A question for those with 'faith.'

[Reverend Richard]

Is it?

I would assume that

1 + 1 = 2 (base ten) = 10 (base two) =, etc. infinite number of bases...

10 (base two) is 2 (base ten), no?

I have faith that this is so...

 

[Storm]

I have never been a fan of proposing such questions as your OP offered, in regards to believers. The question itself is flawed. It's a nonsensical query. They don't need to have "faith" that 1+1=2 in any sense of "suspending logic or rationale" in which to reach their conclusion. We have a universally cohesive set of foundational mathematical rules in which we agree that 1+1=2 in a simple, predefined mathematical context. Therefore, a logical and reasoned assumption can be attributed to the equation without deferring to "faith" that the assumption is absolute in an objective sense.

Frubals aside, faith needn't suspend logic.

 

[BSM1]

Is it?

I would assume that

1 + 1 = 2 (base ten) = 10 (base two) =, etc. infinite number of bases...

10 (base two) is 2 (base ten), no?

Your post has us assume your equation equals a quantitative results:1+1=2
But if the equation is viewed in a purely symbolic context we can say that this symbol (1) plus this symbol (1) = this symbol (2) in base 10. But if were considering base 2 then this symbol (1) plus this symbol (1) = this symbol (10).

 

[dust1n]

Is this a question of logic or faith? Like 1 + a = b and having faith that b=4 therfore being able to assume a=3?

Logic.

 

[dust1n]

Your post has us assume your equation equals a quantitative results:1+1=2
But if the equation is viewed in a purely symbolic context we can say that this symbol (1) plus this symbol (1) = this symbol (2) in base 10. But if were considering base 2 then this symbol (1) plus this symbol (1) = this symbol (10).

But the problem is eliminated the moment you qualify your symbols with the relevant base.

 

[Son of Logic]

Frubals aside, faith needn't suspend logic.

On this single point, we disagree to some extent. You are correct in that faith doesn't necessarily exclude any logic, however, logic does not require a scintilla of faith. Logic exists regardless of the "faith" placed within it. Placing faith in a "process of reasoned thinking" in an unnecessary personal injection. It does nothing to establish the truth or validity of the actual process. This is why I'm opposed to the idea of "faith" in anything, not just religious concepts. Faith provides no process of determining truth value, only personal truth assumptions.

 

[dust1n]

I have never been a fan of proposing such questions as your OP offered, in regards to believers. The question itself is flawed. It's a nonsensical query. They don't need to have "faith" that 1+1=2 in any sense of "suspending logic or rationale" in which to reach their conclusion.

How did my question assume that one needs to faith for 1 + 1 = 2?

We have a universally cohesive set of foundational mathematical rules in which we agree that 1+1=2 in a simple, predefined mathematical context. Therefore, a logical and reasoned assumption can be attributed to the equation without deferring to "faith" that the assumption is absolute in an objective sense.

I would tend to agree for the most part, but my question is affected by this?

I'm asking for those with faith in their religion to which entity that find more certainty, not which requires more faith.

 

[BSM1]

But the problem is eliminated the moment you qualify your symbols with the relevant base.

Then I feel my original statement stands

 

[Storm]

On this single point, we disagree to some extent. You are correct in that faith doesn't necessarily exclude any logic, however, logic does not require a scintilla of faith. Logic exists regardless of the "faith" placed within it. Placing faith in a "process of reasoned thinking" in an unnecessary personal injection. It does nothing to establish the truth or validity of the actual process. This is why I'm opposed to the idea of "faith" in anything, not just religious concepts. Faith provides no process of determining truth value, only personal truth assumptions.

I didn't say logic required faith, now did I? I simply said that a suspension of logic was unnecessary to faith.

 

[dust1n]

I have faith that this is so...

So, I guess, if I am understanding this right, you would equate as much certainty into the faith of your religion as you would 1+1=2?

If so, I just have another question, since mathematics can be a little tricky. It's just for you, cause I'm curious, but anyone can answer.

What if the question was posed...

Do you have more certainty in the faith of your religion or that you are sitting in a chair (I'm assuming you aren't standing) while typing your response?

 

[idav]

Logic.

Right but my type of faith is based on if statements. True if such and such is true like a simple algebra equation.

 

[dust1n]

Right but my type of faith is based on if statements. True if such and such is true like a simple algebra equation.

I realized I should have put an 'equal' as an option.

If I may ask, what all does your faith entail?

 

[Son of Logic]

I didn't say logic required faith, now did I? I simply said that a suspension of logic was unnecessary to faith.

Correct my friend. I simply offered my own take, which often times is a little more long winded. However, I do have strong opinions as it pertains to "faith" in anything, especially my ability to provide short answers! It's great to be here though and I look forward to great conversations!

 

[Storm]

The thing is, Dustin, that NO definition of faith I'm aware of is applicable to your question. So:
1) How are you defining faith here?
2) What in the world are you getting at?

 

[Storm]

Correct my friend. I simply offered my own take, which often times is a little more long winded. However, I do have strong opinions as it pertains to "faith" in anything, especially my ability to provide short answers! It's great to be here though and I look forward to great conversations!

I get that. But my point was we don't disagree, at least not in the way you said we did. I have tremendous respect for faith, but that's irrelevant to the question(s) at hand.

 

[idav]

I realized I should have put an 'equal' as an option.

If I may ask, what all does your faith entail?

That god is explainable through natural processes and that when not enough knowledge is available I can make a pretty good educated guess until sufficient evidence is provided.

 

[dust1n]

1) How are you defining faith here?

I'm letting people use their own definitions of faith. It's completely unloaded from my part.

2) What in the world are you getting at?

I'm not getting at anything. :areyoucra

 

[dust1n]

That god is explainable through natural processes and that when not enough knowledge is available I can make a pretty good educated guess until sufficient evidence is provided.

So what has been explained about god through this?

 

[ChristineES]

I learned how to add base 8 and base 12 numbers more than 20 years ago, but 1 remained unchanged, so I would assume that in base 6, it would, too. (Nice run-on sentence, CES). So 1 would always be 1. Maybe I am just plain dense.
But the only thing I am sure of is that I have faith- maybe that was choice 1 or maybe choice 2- but I voted choice 3 since I am dense (at least about the question).

 

[dust1n]

I learned how to add base 8 and base 12 numbers more than 20 years ago, but 1 remained unchanged, so I would assume that in base 6, it would, too. (Nice run-on sentence, CES). So 1 would always be 1. Maybe I am just plain dense.
But the only thing I am sure of is that I have faith- maybe that was choice 1 or maybe choice 2- but I voted choice 3 since I am dense (at least about the question).

Oooo.. maybe I should have used 1 = 1. DANG!