Faith can never conflict with reason

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

That is also a proposition - one with a different logical subject and predicate.

Originally posted by Nemesio
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 al ...[text shortened]... hy we
call it faith: because it defies logic and reason, and we believe
it anyway.

Nemesio

You are mixing up a couple of things: True claims and false claims, truths and lies, the science of necessary inference called logic and what is "reasonable" ........ confusing.

Nemesio: " That's why we call it faith: because it defies logic and reason, and we believe it anyway."

????? ..... If this is faith then I do not have faith.

The Roman-Catholic religion does not contradict logic or reason in any principal way.

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

Er. Doesn't the answer have to be accurate for it to be a proposition?

That is, if I said 'Yes' to your proposition, shouldn't I be able to
demonstrate it (which, of course, cannot be objectively done)?

It may be a coherent sentence grammatically, but it does not have
a coherent answer (because subjective opinions do not have truth
values).

Nemesio

Originally posted by Coletti
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.

...[text shortened]... es.

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

You're just randomly throwing together bits and pieces of phrases that you've seen used over at Christian Logic, such as 'predicate' and 'declarative', and hoping that what comes out either convinces me that you are correct or confounds me to the extent that I cannot construct an intelligible response.

Seriously. Not a single sentence in your post both makes sense and is correct.

For my amusement, go ahead put it in "logical propositional form." This should be fun.

The discussion and instances about taste are very confusing.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
The Roman-Catholic religion does not contradict logic or reason in any principal way.

Well, Ivanhoe, a Moslem, Mormon, Jew and atheist (among
others) would disagree with this. The first three would maintain
that their notion of 'natural law' was the reasonable one and
that yours is unreasonable.

And, so, faith conflicts with reason all the time. It's only within
the context of a single faith that it might not. The second
you expand to a ecumenical notion of faith, you find conflicts
left and right.

Nemesio

Edit: so the subject should read 'My Roman Catholic faith never
conflicts with reason.'

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
You're just randomly throwing together bits and pieces of phrases that you've seen used over at Christian Logic, such as 'predicate' and 'declarative', and hoping that what comes out either convinces me that you are correct or confounds me to the extent that I cannot construct an intelligible response.

Seriously. Not a single sentence in ...[text shortened]... is correct.

For my amusement, go ahead put it in "propositional form." This should be fun.

If you are such an expert then why do you bring in these instances about "taste", which can only add to the confusion.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
If you are such an expert then why do you bring in these instances about "taste", which can only add to the confusion.

Because Coletti tried to introduce an absurd notion of opinions as being beliefs. It would be irresponsible of me as Christian Logician to allow him to wallow in this error.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Well, Ivanhoe, a Moslem, Mormon, Jew and atheist (among
others) would disagree with this. The first three would maintain
that their notion of 'natural law' was the reasonable one and
that yours is unreasonable.

And, so, faith conflicts with reason all the time. It's only within
the context of a single faith that it might not. The second
...[text shortened]... io

Edit: so the subject should read 'My Roman Catholic faith never
conflicts with reason.'

If you look upon things the way you do one might also claim that science defies logic and conflicts with reason all the time. For instance the Theory of Strings and all these mindboggling theories of which it hasn't been proven (yet) that they are true. I simply do not grasp what you are trying to say.

In my opinion one part of the problem is that you do not reason from a certain stance or point of view. The only point of view that I can detect on your side is the stance that my point of view must be incorrect.

Originally posted by Nemesio
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.' C ...[text shortened]... 'educated
guess.' Educated guesses (lacking a solid reason) are not 'opinions.'

Nemesio

Good points. I am compelled to say that an opinion usually have basis or support for one to believe them true.

I think we'd agree that opinions are weaker than knowledge - even if they have some sort of support - so in the definition of knowledge (justified true belief) the justified must be stronger than the support given to opinions.

I don't know about educated guesses - these seem like opinions also.

An opinion is a belief also. It usually connotes a belief with less than unquestionable support. Usually they are similar to the "which tastes better" example which may be true for one person and false for another. Opinions are propositions one hold true depending on other premises.

So they are still unjustifed in the sense of "justified true belief" is knowledge.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Because Coletti tried to introduce an absurd notion of opinions as being beliefs. It would be irresponsible of me as Christian Logician to allow him to wallow in this error.

If you are the expert you claim to be than introducing confusion isn't the way to go, don't you think so ? ..... unless ......

Originally posted by Coletti


I think we'd agree that opinions are weaker than knowledge

I would have to pimpslap anybody who would agree with you about this.

Opinions and knowledge do not lie on the same spectrum. They are different beasts altogether. One cannot have opinions about factual matters. One cannot have knowledge of subjective matters, but only knowledge about subjective claims, such as "It is Nemesio's opinion that..."

You can't know that chocolate is a good tasting ice cream.
You can't opine that ice cream melts, or that it doesn't melt.

Ivanhoe can't opine that I'm white.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
If you are the expert you claim to be than introducing confusion isn't the way to go, don't you think so ? ..... unless ......

What confusion have I introduced?

Originally posted by Nemesio
Er. Doesn't the answer have to be accurate for it to be a proposition?

That is, if I said 'Yes' to your proposition, shouldn't I be able to
demonstrate it (which, of course, cannot be objectively done)?

It may be a coherent sentence grammatically, but it does not have
a coherent answer (because subjective opinions do not have truth
values).

Nemesio

Sure they do! A subjective proposition is subjective because the true/false values is subject to other premises which are not universally accepted as true or false.

"The golden gate bridge is orange." Well when I looked at it last, it looked red to me. And some people are color blind. And then you can define color by some measure of a light spectrum. So the truth of "the golden gate bridge is orange" can is subjective - depending or other premises that may not be agreed upon.

Coke taste better than Pepsi. If we are talking about my taste - this is true. So it is a proposition, but it is not knowledge. To be knowledge it must be universally true, not subjectively.

All propositions are either true of false - but not all propositions constitute knowledge. A proposition must be universally true to be knowledge. Opinions are true subjectively.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
You are mixing up a couple of things: True claims and false claims, truths and lies, the science of necessary inference called logic and what is "reasonable" ........ confusing.

I always thought that 'reasonable' meant something proveably true,
or at least very likely to be true.

What do you think 'reasonable' means, Ivanhoe?

Nemesio