is dominated by Logic?

Yeah.


I've never met any functional human being that required everything in their life to be logical.

I've never met any functional human being that required everything in their life to be faith-driven.


Faith is described in the bible as something desired and unseen. Something hoped for yet realized.

Observation a sensory perception or measurement of an event.

It seems redundant to say "observation" is more concrete. Like saying between apples and oranges I prefer apples because they are redder.

Lol.


Look up any decisions making progress and most of the logic involved is heuristics and resource analyses.

Show me the scientific data and observations that guarantee a stock price. Atheist ask did Moses write the torah? Yes he did. How do I know so, because the evidence is just as strong for Shakespeare writing his plays, or Plato writing the Second Letter where it is written "no writing of Plato exists or ever will exist".

Atheist ask how people can have faith in something they can not see. Read the scriptural definition for Faith again. Now how is it so many Atheist put their support behind things like Dark Energy, Quantum Gravity etc.. Things unseen and have zero, zilch, observational evidence for. And see if you link to the gravity lensing effects as evidence for Dark Energy I'll just claim it's space dust and gases, and therefore still NO evidence.

No evidence lol.


Why believe something some one says, let alone what they say they saw. Reality (stimuli) cause a physical process to occur in the mind. This process is how we perceive things. Now example someone sees an apple, certain areas it he brain light up and they see red and an apple shape. Science can point to these areas in the brain. No one says that because a process inside the brain is happening that there is NO apple. No way says that! But if the perception is a perception of God or something spiritual then, then it is just a perception with no stimuli. Or an hallucination. How do we know the difference? By consensus. If 9 people see a duck and the 1 person sees a cat. Who do we assume has a flawed perception? The 1 seeing a cat. But this same logic is NOT applied to a situation when more then 1 person have the same perception of something spiritual.

I don't only trust what people say they've seen no matter what.


Faith > Logic because even Atheist put logic to the way side to hold on to what they believe, or rather I should say so they can hold on to what they identify with.

So because we're not 100% logical faith is better? Written on something that was created by repeatedly using logic to understand the world around us?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
slo1
Posts: 4,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 8:50:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 2:38:54 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/23/2014 1:55:43 AM, Schzincko wrote:
At 6/22/2014 8:31:13 PM, Sophisto wrote:
Who shall win? Is it even a fair fight? Faith has endurance, logic has power. Believers are still capable of logic; homo sapiens don't end outside the laboratory. Logicians still use secular faith in ultimately inconsequential things. It seems that they actually complement each other. Skeptical? Your experts can debate all day, but at the end, you have faith in logic and logic has mercy over faith.

Logic>Faith, because one's logic feeds their faith.

Saying it in that way implies that you might be suggesting that having faith is illogical, and we don't want that at all, I'm sure.

If you meant to aim for more of like a faith versus observation, then I would side with observation because it is more concrete.

Faith > Logic.

Look around you. Do you think the world mankind has created is dominated by Logic?

I've never met any functional human being that required everything in their life to be logical.

Faith is described in the bible as something desired and unseen. Something hoped for yet realized.

Observation a sensory perception or measurement of an event.

It seems redundant to say "observation" is more concrete. Like saying between apples and oranges I prefer apples because they are redder.

Look up any decisions making progress and most of the logic involved is heuristics and resource analyses.

Show me the scientific data and observations that guarantee a stock price. Atheist ask did Moses write the torah? Yes he did. How do I know so, because the evidence is just as strong for Shakespeare writing his plays, or Plato writing the Second Letter where it is written "no writing of Plato exists or ever will exist".

Atheist ask how people can have faith in something they can not see. Read the scriptural definition for Faith again. Now how is it so many Atheist put their support behind things like Dark Energy, Quantum Gravity etc.. Things unseen and have zero, zilch, observational evidence for. And see if you link to the gravity lensing effects as evidence for Dark Energy I'll just claim it's space dust and gases, and therefore still NO evidence.


This is a great example of logic versus faith. Take Dark Energy. It's existence is logically inferred because the rate of expansion between galaxy's are speeding up. Logic tells us that inference is a great way to determine a hypothesis. It also tells us that inference alone is not enough proof to believe in something, so the scientific community is working hard at finding evidence that would either prove or disprove dark energy.

Logic has done more for the world than faith ever has. Faith since it is not validated has resulted in thousands of disparate religions and beliefs that are not compatible and clearly demonstrate it is not a valid pathway to discover the truth or if it is a valid pathway it only works for few and not everyone.

Why believe something some one says, let alone what they say they saw. Reality (stimuli) cause a physical process to occur in the mind. This process is how we perceive things. Now example someone sees an apple, certain areas it he brain light up and they see red and an apple shape. Science can point to these areas in the brain. No one says that because a process inside the brain is happening that there is NO apple. No way says that! But if the perception is a perception of God or something spiritual then, then it is just a perception with no stimuli. Or an hallucination. How do we know the difference? By consensus. If 9 people see a duck and the 1 person sees a cat. Who do we assume has a flawed perception? The 1 seeing a cat. But this same logic is NOT applied to a situation when more then 1 person have the same perception of something spiritual.

Faith > Logic because even Atheist put logic to the way side to hold on to what they believe, or rather I should say so they can hold on to what they identify with.
Schzincko
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 2:02:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 8:09:42 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 6/22/2014 8:31:13 PM, Sophisto wrote:
Who shall win? Is it even a fair fight? Faith has endurance, logic has power. Believers are still capable of logic; homo sapiens don't end outside the laboratory. Logicians still use secular faith in ultimately inconsequential things. It seems that they actually complement each other. Skeptical? Your experts can debate all day, but at the end, you have faith in logic and logic has mercy over faith.

What kind of faith? Blind faith is defers from faith that comes from logical concluson.

That's a good question. I had already jumped to conclusions.
Schzincko
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 2:38:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 2:38:54 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/23/2014 1:55:43 AM, Schzincko wrote:
At 6/22/2014 8:31:13 PM, Sophisto wrote:
Who shall win? Is it even a fair fight? Faith has endurance, logic has power. Believers are still capable of logic; homo sapiens don't end outside the laboratory. Logicians still use secular faith in ultimately inconsequential things. It seems that they actually complement each other. Skeptical? Your experts can debate all day, but at the end, you have faith in logic and logic has mercy over faith.

Logic>Faith, because one's logic feeds their faith.

Saying it in that way implies that you might be suggesting that having faith is illogical, and we don't want that at all, I'm sure.

If you meant to aim for more of like a faith versus observation, then I would side with observation because it is more concrete.

Faith > Logic.

Look around you. Do you think the world mankind has created is dominated by Logic?

I've never met any functional human being that required everything in their life to be logical.

Faith is described in the bible as something desired and unseen. Something hoped for yet realized.

Observation a sensory perception or measurement of an event.

It seems redundant to say "observation" is more concrete. Like saying between apples and oranges I prefer apples because they are redder.

Look up any decisions making progress and most of the logic involved is heuristics and resource analyses.

Show me the scientific data and observations that guarantee a stock price. Atheist ask did Moses write the torah? Yes he did. How do I know so, because the evidence is just as strong for Shakespeare writing his plays, or Plato writing the Second Letter where it is written "no writing of Plato exists or ever will exist".

Atheist ask how people can have faith in something they can not see. Read the scriptural definition for Faith again. Now how is it so many Atheist put their support behind things like Dark Energy, Quantum Gravity etc.. Things unseen and have zero, zilch, observational evidence for. And see if you link to the gravity lensing effects as evidence for Dark Energy I'll just claim it's space dust and gases, and therefore still NO evidence.

Why believe something some one says, let alone what they say they saw. Reality (stimuli) cause a physical process to occur in the mind. This process is how we perceive things. Now example someone sees an apple, certain areas it he brain light up and they see red and an apple shape. Science can point to these areas in the brain. No one says that because a process inside the brain is happening that there is NO apple. No way says that! But if the perception is a perception of God or something spiritual then, then it is just a perception with no stimuli. Or an hallucination. How do we know the difference? By consensus. If 9 people see a duck and the 1 person sees a cat. Who do we assume has a flawed perception? The 1 seeing a cat. But this same logic is NOT applied to a situation when more then 1 person have the same perception of something spiritual.

Faith > Logic because even Atheist put logic to the way side to hold on to what they believe, or rather I should say so they can hold on to what they identify with.

Okay, so I should rephrase that. Observation is something that occurs when one witnesses a concrete noun or an occurrence that can physically be interacted with.

In other words, in comparison to what would be blind faith, which is what I interpreted the faith in question as, observation is something that you cannot have doubts on, no matter what you believe. Like the apple- If I observed an apple sitting on my kitchen counter, there is no way that I can deny it's existence without sounding delusional because it is there.

This, versus if I had my eyes shut and could not see the apple. It could make sense to think the apple is there, and it may be. But it's a 50/50 chance if I had never opened my eyes to see it there, put it there, or even be able to find it and touch it.

That was a very weak example, but reading it and not ripping it apart piece by piece makes things clearer as to my intentions.

So back to faith and logic. I already stated that blind faith, as in a religious belief or even just superstition- it's fed by logic. You think of things and how they began, and the way you were taught by your teachers, parents, peers and personal experience leads you (logically) to have faith in something. Your brain just ties things together and draws that conclusion. To others, with different teachings and experiences, they may oppose your faith.

I agree with your statement that atheists also have faith. Everybody does. It's like bias. Everyone has it. But our faith comes from logical determination.

I'm not saying faith is weak or unnecessary. All I am getting at is that one can't say which is stronger because faith stands as a result of logic.
Schzincko
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 2:48:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 7:54:35 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/23/2014 2:38:54 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/23/2014 1:55:43 AM, Schzincko wrote:
At 6/22/2014 8:31:13 PM, Sophisto wrote:
Who shall win? Is it even a fair fight? Faith has endurance, logic has power. Believers are still capable of logic; homo sapiens don't end outside the laboratory. Logicians still use secular faith in ultimately inconsequential things. It seems that they actually complement each other. Skeptical? Your experts can debate all day, but at the end, you have faith in logic and logic has mercy over faith.

Logic>Faith, because one's logic feeds their faith.

Saying it in that way implies that you might be suggesting that having faith is illogical, and we don't want that at all, I'm sure.

If you meant to aim for more of like a faith versus observation, then I would side with observation because it is more concrete.

Faith > Logic.

Look around you. Do you think the world mankind has created is dominated by Logic?

I've never met any functional human being that required everything in their life to be logical.

Faith is described in the bible as something desired and unseen. Something hoped for yet realized.

Observation a sensory perception or measurement of an event.

It seems redundant to say "observation" is more concrete. Like saying between apples and oranges I prefer apples because they are redder.

Look up any decisions making progress and most of the logic involved is heuristics and resource analyses.

Show me the scientific data and observations that guarantee a stock price. Atheist ask did Moses write the torah? Yes he did. How do I know so, because the evidence is just as strong for Shakespeare writing his plays, or Plato writing the Second Letter where it is written "no writing of Plato exists or ever will exist".

Atheist ask how people can have faith in something they can not see. Read the scriptural definition for Faith again. Now how is it so many Atheist put their support behind things like Dark Energy, Quantum Gravity etc.. Things unseen and have zero, zilch, observational evidence for. And see if you link to the gravity lensing effects as evidence for Dark Energy I'll just claim it's space dust and gases, and therefore still NO evidence.

Why believe something some one says, let alone what they say they saw. Reality (stimuli) cause a physical process to occur in the mind. This process is how we perceive things. Now example someone sees an apple, certain areas it he brain light up and they see red and an apple shape. Science can point to these areas in the brain. No one says that because a process inside the brain is happening that there is NO apple. No way says that! But if the perception is a perception of God or something spiritual then, then it is just a perception with no stimuli. Or an hallucination. How do we know the difference? By consensus. If 9 people see a duck and the 1 person sees a cat. Who do we assume has a flawed perception? The 1 seeing a cat. But this same logic is NOT applied to a situation when more then 1 person have the same perception of something spiritual.

Faith > Logic because even Atheist put logic to the way side to hold on to what they believe, or rather I should say so they can hold on to what they identify with.

Faith is useless, it has no remote differentiating factors between 2 contradictory claims. We need to stop using faith as a virtue. I mean someone has faith in the christian god and someone has faith there is no god. How do we tell which is true? Oh thats right we can't.

That's only blind faith. And you're right, there is absolutely no way of knowing which is right until you die. And even then, I've read statements from people who have had near death experiences or died and been revived and they way they described their experience coincided with their beliefs, every time, without fail. This gives me the impression that your brain will still hold on to your beliefs in those last few moments until it stops working.

But there is more than just blind faith. Like for example, I have faith that the Dallas Cowboys are a force to be feared on the football field, even though I'm sure most people on this forum will disagree and follow up with hate mail. That's okay, I've heard it all before. But I'm still faithful that they have a chance to win the Superbowl.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 2:55:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 8:22:48 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/23/2014 2:38:54 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/23/2014 1:55:43 AM, Schzincko wrote:
At 6/22/2014 8:31:13 PM, Sophisto wrote:
Who shall win? Is it even a fair fight? Faith has endurance, logic has power. Believers are still capable of logic; homo sapiens don't end outside the laboratory. Logicians still use secular faith in ultimately inconsequential things. It seems that they actually complement each other. Skeptical? Your experts can debate all day, but at the end, you have faith in logic and logic has mercy over faith.

Logic>Faith, because one's logic feeds their faith.

Saying it in that way implies that you might be suggesting that having faith is illogical, and we don't want that at all, I'm sure.

If you meant to aim for more of like a faith versus observation, then I would side with observation because it is more concrete.

Faith > Logic.

Look around you. Do you think the world mankind has created is dominated by Logic?

Yeah.

Really? I think you need to look up what Logic is. Because people go through day to day not challenging every claim, accepting things as true on rhetoric and source, manufacture in non sustainable ways, grow food but the vitamins and minerals of which get flushed to sea, people think a site that has 50,000 simultaneous users is worth 600 Million dollars, drug companies spend money to treat symptoms and side effects not diseases, 50% of the world is obese, the other is starving, etc..

I disagree with your assessment.



I've never met any functional human being that required everything in their life to be logical.

I've never met any functional human being that required everything in their life to be faith-driven.

I've met people like that. They had very little understanding of what logic was and barely asked questions about things. Not saying that is good. Just saying Not even the most autistic person is 100% logic. Logic does not answer enough for us to go through our day to day life. If some one were 100% logic most of their answers would be I don't know.



Faith is described in the bible as something desired and unseen. Something hoped for yet realized.

Observation a sensory perception or measurement of an event.

It seems redundant to say "observation" is more concrete. Like saying between apples and oranges I prefer apples because they are redder.

Lol.


Look up any decisions making progress and most of the logic involved is heuristics and resource analyses.

Show me the scientific data and observations that guarantee a stock price. Atheist ask did Moses write the torah? Yes he did. How do I know so, because the evidence is just as strong for Shakespeare writing his plays, or Plato writing the Second Letter where it is written "no writing of Plato exists or ever will exist".

Atheist ask how people can have faith in something they can not see. Read the scriptural definition for Faith again. Now how is it so many Atheist put their support behind things like Dark Energy, Quantum Gravity etc.. Things unseen and have zero, zilch, observational evidence for. And see if you link to the gravity lensing effects as evidence for Dark Energy I'll just claim it's space dust and gases, and therefore still NO evidence.

No evidence lol.

There is no evidence for dark energy. Or that a quantum fluctuation cold cause the big bang. (more facts suggest it can not)



Why believe something some one says, let alone what they say they saw. Reality (stimuli) cause a physical process to occur in the mind. This process is how we perceive things. Now example someone sees an apple, certain areas it he brain light up and they see red and an apple shape. Science can point to these areas in the brain. No one says that because a process inside the brain is happening that there is NO apple. No way says that! But if the perception is a perception of God or something spiritual then, then it is just a perception with no stimuli. Or an hallucination. How do we know the difference? By consensus. If 9 people see a duck and the 1 person sees a cat. Who do we assume has a flawed perception? The 1 seeing a cat. But this same logic is NOT applied to a situation when more then 1 person have the same perception of something spiritual.

I don't only trust what people say they've seen no matter what.


Faith > Logic because even Atheist put logic to the way side to hold on to what they believe, or rather I should say so they can hold on to what they identify with.

So because we're not 100% logical faith is better? Written on something that was created by repeatedly using logic to understand the world around us?

Faith is Hope. Faith is assuming something is true just because. It really is how most people go through their days and life.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 5:41:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 2:55:46 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/23/2014 8:22:48 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/23/2014 2:38:54 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/23/2014 1:55:43 AM, Schzincko wrote:
At 6/22/2014 8:31:13 PM, Sophisto wrote:
Who shall win? Is it even a fair fight? Faith has endurance, logic has power. Believers are still capable of logic; homo sapiens don't end outside the laboratory. Logicians still use secular faith in ultimately inconsequential things. It seems that they actually complement each other. Skeptical? Your experts can debate all day, but at the end, you have faith in logic and logic has mercy over faith.

Logic>Faith, because one's logic feeds their faith.

Saying it in that way implies that you might be suggesting that having faith is illogical, and we don't want that at all, I'm sure.

If you meant to aim for more of like a faith versus observation, then I would side with observation because it is more concrete.

Faith > Logic.

Look around you. Do you think the world mankind has created is dominated by Logic?

Yeah.

Really? I think you need to look up what Logic is. Because people go through day to day not challenging every claim, accepting things as true on rhetoric and source, manufacture in non sustainable ways, grow food but the vitamins and minerals of which get flushed to sea, people think a site that has 50,000 simultaneous users is worth 600 Million dollars, drug companies spend money to treat symptoms and side effects not diseases, 50% of the world is obese, the other is starving, etc..

Most the things we've created were through logical means.


I disagree with your assessment.



I've never met any functional human being that required everything in their life to be logical.

I've never met any functional human being that required everything in their life to be faith-driven.

I've met people like that. They had very little understanding of what logic was and barely asked questions about things. Not saying that is good. Just saying Not even the most autistic person is 100% logic. Logic does not answer enough for us to go through our day to day life. If some one were 100% logic most of their answers would be I don't know.

I wouldn't call that person functional.




Faith is described in the bible as something desired and unseen. Something hoped for yet realized.

Observation a sensory perception or measurement of an event.

It seems redundant to say "observation" is more concrete. Like saying between apples and oranges I prefer apples because they are redder.

Lol.


Look up any decisions making progress and most of the logic involved is heuristics and resource analyses.

Show me the scientific data and observations that guarantee a stock price. Atheist ask did Moses write the torah? Yes he did. How do I know so, because the evidence is just as strong for Shakespeare writing his plays, or Plato writing the Second Letter where it is written "no writing of Plato exists or ever will exist".

Atheist ask how people can have faith in something they can not see. Read the scriptural definition for Faith again. Now how is it so many Atheist put their support behind things like Dark Energy, Quantum Gravity etc.. Things unseen and have zero, zilch, observational evidence for. And see if you link to the gravity lensing effects as evidence for Dark Energy I'll just claim it's space dust and gases, and therefore still NO evidence.

No evidence lol.

There is no evidence for dark energy. Or that a quantum fluctuation cold cause the big bang. (more facts suggest it can not)

They are specific theories about how our universe may work so they're being investigated. Not all "faith" is equal.




Why believe something some one says, let alone what they say they saw. Reality (stimuli) cause a physical process to occur in the mind. This process is how we perceive things. Now example someone sees an apple, certain areas it he brain light up and they see red and an apple shape. Science can point to these areas in the brain. No one says that because a process inside the brain is happening that there is NO apple. No way says that! But if the perception is a perception of God or something spiritual then, then it is just a perception with no stimuli. Or an hallucination. How do we know the difference? By consensus. If 9 people see a duck and the 1 person sees a cat. Who do we assume has a flawed perception? The 1 seeing a cat. But this same logic is NOT applied to a situation when more then 1 person have the same perception of something spiritual.

I don't only trust what people say they've seen no matter what.


Faith > Logic because even Atheist put logic to the way side to hold on to what they believe, or rather I should say so they can hold on to what they identify with.

So because we're not 100% logical faith is better? Written on something that was created by repeatedly using logic to understand the world around us?

Faith is Hope. Faith is assuming something is true just because. It really is how most people go through their days and life.

But it's not able to build the world we have alone. Saying it is better than logic is a strange statement.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 8:19:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Few things annoy me more then a discussion about faith without defining it.

My definition of faith is "belief without evidence". I have heard many others. If faith is simply believing is something, then just use the word belief. If faith is hope, then just use the word hope. If faith is the result of logic, that is called a logical conclusion.

Unless you are talking about believing something in the absence of evidence, I see no reason to use the word faith. And I find it interesting how many theists refer to faith as if it is a virtue, yet cannot provide an definition to support that implication while making sense in the context they were using it in.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 9:18:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 8:19:45 PM, Double_R wrote:
Few things annoy me more then a discussion about faith without defining it.

My definition of faith is "belief without evidence". I have heard many others. If faith is simply believing is something, then just use the word belief. If faith is hope, then just use the word hope. If faith is the result of logic, that is called a logical conclusion.

Unless you are talking about believing something in the absence of evidence, I see no reason to use the word faith. And I find it interesting how many theists refer to faith as if it is a virtue, yet cannot provide an definition to support that implication while making sense in the context they were using it in.

So there is what, no such thing as a reasonable belief, or reasonable hope?
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 9:24:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 8:31:13 PM, Sophisto wrote:
Who shall win? Is it even a fair fight? Faith has endurance, logic has power. Believers are still capable of logic; homo sapiens don't end outside the laboratory. Logicians still use secular faith in ultimately inconsequential things. It seems that they actually complement each other. Skeptical? Your experts can debate all day, but at the end, you have faith in logic and logic has mercy over faith.

I personally believe that every person's faith should contain a healthy dollop of logic. Faith arises from a combination of what can be proved and what can't be disproved. It comes from studying everything about us until our minds reach a balance based on what it must believe and what it can't believe. Showing that a thing is very unlikely and unbelievable is just as convincing as showing the opposite.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 9:30:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 1:55:43 AM, Schzincko wrote:
At 6/22/2014 8:31:13 PM, Sophisto wrote:
Who shall win? Is it even a fair fight? Faith has endurance, logic has power. Believers are still capable of logic; homo sapiens don't end outside the laboratory. Logicians still use secular faith in ultimately inconsequential things. It seems that they actually complement each other. Skeptical? Your experts can debate all day, but at the end, you have faith in logic and logic has mercy over faith.

Logic>Faith, because one's logic feeds their faith.

Saying it in that way implies that you might be suggesting that having faith is illogical, and we don't want that at all, I'm sure.

If you meant to aim for more of like a faith versus observation, then I would side with observation because it is more concrete.

And yet we are constantly reminded by our atheist friends that observation is unreliable, especially when it comes in the form of direct personal experience.

I don't see why logic would be greater than faith just because it feeds it. A network of tributaries feed into a river, yet none of them are greater than the river itself. Logic would be but one part of the faith, and thus not greater than the whole.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 9:36:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 7:54:35 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 6/23/2014 2:38:54 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/23/2014 1:55:43 AM, Schzincko wrote:
At 6/22/2014 8:31:13 PM, Sophisto wrote:
Who shall win? Is it even a fair fight? Faith has endurance, logic has power. Believers are still capable of logic; homo sapiens don't end outside the laboratory. Logicians still use secular faith in ultimately inconsequential things. It seems that they actually complement each other. Skeptical? Your experts can debate all day, but at the end, you have faith in logic and logic has mercy over faith.

Logic>Faith, because one's logic feeds their faith.

Saying it in that way implies that you might be suggesting that having faith is illogical, and we don't want that at all, I'm sure.

If you meant to aim for more of like a faith versus observation, then I would side with observation because it is more concrete.

Faith > Logic.

Look around you. Do you think the world mankind has created is dominated by Logic?

I've never met any functional human being that required everything in their life to be logical.

Faith is described in the bible as something desired and unseen. Something hoped for yet realized.

Observation a sensory perception or measurement of an event.

It seems redundant to say "observation" is more concrete. Like saying between apples and oranges I prefer apples because they are redder.

Look up any decisions making progress and most of the logic involved is heuristics and resource analyses.

Show me the scientific data and observations that guarantee a stock price. Atheist ask did Moses write the torah? Yes he did. How do I know so, because the evidence is just as strong for Shakespeare writing his plays, or Plato writing the Second Letter where it is written "no writing of Plato exists or ever will exist".

Atheist ask how people can have faith in something they can not see. Read the scriptural definition for Faith again. Now how is it so many Atheist put their support behind things like Dark Energy, Quantum Gravity etc.. Things unseen and have zero, zilch, observational evidence for. And see if you link to the gravity lensing effects as evidence for Dark Energy I'll just claim it's space dust and gases, and therefore still NO evidence.

Why believe something some one says, let alone what they say they saw. Reality (stimuli) cause a physical process to occur in the mind. This process is how we perceive things. Now example someone sees an apple, certain areas it he brain light up and they see red and an apple shape. Science can point to these areas in the brain. No one says that because a process inside the brain is happening that there is NO apple. No way says that! But if the perception is a perception of God or something spiritual then, then it is just a perception with no stimuli. Or an hallucination. How do we know the difference? By consensus. If 9 people see a duck and the 1 person sees a cat. Who do we assume has a flawed perception? The 1 seeing a cat. But this same logic is NOT applied to a situation when more then 1 person have the same perception of something spiritual.

Faith > Logic because even Atheist put logic to the way side to hold on to what they believe, or rather I should say so they can hold on to what they identify with.

Faith is useless, it has no remote differentiating factors between 2 contradictory claims. We need to stop using faith as a virtue. I mean someone has faith in the christian god and someone has faith there is no god. How do we tell which is true? Oh thats right we can't.

Faith drives people onward to success. If I do not believe that I can win the race then I most likely will not win the race. If I do not believe in dark energy then I'll have a hard time convincing anyone else that it exists. People are personally biased wherever God is concerned, and that is a subjective characteristic, not an objective one.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 9:42:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 8:50:51 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/23/2014 2:38:54 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/23/2014 1:55:43 AM, Schzincko wrote:
At 6/22/2014 8:31:13 PM, Sophisto wrote:
Who shall win? Is it even a fair fight? Faith has endurance, logic has power. Believers are still capable of logic; homo sapiens don't end outside the laboratory. Logicians still use secular faith in ultimately inconsequential things. It seems that they actually complement each other. Skeptical? Your experts can debate all day, but at the end, you have faith in logic and logic has mercy over faith.

Logic>Faith, because one's logic feeds their faith.

Saying it in that way implies that you might be suggesting that having faith is illogical, and we don't want that at all, I'm sure.

If you meant to aim for more of like a faith versus observation, then I would side with observation because it is more concrete.

Faith > Logic.

Look around you. Do you think the world mankind has created is dominated by Logic?

I've never met any functional human being that required everything in their life to be logical.

Faith is described in the bible as something desired and unseen. Something hoped for yet realized.

Observation a sensory perception or measurement of an event.

It seems redundant to say "observation" is more concrete. Like saying between apples and oranges I prefer apples because they are redder.

Look up any decisions making progress and most of the logic involved is heuristics and resource analyses.

Show me the scientific data and observations that guarantee a stock price. Atheist ask did Moses write the torah? Yes he did. How do I know so, because the evidence is just as strong for Shakespeare writing his plays, or Plato writing the Second Letter where it is written "no writing of Plato exists or ever will exist".

Atheist ask how people can have faith in something they can not see. Read the scriptural definition for Faith again. Now how is it so many Atheist put their support behind things like Dark Energy, Quantum Gravity etc.. Things unseen and have zero, zilch, observational evidence for. And see if you link to the gravity lensing effects as evidence for Dark Energy I'll just claim it's space dust and gases, and therefore still NO evidence.


This is a great example of logic versus faith. Take Dark Energy. It's existence is logically inferred because the rate of expansion between galaxy's are speeding up. Logic tells us that inference is a great way to determine a hypothesis. It also tells us that inference alone is not enough proof to believe in something, so the scientific community is working hard at finding evidence that would either prove or disprove dark energy.

Logic has done more for the world than faith ever has. Faith since it is not validated has resulted in thousands of disparate religions and beliefs that are not compatible and clearly demonstrate it is not a valid pathway to discover the truth or if it is a valid pathway it only works for few and not everyone.



Why believe something some one says, let alone what they say they saw. Reality (stimuli) cause a physical process to occur in the mind. This process is how we perceive things. Now example someone sees an apple, certain areas it he brain light up and they see red and an apple shape. Science can point to these areas in the brain. No one says that because a process inside the brain is happening that there is NO apple. No way says that! But if the perception is a perception of God or something spiritual then, then it is just a perception with no stimuli. Or an hallucination. How do we know the difference? By consensus. If 9 people see a duck and the 1 person sees a cat. Who do we assume has a flawed perception? The 1 seeing a cat. But this same logic is NOT applied to a situation when more then 1 person have the same perception of something spiritual.

Faith > Logic because even Atheist put logic to the way side to hold on to what they believe, or rather I should say so they can hold on to what they identify with.

I think it's wrong to say that "logic has done more for the world than faith ever has." It might be accurate to say that logic has done more for science, but some of the greatest achievements in the history of man, including most of the official "wonders" of the world, were achieved because of faith or a dream. Logic is a wonderful tool, but it is faith that brings people together. Even scientists must form a consensus of faith in certain theories order for their theories to possess the proper authority.
Schzincko
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 10:43:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 9:30:36 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 6/23/2014 1:55:43 AM, Schzincko wrote:
At 6/22/2014 8:31:13 PM, Sophisto wrote:
Who shall win? Is it even a fair fight? Faith has endurance, logic has power. Believers are still capable of logic; homo sapiens don't end outside the laboratory. Logicians still use secular faith in ultimately inconsequential things. It seems that they actually complement each other. Skeptical? Your experts can debate all day, but at the end, you have faith in logic and logic has mercy over faith.

Logic>Faith, because one's logic feeds their faith.

Saying it in that way implies that you might be suggesting that having faith is illogical, and we don't want that at all, I'm sure.

If you meant to aim for more of like a faith versus observation, then I would side with observation because it is more concrete.

And yet we are constantly reminded by our atheist friends that observation is unreliable, especially when it comes in the form of direct personal experience.

I don't see why logic would be greater than faith just because it feeds it. A network of tributaries feed into a river, yet none of them are greater than the river itself. Logic would be but one part of the faith, and thus not greater than the whole.

I actually am an atheist myself, but I find observation to be powerful because there are so many ways to interpret the things we observe.

I'm not saying necessarily that logic is more powerful, but that it's hard to compare them. One cannot have faith without logic, because then they would not a reason to believe. But also, there is no point to having logic if one has absolutely zero faith in anything (not by biblical definition, but by dictionary means) because then the person becomes hopelessly indecisive.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 11:19:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 10:43:07 PM, Schzincko wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:30:36 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 6/23/2014 1:55:43 AM, Schzincko wrote:
At 6/22/2014 8:31:13 PM, Sophisto wrote:
Who shall win? Is it even a fair fight? Faith has endurance, logic has power. Believers are still capable of logic; homo sapiens don't end outside the laboratory. Logicians still use secular faith in ultimately inconsequential things. It seems that they actually complement each other. Skeptical? Your experts can debate all day, but at the end, you have faith in logic and logic has mercy over faith.

Logic>Faith, because one's logic feeds their faith.

Saying it in that way implies that you might be suggesting that having faith is illogical, and we don't want that at all, I'm sure.

If you meant to aim for more of like a faith versus observation, then I would side with observation because it is more concrete.

And yet we are constantly reminded by our atheist friends that observation is unreliable, especially when it comes in the form of direct personal experience.

I don't see why logic would be greater than faith just because it feeds it. A network of tributaries feed into a river, yet none of them are greater than the river itself. Logic would be but one part of the faith, and thus not greater than the whole.

I actually am an atheist myself, but I find observation to be powerful because there are so many ways to interpret the things we observe.

I'm not saying necessarily that logic is more powerful, but that it's hard to compare them. One cannot have faith without logic, because then they would not a reason to believe. But also, there is no point to having logic if one has absolutely zero faith in anything (not by biblical definition, but by dictionary means) because then the person becomes hopelessly indecisive.

And yet it happens. I've come-across many a man who had total faith in his own worth with no logical reason to do so. There is a person of every kind, I think.

I sort of assumed you were an atheist. I've been accused of being anything from a closet Christian to a heathen, but most often something to the tune of being a fence-sitter. The truth is I think the best view of both sides comes from atop the fence separating them, and that this is the best position from which to promote mutual respect and thoughtful debate, but that doesn't mean I don't have my own views and thoughts. I believe in a higher order, mostly because of my own experiences and because I belief that our existence has both reason and worth. I guess you could say that I believe people are more than the sum of their visible parts.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 4:06:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 11:19:26 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 6/24/2014 10:43:07 PM, Schzincko wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:30:36 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 6/23/2014 1:55:43 AM, Schzincko wrote:
At 6/22/2014 8:31:13 PM, Sophisto wrote:
Who shall win? Is it even a fair fight? Faith has endurance, logic has power. Believers are still capable of logic; homo sapiens don't end outside the laboratory. Logicians still use secular faith in ultimately inconsequential things. It seems that they actually complement each other. Skeptical? Your experts can debate all day, but at the end, you have faith in logic and logic has mercy over faith.

Logic>Faith, because one's logic feeds their faith.

Saying it in that way implies that you might be suggesting that having faith is illogical, and we don't want that at all, I'm sure.

If you meant to aim for more of like a faith versus observation, then I would side with observation because it is more concrete.

And yet we are constantly reminded by our atheist friends that observation is unreliable, especially when it comes in the form of direct personal experience.

I don't see why logic would be greater than faith just because it feeds it. A network of tributaries feed into a river, yet none of them are greater than the river itself. Logic would be but one part of the faith, and thus not greater than the whole.

I actually am an atheist myself, but I find observation to be powerful because there are so many ways to interpret the things we observe.

I'm not saying necessarily that logic is more powerful, but that it's hard to compare them. One cannot have faith without logic, because then they would not a reason to believe. But also, there is no point to having logic if one has absolutely zero faith in anything (not by biblical definition, but by dictionary means) because then the person becomes hopelessly indecisive.

And yet it happens. I've come-across many a man who had total faith in his own worth with no logical reason to do so. There is a person of every kind, I think.

I sort of assumed you were an atheist. I've been accused of being anything from a closet Christian to a heathen, but most often something to the tune of being a fence-sitter. The truth is I think the best view of both sides comes from atop the fence separating them, and that this is the best position from which to promote mutual respect and thoughtful debate, but that doesn't mean I don't have my own views and thoughts. I believe in a higher order, mostly because of my own experiences and because I belief that our existence has both reason and worth. I guess you could say that I believe people are more than the sum of their visible parts.

Fence sitter always makes me think of this joke. I wonder if you have heard it. Get's a chuckle from me.

There was a large group of people gathered. On one side of the group stood a man, Jesus. On the other side stood another, Satan. Seperating them was a fence running through the group. The scene set, both Jesus and Satan began calling to people in the group. One by one, each having made up his or her own mind, went to either Jesus or Satan. This kept going for a time. Soon enough, Jesus had gathered around him a group of people from the larger crowd, as did Satan.

One man joined neither group. He climbed the fence that was there and sat on it. Jesus and his people left and disappeared, and so too did Satan and his people. The man on the fence sat alone. As this man sat, Satan came back, looking for something which he appeared to have lost. The man said, "Have you lost something?" Satan looked straight at him and replied, "No, there you are. Come with me." The man said, "But I sat on the fence. I chose neither you nor him." Satan said, "That's okay; I own the fence."
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 6:44:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 4:06:26 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/24/2014 11:19:26 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 6/24/2014 10:43:07 PM, Schzincko wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:30:36 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 6/23/2014 1:55:43 AM, Schzincko wrote:
At 6/22/2014 8:31:13 PM, Sophisto wrote:
Who shall win? Is it even a fair fight? Faith has endurance, logic has power. Believers are still capable of logic; homo sapiens don't end outside the laboratory. Logicians still use secular faith in ultimately inconsequential things. It seems that they actually complement each other. Skeptical? Your experts can debate all day, but at the end, you have faith in logic and logic has mercy over faith.

Logic>Faith, because one's logic feeds their faith.

Saying it in that way implies that you might be suggesting that having faith is illogical, and we don't want that at all, I'm sure.

If you meant to aim for more of like a faith versus observation, then I would side with observation because it is more concrete.

And yet we are constantly reminded by our atheist friends that observation is unreliable, especially when it comes in the form of direct personal experience.

I don't see why logic would be greater than faith just because it feeds it. A network of tributaries feed into a river, yet none of them are greater than the river itself. Logic would be but one part of the faith, and thus not greater than the whole.

I actually am an atheist myself, but I find observation to be powerful because there are so many ways to interpret the things we observe.

I'm not saying necessarily that logic is more powerful, but that it's hard to compare them. One cannot have faith without logic, because then they would not a reason to believe. But also, there is no point to having logic if one has absolutely zero faith in anything (not by biblical definition, but by dictionary means) because then the person becomes hopelessly indecisive.

And yet it happens. I've come-across many a man who had total faith in his own worth with no logical reason to do so. There is a person of every kind, I think.

I sort of assumed you were an atheist. I've been accused of being anything from a closet Christian to a heathen, but most often something to the tune of being a fence-sitter. The truth is I think the best view of both sides comes from atop the fence separating them, and that this is the best position from which to promote mutual respect and thoughtful debate, but that doesn't mean I don't have my own views and thoughts. I believe in a higher order, mostly because of my own experiences and because I belief that our existence has both reason and worth. I guess you could say that I believe people are more than the sum of their visible parts.

Fence sitter always makes me think of this joke. I wonder if you have heard it. Get's a chuckle from me.

There was a large group of people gathered. On one side of the group stood a man, Jesus. On the other side stood another, Satan. Seperating them was a fence running through the group. The scene set, both Jesus and Satan began calling to people in the group. One by one, each having made up his or her own mind, went to either Jesus or Satan. This kept going for a time. Soon enough, Jesus had gathered around him a group of people from the larger crowd, as did Satan.

One man joined neither group. He climbed the fence that was there and sat on it. Jesus and his people left and disappeared, and so too did Satan and his people. The man on the fence sat alone. As this man sat, Satan came back, looking for something which he appeared to have lost. The man said, "Have you lost something?" Satan looked straight at him and replied, "No, there you are. Come with me." The man said, "But I sat on the fence. I chose neither you nor him." Satan said, "That's okay; I own the fence."

I've heard something similar to it, the general meaning seeming to be that there is no fence. If there is no fence then I guess I can't be called a fence-sitter, can I? It's too bad we don't have Jesus and Satan both standing physically before us now to make our choices easier. Lacking such physical beings to side with, I choose to side with what I believe to be goodness and fairness. I do love my fellow man, be they believers or atheists, and so I must listen to and respect them both. But as I said, I do have views and beliefs of my own. :)
PureX
Posts: 1,533
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 7:38:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 8:31:13 PM, Sophisto wrote:
Who shall win? Is it even a fair fight? Faith has endurance, logic has power. Believers are still capable of logic; homo sapiens don't end outside the laboratory. Logicians still use secular faith in ultimately inconsequential things. It seems that they actually complement each other. Skeptical? Your experts can debate all day, but at the end, you have faith in logic and logic has mercy over faith.

I would say that logic is an expression of faith. It's an expression of faith in one's own ability to recognize and employ reason to one's own benefit.

And to employ faith without the guidance of reason would be a form of insanity. So that they are intrinsically interrelated, I think.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 8:42:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 9:18:16 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/24/2014 8:19:45 PM, Double_R wrote:
Few things annoy me more then a discussion about faith without defining it.

My definition of faith is "belief without evidence". I have heard many others. If faith is simply believing is something, then just use the word belief. If faith is hope, then just use the word hope. If faith is the result of logic, that is called a logical conclusion.

Unless you are talking about believing something in the absence of evidence, I see no reason to use the word faith. And I find it interesting how many theists refer to faith as if it is a virtue, yet cannot provide an definition to support that implication while making sense in the context they were using it in.

So there is what, no such thing as a reasonable belief, or reasonable hope?

Of course there is. Why would you suggest that I was implying otherwise?
Schzincko
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 12:03:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 11:19:26 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 6/24/2014 10:43:07 PM, Schzincko wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:30:36 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 6/23/2014 1:55:43 AM, Schzincko wrote:
Logic>Faith, because one's logic feeds their faith.

Saying it in that way implies that you might be suggesting that having faith is illogical, and we don't want that at all, I'm sure.

If you meant to aim for more of like a faith versus observation, then I would side with observation because it is more concrete.

And yet we are constantly reminded by our atheist friends that observation is unreliable, especially when it comes in the form of direct personal experience.

I don't see why logic would be greater than faith just because it feeds it. A network of tributaries feed into a river, yet none of them are greater than the river itself. Logic would be but one part of the faith, and thus not greater than the whole.

I actually am an atheist myself, but I find observation to be powerful because there are so many ways to interpret the things we observe.

I'm not saying necessarily that logic is more powerful, but that it's hard to compare them. One cannot have faith without logic, because then they would not a reason to believe. But also, there is no point to having logic if one has absolutely zero faith in anything (not by biblical definition, but by dictionary means) because then the person becomes hopelessly indecisive.

And yet it happens. I've come-across many a man who had total faith in his own worth with no logical reason to do so. There is a person of every kind, I think.

I sort of assumed you were an atheist. I've been accused of being anything from a closet Christian to a heathen, but most often something to the tune of being a fence-sitter. The truth is I think the best view of both sides comes from atop the fence separating them, and that this is the best position from which to promote mutual respect and thoughtful debate, but that doesn't mean I don't have my own views and thoughts. I believe in a higher order, mostly because of my own experiences and because I belief that our existence has both reason and worth. I guess you could say that I believe people are more than the sum of their visible parts.

I'm not doubting your references, but I'm more of at a misunderstanding of how one could have faith without logic to lead it on. Would you be willing to expand on that a little with an example or further explanation?

I'm just stuck looking at things in this way: If one thinks about things enough, they can eventually come to a conclusion, or a whole bunch of sub-conclusions. And that statement is irreversible, correct? I mean, you can't start at a conlusion...

If so, then faith should come out as one of those conclusions or sub-conclusions.

In reference to I think it was Mykhiel's river metaphor (hopefully I spelled that right), Instead of seeing logic as a smaller river running into a channel or something being fed by a whole collection of small rivers, I would see it as more of faith playing as a river caused by melting snowfall. Without the snowfall, there is nothing to make up the river. You sort of see my POV here?

I don't know where I'm really going with this. I guess a question I need to ask here is:
What causes faith? .....Aside from logic
Schzincko
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 12:05:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 7:38:18 PM, PureX wrote:
At 6/22/2014 8:31:13 PM, Sophisto wrote:
Who shall win? Is it even a fair fight? Faith has endurance, logic has power. Believers are still capable of logic; homo sapiens don't end outside the laboratory. Logicians still use secular faith in ultimately inconsequential things. It seems that they actually complement each other. Skeptical? Your experts can debate all day, but at the end, you have faith in logic and logic has mercy over faith.

I would say that logic is an expression of faith. It's an expression of faith in one's own ability to recognize and employ reason to one's own benefit.

And to employ faith without the guidance of reason would be a form of insanity. So that they are intrinsically interrelated, I think.

In a strangely off way, I sort of agree.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 4:20:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 12:03:17 AM, Schzincko wrote:
At 6/24/2014 11:19:26 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 6/24/2014 10:43:07 PM, Schzincko wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:30:36 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 6/23/2014 1:55:43 AM, Schzincko wrote:
Logic>Faith, because one's logic feeds their faith.

Saying it in that way implies that you might be suggesting that having faith is illogical, and we don't want that at all, I'm sure.

If you meant to aim for more of like a faith versus observation, then I would side with observation because it is more concrete.

And yet we are constantly reminded by our atheist friends that observation is unreliable, especially when it comes in the form of direct personal experience.

I don't see why logic would be greater than faith just because it feeds it. A network of tributaries feed into a river, yet none of them are greater than the river itself. Logic would be but one part of the faith, and thus not greater than the whole.

I actually am an atheist myself, but I find observation to be powerful because there are so many ways to interpret the things we observe.

I'm not saying necessarily that logic is more powerful, but that it's hard to compare them. One cannot have faith without logic, because then they would not a reason to believe. But also, there is no point to having logic if one has absolutely zero faith in anything (not by biblical definition, but by dictionary means) because then the person becomes hopelessly indecisive.

And yet it happens. I've come-across many a man who had total faith in his own worth with no logical reason to do so. There is a person of every kind, I think.

I sort of assumed you were an atheist. I've been accused of being anything from a closet Christian to a heathen, but most often something to the tune of being a fence-sitter. The truth is I think the best view of both sides comes from atop the fence separating them, and that this is the best position from which to promote mutual respect and thoughtful debate, but that doesn't mean I don't have my own views and thoughts. I believe in a higher order, mostly because of my own experiences and because I belief that our existence has both reason and worth. I guess you could say that I believe people are more than the sum of their visible parts.

I'm not doubting your references, but I'm more of at a misunderstanding of how one could have faith without logic to lead it on. Would you be willing to expand on that a little with an example or further explanation?

As I said, a person can have faith in their own ability to do a thing with no logical reason for having that faith. This is a very simple example. A person can also have faith in a god with no logic whatsoever, though I don't recommend it.

I'm just stuck looking at things in this way: If one thinks about things enough, they can eventually come to a conclusion, or a whole bunch of sub-conclusions. And that statement is irreversible, correct? I mean, you can't start at a conlusion...

We're not talking of conclusions. We are talking of faith and logic. Of the two it is faith which most often leads to a specific conclusion. If you have faith in any thing then you conclude that this thing exists. You can have logical reason to suspect it is real and yet lack adequate evidence, which is something you don't need with faith.

If so, then faith should come out as one of those conclusions or sub-conclusions.

Well, as I said, faith almost always does lead to a conclusion of some kind or other.

In reference to I think it was Mykhiel's river metaphor (hopefully I spelled that right), Instead of seeing logic as a smaller river running into a channel or something being fed by a whole collection of small rivers, I would see it as more of faith playing as a river caused by melting snowfall. Without the snowfall, there is nothing to make up the river. You sort of see my POV here?

It was I who used the tributary metaphor, and yes, I see what you are saying. In fact, it may be possible that in this case we mean the same thing. The big river must be fed by smaller sources of water - in my case creeks and streams - in your case snow and rain.

I don't know where I'm really going with this. I guess a question I need to ask here is:
What causes faith? .....Aside from logic

Faith doesn't need a specific cause. It can be an overall conviction based on on a lifetime of small experiences.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 5:10:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 8:31:13 PM, Sophisto wrote:
Who shall win? Is it even a fair fight? Faith has endurance, logic has power. Believers are still capable of logic; homo sapiens don't end outside the laboratory. Logicians still use secular faith in ultimately inconsequential things. It seems that they actually complement each other. Skeptical? Your experts can debate all day, but at the end, you have faith in logic and logic has mercy over faith.

Faith is not built on that which is known, neither that which is unknown. Faith is established on uncertainty. If I have faith in a chair to hold the weight of a feather, that's not faith but assurance; however, if I have faith in that same chair to support a fully grown elephant, that's denial. Faith is supported not only by belief but, also, by doubt. Without doubt, there is no faith. So, faith is both logical and illogical, at once.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 5:14:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 8:31:13 PM, Sophisto wrote:
Who shall win? Is it even a fair fight? Faith has endurance, logic has power. Believers are still capable of logic; homo sapiens don't end outside the laboratory. Logicians still use secular faith in ultimately inconsequential things. It seems that they actually complement each other. Skeptical? Your experts can debate all day, but at the end, you have faith in logic and logic has mercy over faith.

In the introduction to his encyclical letter entitled "Faith and Reason", Pope John Paul II explained: "Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth-in a word, to know himself-so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves."

http://www.vatican.va...
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 5:33:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 5:10:37 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 6/22/2014 8:31:13 PM, Sophisto wrote:
Who shall win? Is it even a fair fight? Faith has endurance, logic has power. Believers are still capable of logic; homo sapiens don't end outside the laboratory. Logicians still use secular faith in ultimately inconsequential things. It seems that they actually complement each other. Skeptical? Your experts can debate all day, but at the end, you have faith in logic and logic has mercy over faith.

Faith is not built on that which is known, neither that which is unknown. Faith is established on uncertainty. If I have faith in a chair to hold the weight of a feather, that's not faith but assurance; however, if I have faith in that same chair to support a fully grown elephant, that's denial. Faith is supported not only by belief but, also, by doubt. Without doubt, there is no faith. So, faith is both logical and illogical, at once.

No, to doubt means to be lacking in faith, faith is rooted in belief not unbelief I'm sick of hearing this.

Faith-

confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. is confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, view, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion. It can also be defined as belief that is not based on proof,[1] as well as confidence based on some degree of warrant.[2][3] The word faith is often used as a synonym for hope,[4] trust,[5] or belief.

http://www.debate.org...

James 1
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.

8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.