Why faith is an impossible argument

[Edan]

Originally posted by Sava
With the threat of eternal damnation, God isn't giving humanity free will to make a decision.

Then how come so many people don't make the "right" decision (whatever that decision may be, there certainly isn't 100% of humanity following that decision...)

Now, if the existence of god (and hell) coud be proven - in the sense that no one could doubt god's existence, then I could see there (probably) being no free will.

[Kuciwalker]

Faith is illogical, but so what? You can't live life by logic alone. (Or maybe you could, but why would you want to?)

You can, easily. I don't see anything wrong with it.

On a side note, logic is always right (even when predicting a proper course of action). Every instance of it producing an "incorrect" answer has been the result of one of three things: 1) the misidentification of the goal, 2) incorrect use of logic (i.e. I eat bagels, therefore I am President), or 3) incorrect or insufficient definition of the situation.

[GePap]

The dearth of non-monotheists is always a drag. Seeing these atheist-theist debates are annoying: there are other schools out there! What about the Hindus? Buddhists? why do we ignore them? What if the Buddhists are correct, and the rest of you all wrong?

I agree with Loin that we can;t live without faith, if only because there are some things we must take without question. After all, If someone or something I respect (for a great nuber of socially consturcted reasons) tells me "this is true", then I take that without question. Someone might argue that is logicv speaking, but as I said,t he reasons I turst the source are not logicaly constructed, but socially constructed. So there is a strong element of faith there.

[Kuciwalker]

I'm not arguing against the existance of a single god, or any god; I'm saying that because there is no reason for me to hold one religion as true over any other I will hold none, and base my thoughts and opinions on empirical data.

After all, If someone or something I respect (for a great nuber of socially consturcted reasons) tells me "this is true", then I take that without question. Someone might argue that is logicv speaking, but as I said,t he reasons I turst the source are not logicaly constructed, but socially constructed.

In fact, you very well may be using logic there. If the person has been shown to be true in the past, or has credentials indicating a higher possibility of being correct, then it is the logical decision. If not based on some sort of evidence, however, then it is faith, and illogical. However, not everyone will have faith in the first place. I wouldn't.

[GePap]

But how can I really check the veracity of what i ma being told? lets say I hear on the news: earthquake in Algeirs. I know nobody from there, i can't possibly verify it myself. I assume the facts are right. Most of the facts I hear i could never actually verify myself, so there is ahuge amount that I take as given, ebcuase if I were to begin questioning it, all I end up is with decartes.

[Nukapai]

Originally posted by GePap
But how can I really check the veracity of what i ma being told? lets say I hear on the news: earthquake in Algeirs. I know nobody from there, i can't possibly verify it myself. I assume the facts are right. Most of the facts I hear i could never actually verify myself, so there is ahuge amount that I take as given, ebcuase if I were to begin questioning it, all I end up is with decartes.

Please read my post on the previous page re: use of terminology in right context

Faith in the context of this thread = religious belief.

Faith in context of (trust in something, assumption, belief in that x will happen because it has always happened or because it comes from trusted sources) = something outside of this debate (or should be).

[Zero]

Originally posted by GePap
But how can I really check the veracity of what i ma being told? lets say I hear on the news: earthquake in Algeirs. I know nobody from there, i can't possibly verify it myself. I assume the facts are right. Most of the facts I hear i could never actually verify myself, so there is ahuge amount that I take as given, ebcuase if I were to begin questioning it, all I end up is with decartes.

You could try to question whether your thinking or not, it you got it real bad.


The fact is everyone has faith in something. Someone before wrote an elaborate post on how trusting something is different from having faith. Isnt that the same thing? What is there to trust if the evidence are there to no require any trust to trust?

[Nukapai]

Originally posted by Zero


You could try to question whether your thinking or not, it you got it real bad.


The fact is everyone has faith in something. Someone before wrote an elaborate post on how trusting something is different from having faith. Isnt that the same thing? What is there to trust if the evidence are there to no require any trust to trust?

No, it's not the same thing. Check your dictionary

[GePap]

I will not use definitions being imposed unto me in this thread. i will stick with the definitoon given to me by dictionaries.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Nukapai


No, it's not the same thing. Check your dictionary

run and sprint is defined in a different way too.

[Kuciwalker]

Actually, Gepap is right that trust can be faith. However, trust in not always faith. Trust completely unsupported by evidence is faith. If it is supported by evidence, it is logic.

However, you trust the news because you have come to the conclusion that there is a higher probability that they are telling the truth than that they are not. There are logical means of arriving at this conclusion.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by skywalker
You can [life life by logic alone], easily. I don't see anything wrong with it.

You see nothing wrong with living your life in complete absence of emotions? Given the choice, you would never want to experience love, pain, humor, etc.?

Actually, Gepap is right that trust can be faith. However, trust in not always faith. Trust completely unsupported by evidence is faith. If it is supported by evidence, it is logic.

How much evidence is required for something to count as being logically supported?

[Kuciwalker]

Living by logic does not mean not feeling, or using, emotions. Emotions are such a fundamental part of the human brain that they are almost on the level of pure sensory perception... so if your goal is to feel certain emotions, the use of logic is most likely to achieve that goal. Whether or not the goal is logical is irrelevant. In fact, it doesn't even apply, because the (highest) goal is not challengable (it is subjective).

How much evidence is required for something to count as being logically supported?

More than to the contrary. Note that this cannot be directly measured, as the amount is along an unquantifiable continuum.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by skywalker
More than to the contrary. Note that this cannot be directly measured, as the amount is along an unquantifiable continuum.

So how do you determine whether something is logical or illogical, if it is impossible to quantify that which defines whether something is logical or illogical? Is it just an ad hoc labelling system?

[Kuciwalker]

You don't quantify. You go through a logic proof.

Now, the complexity of many things means you can't go through an entire formal proof (which is impossible), but instead go through a series of interacting theorems (none of which are explicit).

So, while logic is perfect, it is (usually) a PRACTICAL impossibility to apply pure logic.