Faith can never conflict with reason

Originally posted by ivanhoe
If you read the article, the speech, it is perfectly clear it is about the Roman-Catholic Faith ..... this will be clear to a Jew or a Muslim .... but apparently not to you.

Well excuse me while I laugh my ass off.

It is the HEIGHT of arrogance for you to use the term 'faith'
in such a way because it necessarily entails that Jews and
Moslems do not have faith.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Perhaps he should do this in another thread as not to distract
ourselves from the position in the thread in question (as summarized
by the subject).

I, again, suggest that the subject be modified to read 'Roman
Catholic faith can never conflict with reason' since, as it stands, the
statement is blatently false.

We can proceed when you agree with this or demonstrate why your
statement is true.

Nemesio

Nemesio, have you never heard of "headlines" being shortened for the sake of ..... (you can fill in here your personal ponderings)

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Then why the deceptive title?

If you read the article it isn't deceptive at all.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
First, I want you to say whether you agree with or endorse Coletti's instructional statements.

Are you going to pretend that you don't find them laughable? They are like an uninformed parody of a philosophy professor, little more than a haphazard collection of logical sounding terms quilted together in an incoherent pattern. Come on, Ivanhoe, ...[text shortened]... and by while others might be persuaded by them, trusting that he knows what he is talking about?

Nemesio's suggestion is a good one. Open a new thread on this issue and discuss it with Coletti.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
If you read the article it isn't deceptive at all.

The article's title is deceptive.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Nemesio's suggestion is a good one. Open a new thread on this issue and discuss it with Coletti.

Jesus, take a stand for once. I want to know if you endorse Coletti's instruction in propositional reasoning or not. It is pertinent to the thread, as the thread is about faith and reason. I need to know whether Coletti can be trusted as an authority on reason, and in turn, as an authority on faith.

If faith is compatible only with Coletti's variety of reason, then the title of the article using 'reason' is just as deceptive as its use of 'faith.' So, I need to know if you endorse Coletti's variety of reason as you endorse the article, and if you think his variety of reason is what the article is referring to.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Well excuse me while I laugh my ass off.

It is the HEIGHT of arrogance for you to use the term 'faith'
in such a way because it necessarily entails that Jews and
Moslems do not have faith.

Nemesio

Nemesio, this whole "discussion" of ours is a very clear instance of you trying to construct some kind of "reasoning" in order to be able to spout an accusation of some kind.

..... and here goes:

Nemesio: "It is the HEIGHT of arrogance for you to use the term 'faith' in such a way because it necessarily entails that Jews and Moslems do not have faith."


As I told you before, trying to understand your opponent is not your strongest point in these discussions.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
If I say to you, "Have a nice day!" and you reply "False!", does that make "Have a nice day!" a proposition? Of course not.

Refer to my post to Nemesio. When the respondent says Yes, he is really answering the question "Is it your opinion that chocolate is a good-tasting ice cream," which is a proposition. Even though the interrogator p ...[text shortened]... ngly. If he can't find an underlying proposition, then he has no business answering Yes or No.

But "It is a nice day" can be answer true of false because it is a proposition. You may not agree, or you may not know, but non-the-less it can be true or false but not both.

"When the respondent says Yes, he is really answering the question "Is it your opinion that chocolate is a good-tasting ice cream,"

If X is "chocolate is good-tasting ice cream" and if I say "chocolate is good-tasting ice cream" - it means I think the proposition X is true.

And [ proposition X is true ] is an opinion because I believe X is true.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
The article's title is deceptive.

Be carefull, Dear Doctor. Your self-made crown will fall again on that massive granite floor of that formalism of yours .... I still can hear the hollow echo's from the previous time it fell .........

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
The article's title is deceptive.

You are implying that Ivanhoe is being deceptive - a title can not have intentions.

I think you were confused by the title. 🙂

Originally posted by Coletti
But "It is a nice day" can be answer true of false because it is a proposition. You may not agree, or you may not know, but non-the-less it can be true or false but not both.

[b]"When the respondent says Yes, he is really answering the question "Is it your opinion that chocolate is a good-tasting ice cream,"

If X is "chocolate is good-tast ...[text shortened]... X is true.

And [ proposition X is true ] is an opinion because I believe X is true.[/b]

All I can say is that you don't make a good ambassador of Christian Logic. You're really quite confused about these issues. Think about it. I'm begging Ivanhoe to endorse the things you say as representative of correct propositional reasoning and he won't do it. In fact, I challenge you to find one person on this site who will.

I'm off for now. I'll be back later.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Nemesio's suggestion is a good one. Open a new thread on this issue and discuss it with Coletti.

The Doctor does not want to be thrashed a second time! 😉

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
All I can say is that you don't make a good ambassador of Christian Logic. You're really quite confused about these issues. Think about it. I'm begging Ivanhoe to endorse the things you say as representative of correct propositional reasoning and he won't do it.

I'm off for now. I'll be back later.

Say no more 'good' doctor.

Sorry about hi-jacking the thread Ivanhoe.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Jesus, take a stand for once. I want to know if you endorse Coletti's instruction in propositional reasoning or not. It is pertinent to the thread, as the thread is about faith and reason. I need to know whether Coletti can be trusted as an authority on reason, and in turn, as an authority on faith.

If faith is compatible only with Coletti's ...[text shortened]... endorse the article, and if you think his variety of reason is what the article is referring to.

Discuss these things with Coletti. I allready told you I find it very confusing. The only thing you can do is state your own conceptions, without introducing confusing instances.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/sci-9211.html


"The 'Galileo case' teaches us that different branches of knowledge call for different methods, each of which brings out various aspects of reality.
...

Back on track.

I think the first quote is rather confusing. Reality is what reality is regardless of the which theory of knowledge one holds to. If ones epistemology is faulty - it will likely lead to a confusing understanding of what is reality - not bring out some valid aspect of reality.

But I suppose that is not what the author is trying to say.