Quote:
Originally Posted by Freshgrease
From what I got out of Trey's statement must have been reading too far into it, but my underlying frustration deals with people that use logic as the sole authority for justifying an existence or means. To push it even further, it is atheist zealots that try on a daily basis to disrupt a Christian's faith with solely logic-based arguments. I wouldn't mind it so much if they were not forcing their beliefs on us expecting us to "see the light" as it were, but with their arguments comes the inevitable "he is stupid because he doesn't see the logic my way" deal.
|
Do atheists go to your church and give you shit or something? You think I go around telling people they're stupid all the time? (I do, but not because of their faith. XD) It's the topic of discussion. From what I've seen, no one gives a shit so long as people aren't trying to dick things up by applying their faith to things it shouldn't be being applied to.
Quote:
You'll see that Christians are diverse in their acceptance of science. It is common to believe that we all believe in "some magical entity" that magically controls everything, but some believe more in a direct intervention from God than others.
For example, there is no way the Earth and man were created in seven complete rotations of the planet Earth. We have science to prove that the Earth is billions of years old. Perhaps "days" is of a different timescale, hundreds of millions of years our time? I dunno. If man is in God's own image (as said in the Bible, and image is interpreted to be more than physical appearance), perhaps God's thought process is similar as well (though infinitely superior). Due to the similarity in the thought process and the vastness in amounts of time determined to be a "day", it can be deduced that he sees time faster than we would. Why would he involve himself so deeply in a small whip of time with menial matters of revolving the Earth around the Sun in a similar orbit for billions of years?
He could just setup the system, push it forward and concentrate more on his humanity game plan. The world needed a savior, so he sent his son. The individual human needed guidance, so he sent the Holy Ghost.
|
I think its just more of a made up story that teaches some sort of moral...or something. If there is a God, I'm sure he would be smart enough to tell the story in such a way that his audience would understand. It wouldn't make sense for him to use 'god days' when his audience works off of normal earth days.
Quote:
|
EDIT: Yeah. Descartes is pretty interesting, but we don't need to go back to basics. Sadly, its been forever since PHIL 302 (the philosophy class for non-Philosophy majors. I'm trying to think of the philosopher that said that you cannot know anything without justified true belief. So in essence knowledge is only knowledge if you can justify a belief. I guess this can go either way and knowledge is not static nor is it exact.
|
Descartes sucks. =p
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redneckboy
How is it logical to take a leap of faith at all though?
|
Because one goes far above and beyond the default amount of doubt that is universal to all knowledge, while the other doesn't.
Quote:
|
As we all agree, believing in something that cannot be proven logical is not logical.
|
There's a difference in philosophical universal doubt, and claims that lack any credible support at all. In this case, the belief in God has the same universal doubt as everything else does PLUS it has the whole completely baseless claim thing going for it too. Get it yet, dude?
Quote:
|
So isn't logic technically illogical.
|
No. And this question/statement is beyond ridiculous. JUST READ IT! I mean, holy shit, dude. ^^;
Quote:
|
I want to make it clear this in no way is me trying to prove the point that God is a logical thought. All I am trying to understand is why faith in one thing outweighs faith in another if the leap of faith is totally illogical.
|
The universal doubt thing is basically ignored because it's a silly philosophical concept that serves no purpose what-so-ever other than to be a topic of discussion in shitty entry level philosophy classes for about a week or so. It has no application in logical thought, no use in the development or advancement in knowledge or understanding. It's seriously useless, and silly.
Everything is on the same playing field as far as universal doubt goes.
Everything. It's like multiplying every number by one in an equation. In fact, let's do that. L stands for Logic. -L stands for something illogical.
(L)(1)=L
(-L)(1)=-L
Since the universal doubt thing applies to everything, it's functionally useless. It doesn't make something we consider logical any closer to being illogical then something that actually is illogical. It's really a stupid concept to apply to anything. I seriously can't stress that enough, man. It's extremely, extremely stupid.
Quote:
|
How is faith comparable. How is it more logical to take one leap of faith than the other if both require no proving facts to do so.
|
As I've shown, one is an actual belief that is illogical, the other is a useless, philosophical silly leap of faith that applies to everything. Including the illogical belief.
Quote:
|
I understand that. BTW it is called skepticism, which is a term that has been butchered by people these days as being someone who questions.
|
I meant exactly what I said there. : )