🚀 go-pugleaf

"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
news:WY8pd.181439$df2.145463@edtnps89...
> In article <qX7pd.181406$df2.17087@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
> >
> >
> >"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
> >news:q9Uod.204942$9b.178450@edtnps84...
> >> In article <hGQod.309646$Pl.266071@pd7tw1no>, you.dont.get@it.com
says...
> >> >
> >> >Helper Monkey Assault Squad 7 wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 23:40:51 GMT, DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com
> >> >> (Danie|_ Swan) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>>>No, faith is belief in something without proof.  Since proof
doesn't
> >exist
> >> >>>>>faith can be based on a hunch, a "gut feeling", or highly
developed
> >tools
> >> of
> >> >>>>>reasoning.  Personally, I choose the latter to build my faith on.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>Ok. I'll bite. How do your highly developed tools of
> >> >>>>reasoning lead you to believe in God?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>They don't, they've led me to atheism.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Oh well, so much for that argument.
> >> >
> >> >Yes, and it's still just a belief. A blind leap of faith,
> >>
> >> Wrong, it's a leap of faith but it is not a 'blind' leap of faith
because,
> >as I
> >> said, the leap of faith is based on highly developed tools of
reasoning.
> >>
> >Higly developed tools of reasoning have no place in faith. Faith is a
belief
> >or affirmation in the absence proof or reason.
>
> Wrong.  Faith is belief in the absence of proof, not reason.  Belief in
the
> absenece of reason is superstition.
>
Better start teaching yourself a bit of philosophy; which is the study of
arguments.  Belief in the absence of proof, but with reason is a hypothesis.
Once you get some proof to back it up, it becomes a theory.  Once it has
irrefutable proof that is generally accepted in all cases, it is a law.

Belief in the absence of reason, even when there is proof, is faith; partly
because without reason, you won't see the proof.  Consequently, it is still
generally defined in the philosophical world as a belief  or ascertion in
the absence of proof or reason.

>
> > That being said, reason has
> >no place in faith.  Even a wrong conclusion can be arrived at using
reason
> >if the premises are flawed.  However, it is then a wrong conclusion, not
> >faith.
>
> But you will put some measure of faith in that conclusion based on your
> reasoning.  The better the quality of your reasoning, the more likely
you'll
> find flaws in your hypothesis.
>
Depending on how you define proof, you will put faith in everything in some
form; since from a philosophical perspective, a fact does not exist except
as a definition.  Consequently, no matter how good your reasoning is, you
will likely arrive at the wrong conclusion if the premises are flawed.  Need
proof?  Read Zeno's Paradox.  The premises are generally accepted, yet the
conclusions will make no sense, because the generally-accepted premises are
misdefined in colloquial terms.


>