Faith in Christ is Completely Logical

[Sonofason]

All of which are theoretical if you bothered to look up any of the examples you posted.

Do you not see the resemblance between the words theory and theoretical. Theories are theoretical.

 

[Sapiens]

Ignorance of what exactly?

They've learned a new phrase but don't know what it means yet.

It is not ignorance of "what" it is the construct of: "I don't know the cause, so God must have done it."

 

[Shad]

Do you not see the resemblance between the words theory and theoretical. Theories are theoretical.

Yes. However this is mistake when one only take a look at the definition at a glance or takes it for face value. Practical and theoretical are specific definition of different theories and if a theories has a practical application such a medical theories. Such a mistake is a fallacy of associating the similarity while ignoring the definition within the proper context.

 

[Sonofason]

Man does not comprehend God. Anything that man perceives (perception) is because our experience is existential; man knows nothing about God.

God changed nothing. My point is that if God is perfect (man's perception) then God's Creation is also perfect, not needing change.

Specifics are in the wording. If I quote Tillich, Aquinas then, the specifics are within their writings. Words I choose reference those specifics. I've posted enough that you can begin to put together what I mean.

For instance:

Faith is not a belief. (Tillich, Aquinas, Augustine; "Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe."). Faith defined from the beginning of Christianity to today's understanding of theology.

"To start with we ask whether there is a God, and if so, in what way he exists, or rather in what ways he does not exist." Summa Theologiae, ed., Timothy McDermott, p. 9. Atheism and Christian ask the same questions.

Which men? All men.

Learning Algebra was foreign to me. I did not understand it. Today, Calculus is even more difficult. Something gets in the way, understanding, education. What gets in your way must be a lack of information regarding those things I've posted.

"An awareness of God, though neither clear nor specific, exists in practically everyone, Some people think this is because it is self-evident. Others, with more truth, think natural use of reason leads men straight[]away to some sort of knowledge of God: for when men observe the sure and ordered course that things pursue by nature, most people see that rule cannot exist without a ruler and the somebody must be producing the order they observe. Such thought, however, is not yet specific enough for men to know whether only one such ruler exists. Compare what happens when we observe the movements and actions of what happens when we observe the movements and actions of human beings, and see that in men there must exist some cause of such behaviour that doesn't exist in other things; we proceed to call it soul though as yet we don't know what it is (whether perhaps it is bodily) or how it operates. . . . " (Thomas Aquinas). Summa Theologiae, ed., Timothy McDermott, 9.

Are you still in the dark?

No, I think I understand what your saying, surely that which is learned affects our understanding of our experiences. There is certainly a difference between sensations and perceptions, but there's something wrong with your quote by Thomas Aquinas. It seems to me to be missing a word like "with".

Is there not something missing in this portion of the quote you provided?

...Compare what happens when we observe the movements and actions of what happens when we observe the movements and actions of human beings,...

 

[Sapiens]

Do you not see the resemblance between the words theory and theoretical. Theories are theoretical.

Actually they are not, if you go to the OED, you will find that sense in which you want to use theory does not exist:

Definition of theory in English:
noun (plural theories)
supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained: Darwin’s theory of evolution

principles on which the practice of an activity is based: a theory of education [mass noun]: music theory

idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action: my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged

collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject

You can only find "theory" in the sense that you are desirous of using it in lesser tomes, and your shopping for a definition that you like, rather that accepting what was meant by the authors, e.g., "scientific theory," is a dishonest form of quote mining, a dishonest undertaking to begin with.

 

[Storm]

I'm obviously wading in in the middle, but....

Faith is a trust that transcends logic. It's inherently incapable of being logical, whatever it's placed in.

The problem with this sort of thing isn't so much that it's wrong, as that it assumes pure logic is the only valid reason to accept a concept.

Faith is not logical nor illogical, rational nor irrational. It is A-logical, A-rational. And there's not a damn thing wrong with that, so stop trying to pretend it's something it's not.

 

[Sonofason]

Not my field, but I believe that they all carry the status of hypothesis.

It is my understanding that "a hypothesis is an attempt to explain phenomena. It is a proposal, a guess used to understand and/or predict something. A theory is the result of testing a hypothesis and developing an explanation that is assumed to be true about something. A theory replaces the hypothesis after testing confirms the hypothesis, or the hypothesis is modified and tested again, until predictable results occur."

Do you know the testing procedures and results that were conducted which elevated the Big Bang Theory from being a hypothesis to a theory? Or is the Big Bang still considered a hypothesis?

 

[Sapiens]

I don't even know what you're talking about. And, no, that's wrong, 'personal what'? nonsense.
Present a theory besides id, tell us how "it" works lol

Your construct of, "if you can't come up with something else it must be ID." could be used as the very definition of an argument from ignorance.

Since you're a lazy one, here you go:

Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism[vague], wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent.[citation needed] See also Occam's razor ("prefer the explanation with the fewest assumptions").

The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that essentially relies on a lack of imagination in the audience.

The general form of the argument is as follows.

• Minor premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how P could be so.
• Major premise (unstated): If P, then one could imagine (or would have imagined) how P could be so.
• Conclusion: Not-P.

As a syllogism this is valid. The fallacy lies in the unstated major premise. If a state of affairs is impossible to imagine, it doesn't follow that it is false; it may only mean that imagination is limited. Moreover, if no one has yet managed to imagine how a state of affairs is possible, it doesn't follow that no one will ever be able to.

 

[Sapiens]

It is my understanding that "a hypothesis is an attempt to explain phenomena. It is a proposal, a guess used to understand and/or predict something. A theory is the result of testing a hypothesis and developing an explanation that is assumed to be true about something. A theory replaces the hypothesis after testing confirms the hypothesis, or the hypothesis is modified and tested again, until predictable results occur."

Do you know the testing procedures and results that were conducted which elevated the Big Bang Theory from being a hypothesis to a theory? Or is the Big Bang still considered a hypothesis?

Again, not my field. My understanding is that, just as mathematics has if's own rules about "proof," physics has some special rules about elevating things from hypothesis to theory based on computer simulation.

 

[Desert Snake]

Your construct of, "if you can't come up with something else it must be ID." could be used as the very definition of an argument from ignorance.

Since you're a lazy one, here you go:

Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism[vague], wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent.[citation needed] See also Occam's razor ("prefer the explanation with the fewest assumptions").

The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that essentially relies on a lack of imagination in the audience.

The general form of the argument is as follows.

• Minor premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how P could be so.
• Major premise (unstated): If P, then one could imagine (or would have imagined) how P could be so.
• Conclusion: Not-P.

As a syllogism this is valid. The fallacy lies in the unstated major premise. If a state of affairs is impossible to imagine, it doesn't follow that it is false; it may only mean that imagination is limited. Moreover, if no one has yet managed to imagine how a state of affairs is possible, it doesn't follow that no one will ever be able to.

I barely have to 'present an argument', because I don't have to refute the big nothing you've presented. If you think it's fine not having any opinion that matches reality as to the nature of your other theories, that's your problem, not mine.
Handing in a blank paper is not impressive, lol.

 

[Sapiens]

I barely have to 'present an argument', because I don't have to refute the big nothing you've presented. If you think it's fine not having any opinion that matches reality as to the nature of your other theories, that's your problem, not mine.
Handing in a blank paper is not impressive, lol.

The paper is not blank, it says that the burden of proof is on you and your entire hypothesis is, "if not God, then what?" That is a logical fallacy known as an argument from ignorance, as we've been trying to explain to you, it does not carry any weight, it does not need to be refuted, an alternative does not need to be offered. All that is required to have you carried off the field on your shield, is for your opponent to correctly identify the fact that all you are offering up is an argument from ignorance and for you to have nothing else to offer.

Them's the rules, I did not make them.

Presenting a better alternative is but one way of showing that something else is wrong, you can show that something is wrong without being required to present an alternative that is right.

 

[Sonofason]

Yes. However this is mistake when one only take a look at the definition at a glance or takes it for face value. Practical and theoretical are specific definition of different theories and if a theories has a practical application such a medical theories. Such a mistake is a fallacy of associating the similarity while ignoring the definition within the proper context.

I'll look into it further.

 

[Sonofason]

Actually they are not, if you go to the OED, you will find that sense in which you want to use theory does not exist:

Definition of theory in English:
noun (plural theories)
supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained: Darwin’s theory of evolution

principles on which the practice of an activity is based: a theory of education [mass noun]: music theory

idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action: my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged

collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject

You can only find "theory" in the sense that you are desirous of using it in lesser tomes, and your shopping for a definition that you like, rather that accepting what was meant by the authors, e.g., "scientific theory," is a dishonest form of quote mining, a dishonest undertaking to begin with.

You may be right that I am not applying the correct definitions, but I can't understand why all of your responses must be so polemic.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Intelligent design doesn't have to mean interactive creation. It's the created things themselves that offer evidence.

But what is the difference between created things and non-created things?

 

[Sapiens]

You may be right that I am not applying the correct definitions, but I can't understand why all of your responses must be so polemic.

Could it be the illogic, stubbornness and aggression that we oft find in responses? This it the first time that I have seen any of the theists in this thread even consider that they might be in error about anything, including the everyday language of the world I spent my entire career in,

 

[Sonofason]

Who claimed it?

I'm sure it doesn't really matter who claimed it. Surely many scientists believe it. I'm presently reading a book by Bill Bryson entitled "A brief history of nearly everything". It was published in 2003 by Broadway books. Here's a quote from his book I found on page 10:

It is natural but wrong to visualize the singularity as a kind of pregnant dot hanging in a dark, boundless void. But there is no space, no darkness. The singularity has no "around" around it. There is no space for it to occupy, no place for it to be. We can't even ask how long it has been there - whether it has just lately popped into being, like a good idea, or whether it has been there forever, quietly awaiting the right moment. Time doesn't exist. There is no past for it to emerge from.
And so, from nothing, our universe begins."

I recognize that Bryson is no scientist, and I can't say I'm certain at this point where he got his information, but I can only imagine that it must have come from scientists' general consensus.

 

[Sonofason]

Could it be the illogic, stubbornness and aggression that we oft find in responses? This it the first time that I have seen any of the theists in this thread even consider that they might be in error about anything, including the everyday language of the world I spent my entire career in,

Could it be that your frustration with theists in general has caused you to take this approach on every theist you encounter, or are you actually accusing me of being illogical, stubborn and aggressive?

 

[Storm]

Could it be the illogic, stubbornness and aggression that we oft find in responses? This it the first time that I have seen any of the theists in this thread even consider that they might be in error about anything, including the everyday language of the world I spent my entire career in,

Have you considered that your own approach might infulence the the responses you're getting?

 

[Sonofason]

Have you considered that your own approach might infulence the the responses you're getting?

Sure I have, and I have concluded that because I don't agree with you, you consider me to be stubborn, illogical, and aggressive. I realize that this is a two-way-street, and aggression is often met with aggression, but there is always a first aggressor, and it's not me.

 

[Storm]

Sure I have, and I have concluded that because I don't agree with you, you consider me to be stubborn, illogical, and aggressive. I realize that this is a two-way-street, and aggression is often met with aggression, but there is always a first aggressor, and it's not me.

No? And what have I said that earned your aggression? Because I didn't think you stubborn, illogical, or aggressive until you informed me that I do based on 2 brief and perfectly civil posts.

FYI, I'm not a theist.

EDIT: @Sonofason I
I thought I quoted that. New software.
E2: There we go.