Ryan2065
Well-Known Member
BS in math here (a real degree, not a joke)It comes with the BA in philosophy. But I still have a ways to go.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
BS in math here (a real degree, not a joke)It comes with the BA in philosophy. But I still have a ways to go.
Interesting... gmelrod beat me to what I was going to say by 20 minutes... It is a good thing though, he said it better than I could of. :bow:
I'll be getting a BA in math.BS in math here (a real degree, not a joke)
Huh? Mormons do math?Aqualung said:I'll be getting a BA in math.
I'll disagree with my Mormon brothers and sisters and say NO - religion cannot be logical because it is based on faith.
Do you not believe a human is an immortal spiritual being?adthelad said:Scientology isn't based on faith!
Originally Posted by Aqualung
Exactly. And at some point, going backwards from fact to fact, you must simply accept a fact, unproven (that is to say - on faith), from which to work. I can logically prove that I am really sweaty right now, but only if I take on faith that I actually did just get back from work. Or, I could prove that I just got back from work if I just accept that I went to work in the morning. Etc. It is simply impossible to prove every single statement. You must take something on faith before logic can even set in. Faith preceeds logic in other words.
Yes you get it. At some point a method other than logic (deductive reasoning) must be used. This can be science (inductive reasoning) or revelation or even authority. But logic cannot give us new general principles (like God's existence) it can only apply general principles to specific examples.
Well it depends on where you draw the line between fact and belief.Do you not believe a human is an immortal spiritual being?
And I know that you are wrong. If what you say is a fact and not a belief, you should be able to prove that I am wrong and you are right. I am pretty positive you cannot prove that you have lived previous lives and haven't died when your body did, therefore you believe this.adthelad said:By the everyday definition - I don't believe we are immortal spiritual beings - I KNOW IT.
However if we're being very restrictive all I know for sure is that I have lived previous lives and not died when my body did.
Ah, the first tentative steps toward a circular argument.Any religion that believes in impossibilities by definition is not logical.
Huh? Mormons do math?
:angel2:
How so?lunamoth said:What Aqualung is calling 'faith' in a logical deduction is actually the base assumptions for the logical argument. It seems to me that calling this 'faith' is stretching the meaning of the word beyond a point where it is useful.
(By the way, your statement is trivially true only in the case of logical impossibilities.)wanderer085 said:Any religion that believes in impossibilities by definition is not logical.
Apparantly really well, at that.
How so?
Side note: "useful" is a product of the fact that everything must be taken on faith. We have to use things that are "useful" not "proven true". We can never operate from the standpoint of "proven true", but must always operate from the standpoint of "useful".
The error or deception here is to imply that anything that is not a scientific statement, i.e., one supported by evidence marshaled forth the way scientists do in support of their scientific claims, is a matter of faith. To use 'faith' in such a broad way is to strip it of any theological significance the term might otherwise have.
Such a conception of faith treats belief in all non-empirical statements as acts of faith. Thus, belief in the external world, belief in the law of causality, or even fundamental principles of logic such as the principle of contradiction or the law of the excluded middle, would be acts of faith on this view. There seems to be something profoundly deceptive and misleading about lumping together as acts of faith such things as belief in the Virgin birth and belief in the existence of an external world or in the principle of contradiction. Such a view trivializes religious faith by putting all non-empirical claims in the same category as religious faith. In fact, religious faith should be put in the same category as belief in superstitions, fairy tales, and delusions of all varieties.
Nutshell didn't answer, but my point was that if faith has value, and logic and reason has value, and both are given to us by God, then I can't see how they're as mutually exclusive as he seems to think that they are.Is this supposed to convey some deeper meaning or allusion?
I this supposed to be some trick, but trite, question?
BS in math here (a real degree, not a joke)
Huh? Mormons do math?
:angel2:
No no, I meant the BS part didn't mean bull ****. I, for some reason, get that alot.Comprehend said:A degree in philosophy is a joke?
I am curious to know why that is since I happen to have a degree in philosophy too and I seem to be doing ok with my joke degree.
Religion requires faith, and faith is believing in something that you cannot be certain of. What is believed is completely unproven, unscientific, and illogical.