Faith can never conflict with reason

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
I didn't say he wasn't threatened. I actually said he was. Just not with torture. At least not in any of the accounts I have read. Does this work that you mention talk about a threat of torture?

Giorgio Bruno was burnt at the stake for heresy in 1600 in Rome on orders of the Pope.

Filosofo, arso vivo a Roma,
PER VOLONTA DEL PAPA
IL 17 FEBBRAIO 1600

compare that to the dates for Galileo

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
An opinion is defined to be an unjustified belief? This is the most unusual notion of opinion that I have ever encountered.

THINK about it. When do you use the term opinion? Do you use it to describe something you think you justifiable know? Or do you use the term IMHO when you make a statement that you believe could be false - or has less than solid reasoning. If you know something you said might be less than convincing - you add "IMHO" - as a sort of disclaimer - you don't expect everyone to believe it because you have not given a solid argument.

No solid reason - not justified true - possibly false - ergo opinion is unjustified belief.

Originally posted by Coletti

You have a law against synonyms? It may be more useful to have all terms paired with different meanings - but the fact is that synonyms exist in language.

Any Christian Logician should know that one chooses which terms will be introduced into a universe of Christian logical discourse. Given such authority, it is practical and aesthetically proper to not introduce synonymous terms when one term will suffice.

Originally posted by Coletti
You are talking about connotations as much as denotations. Faith and belief and trust are all related to reason and knowledge. To say you trust someone means you believe what they say. Faith/belief entails trust because we trust what we believe is true. And we know what we believe is justifiably true. If I say I know that bridge will carry the weight of ...[text shortened]... they are inexplicable tied together for coherent thinking since both are required for knowledge.

I'm might be mainly talking about connotations, but connotations are important--especially if salvation is "faith dependent," and people are told to "have faith" even in the face of doubts. I'm not sure we're in any real disagreement here, though.

Originally posted by Nemesio
...

Resurrection, Assumption, Ascension, and a whole host
of other things are 'unreasonable' in the sense that
the dead coming back to life or living beings ascending
into heaven defies logic.

In fact, I would argue that faith is predicated on the
'unreasonable.'

No?

Nemesio

LOGIC does is not LOGIC because of the content of the arguments - but the form of the arguments. It would be illogical for YOU to believe in the resurrection of the dead - because of what you have FAITH in.

These things fly in the face of empiricism - which is a faith based epistemology. You trust you physical senses over revelation. Such is your faith.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Pointing out that the RCC murdered Bruno just before they went after Galileo might not be exactly what you want to hear, but since its the truth , ain't that just too bad.

You are mentioning it in almost every thread dealing with some aspect of the Roman-Catholic faith. As I mentioned before you can open a thread on this subject to discuss it, but this is apparently not your aim. Your aim is to hijack a thread with your constant spamming, changing the thread's subject and turning the thread into an anti-Church thread. You never discuss the thread's subject. You simply throw in your spam. It is annoying.

Originally posted by Coletti
THINK about it. When do you use the term opinion? Do you use it to describe something you think you justifiable know? Or do you use the term IMHO when you make a statement that you believe could be false - or has less than solid reasoning. If you know something you said might be less than convincing - you add "IMHO" - as a sort of disclaimer - you don ...[text shortened]...

No solid reason - not justified true - possibly false - ergo opinion is unjustified belief.

Not quite true, Coletti.

If something is unjustified, that means you lack the means to
demonstrate it. For example, if I said 'I believe Coletti's car
is white,' I have no evidence that this is the case. It is a wholly
unjustified claim. Would you call this an opinion? I wouldn't.

How about this? 'Vanilla tastes better than chocolate.' Certainly
that is an opinion. It is wholly justified in my mind because my
tongue sensually and experientially tells me that this is true.
But it isn't an objective claim -- that is, I am not stating that
vanilla has an intrinsic quality that makes it taste better than
chocolate.'

What about this, something which comes up often in conversation:
'It is my opinion that route X is faster than route Y in order to get
from point A to B.' When a person makes such a statement, it's
usually because they have taken both routes, or have familiarity
with the streets in question, and have formed a notion about which
will be faster. It's a partial justification. It's called an 'educated
guess.' Educated guesses (lacking a solid reason) are not 'opinions.'

Nemesio

Originally posted by Coletti
THINK about it. When do you use the term opinion? Do you use it to describe something you think you justifiable know?

You are so confused about the nature of opinion and belief that I hardly know where to begin.

Propositions are objective claims about the way the world is.
They can be true or false.
One has beliefs about the truth of propositions.
One cannot believe statements that are not propositions.

Opinions are subjective musings.
They cannot be true or false.
They do not take the form of propositions, for they do not make any objective claims about the way the world is.
"Pepsi tastes better than Coke" is not a proposition.
One might hold it as an opinion, but one cannot believe it - it's not even the sort of thing that could possibly be the subject of belief.

To say that an opinion is a belief that is unjustified is a symptom of extreme epistemological confusion.

Originally posted by Coletti
LOGIC does is not LOGIC because of the content of the arguments - but the form of the arguments. It would be illogical for YOU to believe in the resurrection of the dead - because of what you have FAITH in.

These things fly in the face of empiricism - which is a faith based epistemology. You trust you physical senses over revelation. Such is your faith.

Ok. Let's say I am a 2nd-century BCE Greek person. I believe
that Hercules was assumed into heaven. You, a 21st-century
Christian, believe that Jesus ascended into heaven (as per St Luke).

We each would argue that the other is unreasonable, I assume, and
we make that argument on the basis of the notion that 'faith can
never conflict with reason.'

How can we both be reasonable and unreasonable at the same time?
(A = ~A)

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Ivanhoe, do you mean that 'Faith ought never conflict
with reason?'

I'm not even sure this makes sense. Belief in the
Resurrection, Assumption, Ascension, and a whole host
of other things are 'unreasonable' in the sense that
the dead coming back to life or living beings ascending
into heaven defies logic.

In fact, I would argue that faith is predicated on the
'unreasonable.'

No?

Nemesio

Nemesio: " Belief in the Resurrection, Assumption, Ascension, and a whole host of other things are 'unreasonable' in the sense that the dead coming back to life or living beings ascending into heaven defies logic."

Does it ? We cannot explain these phenomena and only in this perspective they seem to "defy logic".

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
"Pepsi tastes better than Coke" is not a propostion.

The hell it isn't!

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Any Christian Logician should know that one chooses which terms will be introduced into a universe of Christian logical discourse. Given such authority, it is practical and aesthetically proper to not introduce synonymous terms when one term will suffice.

When I am constructing a syllogism this is true. But syllogism are based on propositions - which are based on declarative sentences. We don't speak or write using propositions in logical form. We use synonyms, and varied grammatical structures, to make or "discourse" interesting even when we are being "logical". And contrary to what you have said, this is especially true when we are interested in the aesthetics of our dialog.

This is very true of scripture - where the repeated pattern of ideas and concepts help the reader parse text which did not include punctuation. Synonyms were also used to add emphasis.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Does it ? We cannot explain these phenomena and only in this perspective they seem to defy logic.

What if I told you that I had a leprechaun sitting on my
shoulder, but no one can hear it, see it, or sense it but me.

Is that reasonable? It is 'unexplainable' and 'seems to
defy logic.'

How is my claim any more or less reasonable than Jesus's
Ascension or Joseph Smith's finding of ancient plates for the
Mormon Scriptures?

To me they all seem equally unreasonable. That's why we
call it faith: because it defies logic and reason, and we believe
it anyway.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
The hell it isn't!

"It is Nemesio's opinion that Pepsi tastes better than Coke" is a proposition.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
You are so confused about the nature of opinion and belief that I hardly know where to begin....

Opinions are subjective musings.
They cannot be true or false.
They do not take the form of propositions, for they do not make any objective claims about the way the world is.
"Pepsi tastes better than Coke" is not a proposition.
One might hold i ...[text shortened]... at an opinion is a belief that is unjustified is a symptom of extreme epistemological confusion.

The confusing is yours.

"Pepsi tastes better than Coke" IS a proposition. What makes it an opinion is that the truth/false value of the proposition is not certain.

To show this is a proposition I need only say "Is is TRUE that Pepsi tastes better than Coke." This is a coherent sentence because only declarative sentence can be true of false.

One opines that a statement is true when one believe it is true but can not give a reasonable logical argument to prove it based on accepted true premises.

Would you like me to put "Pepsi tastes better than coke" in logical propositional form?