Faith and reason go hand in hand. God asks for faith for its existence to be revealed such that one no longer remains with faith only. I know God exists, and I know there must be a reason for its existence. Neither excludes the other.
No, faith and reason do not go hand in hand. They refer to two different things, one of them is faith, strong belief, and another reason, which has nothing to do with the faith. They are mutually exclusive. If the only way to know God is through faith, as God said, then there couldn't be a reason for the existence of God. If you have a strong reason for the existence of God then faith becomes meaningless.
No, everything a humans does has reasoning behind it, including faith. One must believe it reasonable, plausible that God exists to then allow that person to have faith. To state that faith and reasoning are mutually exclusive is bloody ridiculous.
If you have a reason for God then it means that you are sure that He exists. Then there is no room left for belief or faith given the definition of faith, strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2024 3:51 am
Faith and reason are inversely proportional;
Faith...- 0.1%..to 100%
Reason.- 100% to O.1%
What is mutually exclusive is empiricism and theism.
Both has elements of faith and reason in different degrees.
God can be believed both by 100% faith or 100% reason, or in combination, but the resultant God cannot be empirically real to the extent of answering prayers, create the universe or whatever humans think God is.
You either have a reason for God or you don't. So it is binary. The same applies to faith. You either have faith in a specific God or you don't.
How can you be so ignorant of the reality in this case?
Scientific facts as the most credible and objective necessary entails reason [inductive] and faith [small degrees].
Induction is not of high quality reason as compared to say deduction.
It is so prevalent within theology and philosophy where theologians had relied upon reason to prove the existence of God.
But ultimately is these cases, the faith [implicit] is too high to be reasonably reasonable.
"If the existence of an unlimited being is logically necessary, it means that the very concept of such a being implies its existence."
That looks dumber than I thought. It's also logically necessary that I win the lottery next week, after all I already came up with the concept for it.
The second premise is a dichotomy and therefore is valid then. So what is left is to understand why the third premise is right. His argument is valid and sound if the third premise is right.
Okay then any dichotomy is valid. Either cats have 6 legs or it is raining diamonds. It's a dichotomy so it's valid. Or maybe I should use the word "sound" here.
I think I should have said that the dichotomy is valid.
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2024 8:51 pm
The second premise is a dichotomy and therefore is valid then. So what is left is to understand why the third premise is right. His argument is valid and sound if the third premise is right.
Okay then any dichotomy is valid. Either cats have 6 legs or it is raining diamonds. It's a dichotomy so it's valid. Or maybe I should use the word "sound" here.
I think I should have said that the dichotomy is valid.
Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2024 5:48 am
Okay then any dichotomy is valid. Either cats have 6 legs or it is raining diamonds. It's a dichotomy so it's valid. Or maybe I should use the word "sound" here.
I think I should have said that the dichotomy is valid.
Try to make sense.
The second premise is correct according to the definition of necessity and impossibility that you got from ChatGPT.
bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2024 2:38 pm
The second premise is correct according to the definition of necessity and impossibility that you got from ChatGPT.
Yes, but the definition itself is insane.
Why?
Just because I have a concept of something, say an absolutely perfect being, doesn't mean that that being has to necessarily exist. That's a completely insane idea.
Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2024 2:40 pm
Yes, but the definition itself is insane.
Why?
Just because I have a concept of something, say an absolutely perfect being, doesn't mean that that being has to necessarily exist. That's a completely insane idea.
But the second premise does not tell that an unlimited being necessarily exists. It says it is either logically necessary or impossible.
Just because I have a concept of something, say an absolutely perfect being, doesn't mean that that being has to necessarily exist. That's a completely insane idea.
But the second premise does not tell that an unlimited being necessarily exists. It says it is either logically necessary or impossible.
Now you both agree and disagree with ChatGPT's explanation.
"If the existence of an unlimited being is logically necessary, it means that the very concept of such a being implies its existence."
Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2024 3:07 pm
Just because I have a concept of something, say an absolutely perfect being, doesn't mean that that being has to necessarily exist. That's a completely insane idea.
But the second premise does not tell that an unlimited being necessarily exists. It says it is either logically necessary or impossible.
Now you both agree and disagree with ChatGPT's explanation.
"If the existence of an unlimited being is logically necessary, it means that the very concept of such a being implies its existence."
I am not talking about the conclusion but the second premise.
bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2024 3:11 pm
But the second premise does not tell that an unlimited being necessarily exists. It says it is either logically necessary or impossible.
Now you both agree and disagree with ChatGPT's explanation.
"If the existence of an unlimited being is logically necessary, it means that the very concept of such a being implies its existence."
I am not talking about the conclusion but the second premise.
