Originally posted by jaywillI don't think reason invariably leads to the truth, math is not based on faith, and if reason doesn't lead to the truth, I don't think anything else does.
So then if your formula actually did prove the existence of God we would have to base that belief on a kind of faith that reasoning can lead to truth.
Undergirding your formula is an underlying "faith" that mathematical reasoning can lead to truth.
But we cannot prove that it does.
Of course the Bible doesn't wait for you to have to realize t ...[text shortened]... ruth about God's existence is known by faith.
Or faith PLUS God's [b]faithfulNESS. [/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by amolv06Reason may lead to truth. But only a circular reasoning can be used to attempt to prove that reason leads to truth.
I don't think reason invariably leads to the truth, math is not based on faith, and if reason doesn't lead to the truth, I don't think anything else does.
Since circular reasoning is not sound logically, we have to assume or have a kind of faith that reason can lead to truth.
I think that is how the argument goes.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by jaywillThat is how one of the arguments goes but your conclusion does require quite a wide definition of 'faith'.
Reason may lead to truth. But only a circular reasoning can be used to attempt to [b]prove that reason leads to truth.
Since circular reasoning is not sound logically, we have to assume or have a kind of faith that reason can lead to truth.
I think that is how the argument goes.[/b]
Originally posted by jaywillFaith in what? The first random statement you come across? Surely either your faith is placed randomly, or you used reasoning to choose one.
It tells you right up front that this truth about God's existence is known by faith.
Of course the problem you have is that you still don't know whether your method leads to truth. You simply have faith that it does.
Originally posted by Lord SharkI agree. And I don't like to even use the word "faith" that much in this example.
That is how one of the arguments goes but your conclusion does require quite a wide definition of 'faith'.
My reason is that it is not the same as biblical faith, I think. Faith in God is a kind of something radiated into man by God Himself.
I have told people many times. In myself I do not have any more faith then anyone else. This faith in God is like radiation infused into the psychological heart by the words of God.
Maybe it would be better to say that there is a kind of presumption or intuitive belief that reasoning leads to truth. And I think in many instances that is a reliable presumption.
Science rests on a philosophy of science.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI believe that we have a kind of resume of God. We have a record of His dealings with man over the course of many centries. We have a log of how God overcame various obstacles of every conceivable kind placed before His plans.
Faith in what? The first random statement you come across? Surely either your faith is placed randomly, or you used reasoning to choose one.
Of course the problem you have is that you still don't know whether your method leads to truth. You simply have faith that it does.
We have a record of the roadblocks of man's failure, man's opinions, man's disobedience, man's adding his own two cents, etc, etc. From Genesis on we see this encredible Mind branching over wall after wall to reach a goal.
Adam's disobedience doesn't stop Him. Cain's murder of Abel doesn't stop Him. Noah's failures, Abraham's weaknesses, Isaac's blindness, Jacob's trickery, Moses's temper and reluctance doesn't stop Him, the Isrealites rebellions don't stop Him, Saul, Jonah, David, Solomon and others with all their imperfections cannot stop Him. He continiues to branch over the obstacles.
As I read I have the feeling that these are indeed real people. I feel that I know these people. Thier sins and errors are familiar sounding.
The catalogue of God getting through all the human weaknesses and failures impresses us that He will be able to keep His promises. And that He does of course exist.
That is without. Within we have the Holy Spirit as a sense of God's presence. It is too real to take lightly.
Originally posted by jaywillSo you believe that the truth can be found through intuition.
As I read I have the feeling that these are indeed real people. I feel that I know these people. Thier sins and errors are familiar sounding.
The catalogue of God getting through all the human weaknesses and failures impresses us that He will be able to keep His promises. And that He does of course exist.
That is without. Within we have the Holy Spirit as a sense of God's presence. It is too real to take lightly.
My main problem with such a stance, is that it appears that everyones 'truth' as obtained by that method is different. Hardly my definition of 'truth'. The alternative hypothesis is that it only works for you.
2 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead===============================
So you believe that the truth can be found through intuition.
My main problem with such a stance, is that it appears that everyones 'truth' as obtained by that method is different. Hardly my definition of 'truth'. The alternative hypothesis is that it only works for you.
So you believe that the truth can be found through intuition.
===============================
Some truth can, I believe.
==============================
My main problem with such a stance, is that it appears that everyones 'truth' as obtained by that method is different. Hardly my definition of 'truth'. The alternative hypothesis is that it only works for you.
=================================
I think there is some exaggeration of the problem by some on that.
I would not stretch that delimma beyond a certain point.
For instance, I think all known human cultures would intuitively hold that bravery is a noble virtue whereas cowardice is not.
I would not ride the relativity issue too far, though some relativity is at play.
Ie. it is a moral truth that bravery is a desirable and noble human attribute.
Originally posted by jaywilldo you belive that these values could have a natural explanation? Do you think that these values could be a social construction?
[b]===============================
So you believe that the truth can be found through intuition.
===============================
Some truth can, I believe.
==============================
My main problem with such a stance, is that it appears that everyones 'truth' as obtained by that method is different. Hardly my definition of ...[text shortened]... ay.
Ie. it is a moral [b]truth that bravery is a desirable and noble human attribute.[/b]
Originally posted by jaywillObviously many things can be known intuitively, like how to walk, talk, eat, and even most morality.
I think there is some exaggeration of the problem by some on that.
I would not stretch that delimma beyond a certain point.
For instance, I think all known human cultures would intuitively hold that [b]bravery is a noble virtue whereas cowardice is not.
I would not ride the relativity issue too far, though some relativity is at play.
Ie. it is a moral truth that bravery is a desirable and noble human attribute.[/b]
There is however the problem that our intuition is often wrong, and relatively easily fooled (as I could show you with a pack of cards quite easily).
Unless of course you hold that the truth that is found via intuition supersedes what is found via reason and continue to hold that it was real magic and not a card trick.
But the problem regarding knowledge of God remains, in that I intuitively know he doesn't exist, and you intuitively know he does. That leaves us with direct evidence via reason, that intuition is fallible.