NationStates Jolt Archive

Some say you can,
some say that faith requires a certainty that reason can never provide.
I think that you cant,but my mind can be swayed by a good arguement.
Any its not what I think that counts on this thread, its what you think!
so...what do you think?

Reason can play a very big part in faith; without it, you end up with fundamentalist nonsense. Obviously there comes a point where reason cannot explain and faith must take over, but this is not to say that the two are mutually exclusive.

I did. God was defined in such a way that it made sense to believe in it.

You can come to the opinion that God exists through reason, perhaps.

But you can't attain faith through it.

Reason can play a very big part in faith; without it, you end up with fundamentalist nonsense. Obviously there comes a point where reason cannot explain and faith must take over, but this is not to say that the two are mutually exclusive.
Doesnt that mean that you cannot completly reason you way to faith-its like making a leap of faith,therefore not reasoning you way to faith!
I do get your point tho:)

I did. God was defined in such a way that it made sense to believe in it.
How so, please explain(not being sarky I am genuinly interested)

im a Christian Born - again as some might say in Baptism circle's i do go to a Reformed Baptist Church and i like Theology and Basically studying the Bible and through thinking of the world and what God says through the bible is very understandable, you need to try get your head round alot of daily life issue's though!

Doesnt that mean that you cannot completly reason you way to faith-its like making a leap of faith,therefore not reasoning you way to faith!
I do get your point tho:)
I don't think you can reason your way to faith. You can reason your way to the existence of God, and you can reason your way to what Christianity means, but to truly understand you have to learn with your heart, not your head. That is where faith comes in, but it should never replace reason.

Take the guy who cracked the DNA code, he found faith by examining the complexity of the DNA, and this guy is a very smart man.

im a Christian Born - again as some might say in Baptism circle's i do go to a Reformed Baptist Church and i like Theology and Basically studying the Bible and through thinking of the world and what God says through the bible is very understandable, you need to try get your head round alot of daily life issue's though!
I get what you mean, but isnt there a point where you realise that there is no absolute proof of God so you have to make the leap?

I reached my faith through reasoning and logic. Of course, I can't prove any of it through anything more than theory and assumption.

Of course not. If you reach a conclusion using reason, you know it. You wouldn't have any need for faith.

Descartes tried. Descartes failed. If you can provide a reasoned argument that gave you faith, please, share.

Take the guy who cracked the DNA code, he found faith by examining the complexity of the DNA, and this guy is a very smart man.
Really, I didnt know that, I went to a creationist lecture and the main proof of gods existence was the compexity of DNA.I can certainly see the point of this arguement.But I think it was dawkins(i think) that said that just because a proffessor of philosophy cant think of a reason for polar bears doesnt give him the right to say god did it.I guess it could be said of DNA, just because we cant completly expain it doesnt mean god did it.I guess tho its not the same if the guy who cracked the code thinks so.

Of course not. If you reach a conclusion using reason, you know it. You wouldn't have any need for faith.

True - I don't NEED faith. It's not even really "faith", per se, so much as, like... "What's your favorite color?" "Deism." That kinda thing.

I would further assert that if you had reached your conclusions using reasoning and logic, you could have that proof accepted by any rational observer.

Otherwise, you must have made a logical error.

I get what you mean, but isnt there a point where you realise that there is no absolute proof of God so you have to make the leap?

you dont really manke a leap, your whole opinion on the world changes to a more Godly point of view, i used to Love the ideology of Communism and Imperilistic rule and generally was angry at many things could be even Racist sometimes. but i read a book coming to faith in Christ i realised what the world was really like... i never read the Bible b4 i didnt read the bible to get converted i hardly knew the Bible i read a little book about Faith in Christ and what he's done and what is going to happen.

We live in a world a today world where anything goes if sex is offered to you on a silver plate you'd consider it yeah i would consider it because thou you are saved and your a christian dosnt stop you from sinning your still a sinner but you have Faith which is really believing in something that was once alive or there but is not infront of you now if you understand me ?

Of course not. If you reach a conclusion using reason, you know it. You wouldn't have any need for faith.
this is the crux of the debate-does reason only take you so far before you have to make an assumption and hedge your bets.
Pascal said that you could reach faith through reason, but not by proving god exists,but by saying that if there is a god and you believe in him-you go to heaven and if he doesnt exist you lose nothin.
If he doesnt exist and you dont believe in him you lose nothing but if he exists you go to hell.place your bet!
There are howver many criticisms of this, because the same could be said of all religions, but you cant believe in them all!

I would further assert that if you had reached your conclusions using reasoning and logic, you could have that proof accepted by any rational observer.

Otherwise, you must have made a logical error.

Not so - logic isn't as definitive as you think, especially in terms of religion. If it comes down to "I think god is benevolent, despite all that happens in the world" vs "I think god is a prick, in spite of all that's happened in the world" - then you come at what's referred to as an impasse. One might be slightly more logical, but that doesn't mean it's completely logical.

you dont really manke a leap, your whole opinion on the world changes to a more Godly point of view, i used to Love the ideology of Communism and Imperilistic rule and generally was angry at many things could be even Racist sometimes. but i read a book coming to faith in Christ i realised what the world was really like... i never read the Bible b4 i didnt read the bible to get converted i hardly knew the Bible i read a little book about Faith in Christ and what he's done and what is going to happen.

We live in a world a today world where anything goes if sex is offered to you on a silver plate you'd consider it yeah i would consider it because thou you are saved and your a christian dosnt stop you from sinning your still a sinner but you have Faith which is really believing in something that was once alive or there but is not infront of you now if you understand me ?

I get what you mean, and Im happy for you that you have found faith-but did you find it though reason?
I cant find faith because there are no completly reasonable arguements(to me anyway) that prove gods existence.

Really, I didnt know that, I went to a creationist lecture and the main proof of gods existence was the compexity of DNA.I can certainly see the point of this arguement.But I think it was dawkins(i think) that said that just because a proffessor of philosophy cant think of a reason for polar bears doesnt give him the right to say god did it.I guess it could be said of DNA, just because we cant completly expain it doesnt mean god did it.I guess tho its not the same if the guy who cracked the code thinks so.

Eh? Watson once said:

"our children will more be seen, not as the expression of God's will, but as results of the uncontrollable throw of genetic dice".

So the endorsement of God is where?

Eh? Watson once said:

"our children will more be seen, not as the expression of God's will, but as results of the uncontrollable throw of genetic dice".

So the endorsement of God is where?

I know nothing, so dont ask me;)

so...what do you think?
I think I'm better off approaching God through Doubt-with-a-capital-D, like God personally told me to do (no bull) - if I was interested, at any rate. God also told me that Faith-with-a-capital-F was a cheat, a cop-out, and an implicit refusal to get with the program of trying to get closer to God.

That's what I think. Well, know.

I get what you mean, and Im happy for you that you have found faith-but did you find it though reason?
I cant find faith because there are no completly reasonable arguements(to me anyway) that prove gods existence.

Reason is thinking of one thing in comparison to another i think lol.

but to sit on a bed for ages which anyone can do a start of with a subject doesnt have to be God could be anything. you could sit on that bed for hours couldnt you?

Depending on what your thought pattern starts off with? say Evolution i have no Scientific Background or knowledge on Evolution but what confuse's me is that theres Creation which i can accept.
Evolution on the other hand is strange because i did a NAtional Diploma in Horticulture plants and stuff. Now according to Evolutionists land plants came before land animals and insects and all that. but to produce seed as into ovulate a plant must recieve pollen spores from another identical plant which needs Bee's flyies' butterflies now they didnt come for about 3 million years so i cant get my ehead round that as a Christian yeah you think alot about things hehehe you get me?

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

^

The existence of God must be a Truth, and truth must be reasonable. So, the existence of God, and any faith based on it, must be reasonable. If yours isn't, you're just fooling yourself.

The problem is that reason alone is not exclusive. Using the same rational method, but beginning with different assumptions, two people can arrive at wildly different conclusions. Thus, while reason alone may be sufficient to come to a belief, it is insufficient to create faith (assuming, of course, a rational actor who recognizes this weakness of his own reasoning).

Let's complicate it even more. In any rational system containing a finite number of assertions, there exist statements that are true, that cannot be proven. The converse must also be true: there also exist statements that are false, that cannot be proven so. I posit that the existence of God, and therefore the truth of faith, is one of these border statements. Thus, it is impossible for any one person to come to a knowledge/faith in God based merely on reason and assertions of others.

How, then, to know the truth or untruth of God? The only rational possibility is through an experience that transcends reason. However, such an experience could only be de facto proof of God's existence (why not proof of his non-existence?) and would have to come through a medium other than the fallible senses. This medium is often called Spirit.

If the world were truly honest, there would only be four possible subsets of humanity: 1. Those who have experienced God; 2. Those who are trying to experience God; 3. Those who do not want to experience God; and 4. Those who once belonged to (2), but have since given up on experiencing God.

I attest that Group 1 exists.

Group 2: good work, and keep trying.

What can I say to Group 3?

Group 4: Believe me, it is worth the struggle.

Not so - logic isn't as definitive as you think, especially in terms of religion. If it comes down to "I think god is benevolent, despite all that happens in the world" vs "I think god is a prick, in spite of all that's happened in the world" - then you come at what's referred to as an impasse. One might be slightly more logical, but that doesn't mean it's completely logical.
a 'blik' then?

The existence of God must be a Truth,

And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is the point in this thread when logical arguement went out the window. Kudos.

And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is the point in this thread when logical arguement went out the window. Kudos.
Only if it's anything other than a personal truth.

^
nice quote.
I appluad you;)

Reason is thinking of one thing in comparison to another i think lol.

but to sit on a bed for ages which anyone can do a start of with a subject doesnt have to be God could be anything. you could sit on that bed for hours couldnt you?

Depending on what your thought pattern starts off with? say Evolution i have no Scientific Background or knowledge on Evolution but what confuse's me is that theres Creation which i can accept.
Evolution on the other hand is strange because i did a NAtional Diploma in Horticulture plants and stuff. Now according to Evolutionists land plants came before land animals and insects and all that. but to produce seed as into ovulate a plant must recieve pollen spores from another identical plant which needs Bee's flyies' butterflies now they didnt come for about 3 million years so i cant get my ehead round that as a Christian yeah you think alot about things hehehe you get me?
so to you, creation is more reasonable than evolution?
does this mean that reason is purley subjective-what one fids reasonable another doesnt-meaning that some can reason their way to faith but others cant?

Reason is thinking of one thing in comparison to another i think lol.

but to sit on a bed for ages which anyone can do a start of with a subject doesnt have to be God could be anything. you could sit on that bed for hours couldnt you?

Depending on what your thought pattern starts off with? say Evolution i have no Scientific Background or knowledge on Evolution but what confuse's me is that theres Creation which i can accept.


Eh? So if you don't understand it; it's wrong?


Evolution on the other hand is strange because i did a NAtional Diploma in Horticulture plants and stuff. Now according to Evolutionists land plants came before land animals and insects and all that.

Actually no. Insects have been around for a looong time.

Didn't you see Jurassic park? :p


but to produce seed as into ovulate a plant must recieve pollen spores from another identical plant which needs Bee's flyies' butterflies now they didnt come for about 3 million years so i cant get my ehead round that as a Christian yeah you think alot about things hehehe you get me?

You also assume the plants we have today are the same back then. Even today some plants don't require bees to pollinate....

And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is the point in this thread when logical arguement went out the window. Kudos.

Anyone who wants to can understand the reasoning. Taking one quote out of context does not a philosopher make.

An honest person will recognize that the argument only proves the essential unknowableness of God's existence or non-existence through human rationality.

You will further notice that I do not, until the last paragraph, assert that God is knowable, and then refer only to personal experience to support my claim.

Would it make you happy if I began with "If God exists, his existence must be a Truth"? I doubt it.

Again, what can I say to Group 3? Why lay a snare for a man because of his words? Why not try to know God?

so to you, creation is more reasonable than evolution?
does this mean that reason is purley subjective-what one fids reasonable another doesnt-meaning that some can reason their way to faith but others cant?

You have to Consider that if i said to you Born - Again you'd have to understand that that means there's a 3 in 1 Godhead The Father - the son - The Holy spirit.
that your's or mine's hehehe reasoning can cause the Holy Spirit to move upon you but it can also make Satan make a move on you into temtping you to belive in a more wordly idea.

Yes one person can lean more towards creation which will get him interested in the subject which might lead him/her to God.

On the other hand you can have another person who Leans more to Evolution and Disides that Creation is made up mumbo jumbo which someone created thousands of years ago. therefore when you reason on things such as life after death you may consider that Yes i will live Eternally if i Believe in Jesus Christ. then again you may thing but Jesus christ what am i talking about he was just a story what about there is no Life after Death just Nothing then have you created a midset on what your going to base your ideas on ? did you understand that hehehe it's not very well written.

Eh? So if you don't understand it; it's wrong?


Actually no. Insects have been around for a looong time.

Didn't you see Jurassic park? :p




You also assume the plants we have today are the same back then. Even today some plants don't require bees to pollinate....

well ive studied Plants and trees and all that and some trees we learnt were supposed to be dated at 3 million years old such as the Ginko tree, which pollinates the same way as today's tree's i mean bug goes upto tree wipes butt on flower or legs and flies to another tree, what im saying is that the facts in a fact book tell me that those mosquito things werent around till 3 million years later it's just a trailing thought pattern that can be used

Not so - logic isn't as definitive as you think, especially in terms of religion. If it comes down to "I think god is benevolent, despite all that happens in the world" vs "I think god is a prick, in spite of all that's happened in the world" - then you come at what's referred to as an impasse. One might be slightly more logical, but that doesn't mean it's completely logical.

You misunderstand logic. Logic only provides conclusions in the presence of certainty. Without certainty, it draws no conclusions at all.

You have to Consider that if i said to you Born - Again you'd have to understand that that means there's a 3 in 1 Godhead The Father - the son - The Holy spirit.
that your's or mine's hehehe reasoning can cause the Holy Spirit to move upon you but it can also make Satan make a move on you into temtping you to belive in a more wordly idea.

Yes one person can lean more towards creation which will get him interested in the subject which might lead him/her to God.

On the other hand you can have another person who Leans more to Evolution and Disides that Creation is made up mumbo jumbo which someone created thousands of years ago. therefore when you reason on things such as life after death you may consider that Yes i will live Eternally if i Believe in Jesus Christ. then again you may thing but Jesus christ what am i talking about he was just a story what about there is no Life after Death just Nothing then have you created a midset on what your going to base your ideas on ? did you understand that hehehe it's not very well written.
Your post is probably more coherent than anything I usually write
te he

You misunderstand logic. Logic only provides conclusions in the presence of certainty. Without certainty, it draws no conclusions at all.
In that case maybe I should have phrased my question better,can logic lead you to reason, are there any scientific arguements that can prove Gods existence?

In that case maybe I should have phrased my question better,can logic lead you to reason, are there any scientific arguements that can prove Gods existence?

Reason is necessarily logical.

I have not seen any such arguments. I suspect they don't exist, but I can't prove that, and thus I don't know it.

well ive studied Plants and trees and all that and some trees we learnt were supposed to be dated at 3 million years old such as the Ginko tree, which pollinates the same way as today's tree's i mean bug goes upto tree wipes butt on flower or legs and flies to another tree, what im saying is that the facts in a fact book tell me that those mosquito things werent around till 3 million years later it's just a trailing thought pattern that can be used

All right. Why do they call it "Pollen season?"

Bugs and birds greatly enhance cross pollination but they aren't the only it happens.

All right. Why do they call it "Pollen season?"

Bugs and birds greatly enhance cross pollination but they aren't the only it happens.
does evolution disprove gods existence for you?

Reason is necessarily logical.

I have not seen any such arguments. I suspect they don't exist, but I can't prove that, and thus I don't know it.

It's a question that doesn't get asked.

You can't prove it and you can't disprove it.

does evolution disprove gods existence for you?

Evolution has never set out to prove or disprove the existence of God.

I get what you mean, but isnt there a point where you realise that there is no absolute proof of God so you have to make the leap?

There is no "absolute proof" of anything. Any reasoning relies upon the axioms on which it rests and the specific inputs given.

I have personal experience which makes it reasonable to believe in God. I cannot know with absolute certainty that God exists, but I can have faith in that God.

Of course not. If you reach a conclusion using reason, you know it. You wouldn't have any need for faith.

Nonsense. Any conclusion based derived from reason is still based in assumptions - and can be absolutely wrong. We come to conclusions in science all the time - using reason, but we don't claim to know them to be true. In fact, we know that they are still up for debate and may very well be wrong.

Once upon a time, a reasoned argument posited that atoms were indivisible. But Dalton didn't know that atoms were indivisible. He came to that conclusion through reason, but had incomplete data.

I would further assert that if you had reached your conclusions using reasoning and logic, you could have that proof accepted by any rational observer.

Otherwise, you must have made a logical error.

Only if that other observer had the exact same information as you. Unless you are going to discount personal experience as useful in reasoning, you must concede that another cannot ever have the exact same information from which to start as you do.

Evolution has never set out to prove or disprove the existence of God.
I no, I have often said that evolution is compatibe with religion, but after the origin of species was publishd many people left the church.Im just asking your personal opinion.
this is general directed to all-do you believe in god,what would make you lose faith in god and if you dont what would make you believe?

this is the crux of the debate-does reason only take you so far before you have to make an assumption and hedge your bets.

Reason doesn't get anywhere before making assumptions. Any logical discourse or reasoning is based in a set of assumptions - assumptions that are taken as true without proof. We can try to limit the number of such assumptions, but we can never do away with them altogether.

Evolution on the other hand is strange because i did a NAtional Diploma in Horticulture plants and stuff. Now according to Evolutionists land plants came before land animals and insects and all that. but to produce seed as into ovulate a plant must recieve pollen spores from another identical plant which needs Bee's flyies' butterflies now they didnt come for about 3 million years so i cant get my ehead round that as a Christian yeah you think alot about things hehehe you get me?

Not all plants need bees or butterflies or any such to pollinate them. ((This is off-topic, but needed to be corrected)).

Reason can only take us as far as proven knowledge, and it can expand that knowledge. Once you move beyond what can be proven, you enter the realm of faith. Both are viable human traits that attempt to explain the universe around us. However, once something can be proven, faith (In this one area alone) has to give way.

Can reason lead to faith? No. Reason can lead to proof, and faith cannot stand against proof, Nor does it need to.

Reason is of the mind. Faith is of the soul.

Reason can only take us as far as proven knowledge, and it can expand that knowledge. Once you move beyond what can be proven, you enter the realm of faith. Both are viable human traits that attempt to explain the universe around us. However, once something can be proven, faith (In this one area alone) has to give way.

Can reason lead to faith? No. Reason can lead to proof, and faith cannot stand against proof, Nor does it need to.

Reason is of the mind. Faith is of the soul.

Thats a very good way of putting it,does this mean you think that people who have faith are unreasonable?

Descartes tried. Descartes failed. If you can provide a reasoned argument that gave you faith, please, share.
what if i told you that a religious scripture from the 2nd century seems to describe quite accurately the creation of galaxies and stars, in the way that only recently scientists have started to hypothesise?...

would that be a reasonable argument?

In that case maybe I should have phrased my question better,can logic lead you to reason, are there any scientific arguements that can prove Gods existence?

Yep. The problem, though, is that they all depend on assumptions. E.g. Assume that, if God exists, God is Love. Assume Love exists. Therefore, God exists.

As an alternative: Assume that, if God exists, God loves little children. Assume that if X loves Y, X will not allow Y to suffer. Little children often suffer. Therefore, God does not exist.

Though the existence of God is rational, it can only be proven through extra-rational means (see my first post).

Now, the question is, can the existence of God be disproven? It seems to me that anyone who could know that God does not exist would have to know everything. Wouldn't that fulfill the conditions of God?

It seems to me that we have three options: A world where God is knowable, but only through extra-rational means; or a world where God is unknowable because he chooses not to be known; or a world where God is unknowable because he does not exist.

Unfortunately, unless you know God, there's no way to know which of these universes you inhabit. Given the vast amount of testimony that God is knowable, one could fairly assume that God exists and is knowable. In a court of law, in which every member of humanity testified, this would have to be the verdict; the other side just doesn't have (can't have?) any credible witnesses.

This, I suppose, is faith to a first approximation. And it does come from a reasonable argument. So, I guess that if that's what we're content with, is the idea that there could be a God, and other people seem to think so, than sure, why not believe? then there's a reasonable argument for belief in the existence of God.

But it's not proof. Proof would have to be extra-rational.

And I say it can be obtained. But you have to prove that on your own, or choose to disbelieve it. Because it can't be disproved (even if it were false). This is the nature of humanity. (I hope it is not the nature of Godliness, as well).

You misunderstand logic. Logic only provides conclusions in the presence of certainty. Without certainty, it draws no conclusions at all.

Then logic can never draw any conclusions - period, as every logical discourse is based in axioms - which, by definition, are taken as true without proof.


In that case maybe I should have phrased my question better,can logic lead you to reason, are there any scientific arguements that can prove Gods existence?

Of course not! God (as creator, anyways) is, by definition, supernatural. Science, on the other hand, is a logical process bounded by the natural. One could not make a scientific argument for or against God any more than one could make a mathematical argument for or against vanilla being the best ice cream flavor or a sociological argument for the grass being green.

this is general directed to all-do you believe in god,what would make you lose faith in god and if you dont what would make you believe?

Interesting question, and I don't really know the answer. I suppose I would have to be completely convinced that my personal experience of God came from another source. Then I would no longer believe it to be God.

Nonsense. Any conclusion based derived from reason is still based in assumptions - and can be absolutely wrong.

But it can't be wrong given the assumptions. If the assumptions are correct, the conclusion absolutely must be true.

The trick is to use only assumptions you need. Things like "the physical world exists independently of me".

We come to conclusions in science all the time - using reason, but we don't claim to know them to be true. In fact, we know that they are still up for debate and may very well be wrong.

Those aren't conclusions. Those are hypotheses.

Once upon a time, a reasoned argument posited that atoms were indivisible. But Dalton didn't know that atoms were indivisible. He came to that conclusion through reason, but had incomplete data.

Reason can't posit things. That's beyond the realm of reason. Reason can only deduce.

Only if that other observer had the exact same information as you. Unless you are going to discount personal experience as useful in reasoning, you must concede that another cannot ever have the exact same information from which to start as you do.

Personal experience can be described, though.

If someone comes to me with a logical argument based on personal experience, I'll know whether he knows something (assuming he's not lying to me). I'll know whether his conclusion is logically required by his experiences. I have yet to see an argument on this subject go even that far.

Thats a very good way of putting it,does this mean you think that people who have faith are unreasonable?

I look at a persons faith, and reason as two seperate parts of that person. Asking if the faithful are unreasonable is like asking their toes if their fingers are itching. Faith itself is only unreasonable when it is blind faith.

Reason can only take us as far as proven knowledge,

Then you don't think that science uses reason?

Science, as a method, proves nothing. It can disprove a hypothesis. In failing to do so, it can support a hypothesis. But the method of science can never prove a hypothesis to be true.

And yet, most people would label science as reason.


But it can't be wrong given the assumptions. If the assumptions are correct, the conclusion absolutely must be true.

Not necessarily. The conclusion might be wrong because there is further data that was unavailable at the time.

Those aren't conclusions. Those are hypotheses.

No, they begin as hypotheses. We then test said hypotheses. We then come to a conclusion based upon the test results.

Reason can't posit things. That's beyond the realm of reason. Reason can only deduce.

And one often posits things one has deduced from the evidence at hand. Dalton took the evidence and reasoned that atoms must be indivisible. Based on the evidence he had, this was a perfectly reasonable conclusion. Eventually, further data proved that conclusion to be false.

Personal experience can be described, though.

A description does not give the same information as the actual experience. If I describe to you a bird I saw, you did not actually see the bird. I might be wrong about some detail, or might have left out a detail you might have seen.

If someone comes to me with a logical argument based on personal experience, I'll know whether he knows something (assuming he's not lying to me). I have yet to see an argument on this subject go even that far.

How will you know if a person has actually had the experience they describe? How will you know if the experience is what they think it to be?

I can tell you that I have had personal experience of God, that I have felt God's guidance in response to my request for it. For me, the only logical step is to believe in God, because I have experienced God. But you, having different information and different experiences, may reason that my experiences were something else - that I am misinterpreting them.

Then you don't think that science uses reason?

Science, as a method, proves nothing. It can disprove a hypothesis. In failing to do so, it can support a hypothesis. But the method of science can never prove a hypothesis to be true.

And yet, most people would label science as reason.



{snip}

1. You missed the part of the statement that I bolded: "...and it can expand that knowledge."

2. Science is not reason. Science uses reason.

3. Science cannot prove a theory, because once science has proven a hypothesis, it is no longer a theory. It is proven fact, and can be proven again through experiment. Repeatability of results is a cornerstone of the scientific method.

I say, no, reason will never lead to faith, but let me qualify that by stating two closely related things reason can do.

Reason can support faith: if I believe something - say, the existence of God - and taking that as a premise does not lead to contradictions with what I see, then it looks like my belief is reasonable. I believe this is essentially the same process as is used in the scientific method.

(Corollary: Theoretically, reason could lead away from faith. If one believed something that did not at all correspond to actual experience, reason will create doubt that the thing believed is actually true.)

Reason can also lead to belief (not faith): If I look at the evidence of this world, and the only consistent explanation is a supernatural one, then I am forced (logically) to believe in the supernatural. I do not necessarily, because of that evidence, put faith in any particular supernatural being.

[Distinction in the above paragraph: belief is thinking something is true/exists. Faith is believing *in* someone or something to help you, make you happy, whatever.]

what if i told you that a religious scripture from the 2nd century seems to describe quite accurately the creation of galaxies and stars, in the way that only recently scientists have started to hypothesise?...

would that be a reasonable argument?
If you can show me the scriptue and the scientific hypotheses-then I might believe it.

1. You missed the part of the statement that I bolded: "...and it can expand that knowledge."

It must first have said knowledge. How does one reach actual knowledge, pray tell?

2. Science is not reason. Science uses reason.

If science uses reason, then proof of a given idea is not necessary to conclude that it is true.

3. Science cannot prove a theory, because once science has proven a hypothesis, it is no longer a theory. It is proven fact, and can be proven again through experiment. Repeatability of results is a cornerstone of the scientific method.

Incredibly incorrect. Science cannot possibly prove a hypothesis or a theory. No matter how many times we test it and do not disprove it - we may test it again and find it to be untrue. The very basis of science is that nothing is ever considered proven - it is all up for question.

There is no way to to prove anything through a scientific experiment. You either disprove it, or support it by not doing so.

And nothing in science ever moves beyond theory. Once a theory, always a theory. Even those things which are referred to as "laws" are theories - they are simply theories which have stood so much time and testing that we cannot see them being disproven. They would, however, be disproven if the evidence pointed that way.

personally, i don't see what you mean by reaching faith through reason some one tell me please. But i do know that faith is only reachable if you believe in God and further more his son. I still don't know what you people mean by reason.

Some say you can,
some say that faith requires a certainty that reason can never provide.
I think that you cant,but my mind can be swayed by a good arguement.
Any its not what I think that counts on this thread, its what you think!
so...what do you think?
well i haven't found a way. i have no faith and i kinda needed god last year but couldn't find him through reason alone, much as i tried or wanted

i think that fundamental belief defies reason (apart from some very abstract philisophical arguements), therefore using reason to find faith cannot work

Then you don't think that science uses reason?

I do think science uses reason. I don't think science is analagous to reason.

Science, as a method, proves nothing. It can disprove a hypothesis.

That's a proof. It proves the hypothsis incorrect. It lets us know what we don't know.

Not necessarily. The conclusion might be wrong because there is further data that was unavailable at the time.

Then the conclusion was unreasonable. Just because a result is both likely and consistent with what we already know is not a reason to conclude that it is true. It might be a reason to act as if it is true, but not conclude that it is.

No, they begin as hypotheses. We then test said hypotheses. We then come to a conclusion based upon the test results.

But you said yourself, science can't prove hypotheses. The results might reinforce the hypothesis (or even prove it for a specific case), but the broader hypothesis remains a matter of uncertainty until it is disproven.

And one often posits things one has deduced from the evidence at hand. Dalton took the evidence and reasoned that atoms must be indivisible.

As a logical fallacy, what Dalton did there was a non sequitur.

Based on the evidence he had, this was a perfectly reasonable conclusion. Eventually, further data proved that conclusion to be false.

You're using reasonable to be synonymous with credible. That's not what the word means.

A description does not give the same information as the actual experience. If I describe to you a bird I saw, you did not actually see the bird. I might be wrong about some detail, or might have left out a detail you might have seen.

But if you drew conclusions from having seen the bird, you'd certainly get the relevant details right. As I said, I would know whether you had reason to conclude what you concluded.

How will you know if a person has actually had the experience they describe? How will you know if the experience is what they think it to be?

I didn't say I would.

I can tell you that I have had personal experience of God, that I have felt God's guidance in response to my request for it. For me, the only logical step is to believe in God, because I have experienced God. But you, having different information and different experiences, may reason that my experiences were something else - that I am misinterpreting them.

And if you'll descirbe that experience to me in all its relevant details, I'll know if you had reason to draw the conclusions you did. I'll know whether your interpretation was reasonable. I won't draw the same conclusions, but it would do wonders to shift my perception of believers in general.

personally, i don't see what you mean by reaching faith through reason some one tell me please. But i do know that faith is only reachable if you believe in God and further more his son. I still don't know what you people mean by reason.

There are other ways of faith you know.

personally, i don't see what you mean by reaching faith through reason some one tell me please. But i do know that faith is only reachable if you believe in God and further more his son. I still don't know what you people mean by reason.
when I say faith I dont necessarily mean christianity,a person can have faith without believing in jesus, they may be a hindu or something.Faith isnt exclusive to christians.

personally, i don't see what you mean by reaching faith through reason some one tell me please. But i do know that faith is only reachable if you believe in God and further more his son. I still don't know what you people mean by reason.

You don't think that Jews have faith? What about Muslims? Hindus? Wiccans?

I do think science uses reason. I don't think science is analagous to reason.

Of course not. It is a subset - a specific logical process.

That's a proof. It proves the hypothsis incorrect. It lets us know what we don't know.

And, like I said, it does not prove the hypothesis correct, no matter how many times we test it and do not disprove it. We can test the same hypothesis 1,000,000,000,000,000 times and never disprove it, and it would still not be logically proven. It simply wouldn't be disproven.

Then the conclusion was unreasonable. Just because a result is both likely and consistent with what we already know is not a reason to conclude that it is true. It might be a reason to act as if it is true, but not conclude that it is.

Are you suggesting that a conclusion can only be an absolute statement?

But you said yourself, science can't prove hypotheses. The results might reinforce the hypothesis (or even prove it for a specific case), but the broader hypothesis remains a matter of uncertainty until it is disproven.

Indeed. But conclusions are never 100% certain. Only within mathematics can we even come close to 100% certain.

As a logical fallacy, what Dalton did there was a non sequitur.

Hardly. Dalton used science - a process which you have already stated uses reason, to come to a conclusion. That conclusion, as far as he could tell, was true. It was perfectly reasonable to state it as such. Further evidence disproved it.

You're using reasonable to be synonymous with credible. That's not what the word means.

No, I am not. I am using reason to be similar to logical. The way you seem to be defining reason, it is only possible within mathematics.

But if you drew conclusions from having seen the bird, you'd certainly get the relevant details right. As I said, I would know whether you had reason to conclude what you concluded.

This is hardly true. I can draw conclusions from something based on faulty data - it happens all the time.

I didn't say I would.

If you wouldn't know those things, why would you ever come to the same conclusion as them?

And if you'll descirbe that experience to me in all its relevant details, I'll know if you had reason to draw the conclusions you did. I'll know whether your interpretation was reasonable. I won't draw the same conclusions, but it would do wonders to shift my perception of believers in general.

What details do you want?

It must first have said knowledge. How does one reach actual knowledge, pray tell?



If science uses reason, then proof of a given idea is not necessary to conclude that it is true.



Incredibly incorrect. Science cannot possibly prove a hypothesis or a theory. No matter how many times we test it and do not disprove it - we may test it again and find it to be untrue. The very basis of science is that nothing is ever considered proven - it is all up for question.

There is no way to to prove anything through a scientific experiment. You either disprove it, or support it by not doing so.

And nothing in science ever moves beyond theory. Once a theory, always a theory. Even those things which are referred to as "laws" are theories - they are simply theories which have stood so much time and testing that we cannot see them being disproven. They would, however, be disproven if the evidence pointed that way.

1. knowledge is reached through repeated experiments. Experience in other words.

2. Science uses reason to posit a theory, which is then proven, or disproven through experiment.

3. The above two points also answer your third. Experiment can and does prove scientific fact. The Laws will apply today, just as they did yesterday.

Some say you can,
some say that faith requires a certainty that reason can never provide.
I think that you cant,but my mind can be swayed by a good arguement.
Any its not what I think that counts on this thread, its what you think!
so...what do you think?

Thomas Paine anyone? http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/intro.html

Thomas Paine anyone? http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/intro.html
Im thomas paine reincarnated;)

1. knowledge is reached through repeated experiments. Experience in other words.

In other words, knowledge can never be 100% certain. No matter how many times I do an experiment and get one result, I may get another the next time. No matter how many times I fail to disprove a hypothesis or theory, I may disprove it on the next experiment.

2. Science uses reason to posit a theory, which is then proven, or disproven through experiment.

Absolutely incorrect. Science uses reason, drawn from observation, to posit a hypothesis. This hypothesis is tested. The results of the experiment will either disprove the hypothesis (in which case it is thrown out) or support it. The test cannot logically prove the hypothesis. If a hypothesis stands up to enough testing, it then becomes theory.

Seriously, this is the very basics of the scientific method.

3. The above two points also answer your third. Experiment can and does prove scientific fact. The Laws will apply today, just as they did yesterday.

Is that why Newton's "Laws" were disproven when we began examining subatomic particles? They are a good approximation at large masses and low speeds, but are not actually correct.

New data will always force us to reexamine what we "know". That is the strength of the scientific method - it is self-correcting. Even if we come to a conclusion that is incorrect, further testing can disprove that conclusion. No method will bring us to absolute 100% certain knowledge, but science can at least get us closer and closer.

There is no logical way for a scientific experiment to prove a hypothesis, as there will always be alternate explanations for the results of a given experiment. Laypersons often take theory as "scientific fact" because, as far as they are concerned, it might as well be proven. But a scientist must always be questioning - and must question just about everything.

Doesn't reason also incorporate the possibility of the unknown and doubt? If so, faith is a certain way of reasoning. ;)

Im thomas paine reincarnated;)

That's why we are having this discussin AGAIN after 200+ years. :p

That's why we are having this discussin AGAIN after 200+ years. :p
well you know, I am:p getting used to this whole internet thing and I wanted to bring mine message to the general population without having to resoryt to a priniting press.

You can come to the opinion that God exists through reason, perhaps.

But you can't attain faith through it.
I concur.

{snip}
There is no logical way for a scientific experiment to prove a hypothesis, as there will always be alternate explanations for the results of a given experiment. Laypersons often take theory as "scientific fact" because, as far as they are concerned, it might as well be proven. But a scientist must always be questioning - and must question just about everything.

Very well, as a layperson, I will concede that it is my faith in the laws of science that will make the sun will rise tomorrow. As good as proven is good enough for me.

How so, please explain(not being sarky I am genuinly interested)
With this crowd, are you kidding? No, I really can't.

I think people make faith harder to accept than it is. If someone tells you "Here, eat this. It tastes good.", you can ask all the questions you want and the person can answer truthfully, but until you take a bite, you won't know if what they said is true or not.

theres is a proof that God Exist's? why do people say there isnt :) too you it might not seem proof but this thing is called The Bible.

Sounds wierd huh but if there was no Bible would there be a God? would we create a God? would God be in our Mind? would we be hear talking in this Forum? Would i be hear? is paracetomal Good for headaches?

Proof that God exist's thou you probably will all have summat to say about my post.

Chapter 1 Genesis. v1. In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth.

thats proof that there is a God isnt it? or am i wrong?

Chapter 1 Genesis. v1. In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth.

thats proof that there is a God isnt it? or am i wrong?
No, it's not. It's a statement *about* God and heaven and earth. It's a statement about the relationship between God and heaven/earth. It's a statement about us. But it's not a proof of anything.

theres is a proof that God Exist's?

Really? And it is?

too you it might not seem proof but this thing is called The Bible.

The Bible is only "proof" to those who already believe.

Sounds wierd huh but if there was no Bible would there be a God?

Why wouldn't there be? Do you really think God's existence is caused by a single holy book?

Chapter 1 Genesis. v1. In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth.

thats proof that there is a God isnt it? or am i wrong?

I don't know. Is this proof that Harry Potter exists?

Yet Harry Potter was still there, asleep at the moment, but not for long. His Aunt Petunia was awake and it was her shrill voice that made the first noise of the day.

"Up! Get up! Now!"

Harry woke with a start. His aunt rapped on the door again.

Note that I am not claiming that the Bible is fictional. I am simply claiming that the fact that an entity is written about does not prove it exists.

theres is a proof that God Exist's? why do people say there isnt :) too you it might not seem proof but this thing is called The Bible.

Sounds wierd huh but if there was no Bible would there be a God? would we create a God? would God be in our Mind? would we be hear talking in this Forum? Would i be hear? is paracetomal Good for headaches?

Proof that God exist's thou you probably will all have summat to say about my post.

Chapter 1 Genesis. v1. In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth.

thats proof that there is a God isnt it? or am i wrong?

The question is, why do you trust the bible? What reason do you have to believe it to be right?

I could write a book about God. That doesn't mean that I or my book know anything about God.

And, like I said, it does not prove the hypothesis correct, no matter how many times we test it and do not disprove it. We can test the same hypothesis 1,000,000,000,000,000 times and never disprove it, and it would still not be logically proven. It simply wouldn't be disproven.

Finally we agree on something.

Are you suggesting that a conclusion can only be an absolute statement?

I'm saying that a conclusion has an absolute truth value.

Indeed. But conclusions are never 100% certain. Only within mathematics can we even come close to 100% certain.

Mathematics is an internally consistent logical construct. Any sound logical system can provide that level of certainty, given your assumptions.

Hardly. Dalton used science - a process which you have already stated uses reason, to come to a conclusion. That conclusion, as far as he could tell, was true. It was perfectly reasonable to state it as such. Further evidence disproved it.

No, I am not. I am using reason to be similar to logical. The way you seem to be defining reason, it is only possible within mathematics.

Logic only draws conclusions that are necessarily true. Dalton had only evidence that the atom was indivisible, but it wasn't conclusive evidence. Dalton knew that the atom was indivisible under the circumstances existant in his tests, but that's all he knew. Inferring that the atom was indivisible under all possible circumstances was poor reasoning.

In fact, inference is always poor reasoning.

This is hardly true. I can draw conclusions from something based on faulty data - it happens all the time.

Right, but you're aware that you're assuming your data to be accurate. Given your assumptions, you can draw conclusions with certainty. It's just that your assumptions were wrong.

If you wouldn't know those things, why would you ever come to the same conclusion as them?

I never claimed I would draw the same conclusions are you did. I'm really just offering to check your math.

If you drew a logical conclusion (and by logical, I mean a conclusion drawn using only logic), then you had information that required that conclusion be true. I don't need to trust your information, but I can tell whether that information would require your conclusions, should I trust it.

What details do you want?

Only you would know which details are relevant.

Some say you can,
some say that faith requires a certainty that reason can never provide.
I think that you cant,but my mind can be swayed by a good arguement.
Any its not what I think that counts on this thread, its what you think!
so...what do you think?

You believe, without much supporting evidence, that you are discussing topics with "real" people on this forum.

There are a great many assumptions that you take on faith that cannot be arrived at by reason, or proved mathematically. Without following these assumptions, your worldview would fall apart.

And while we're at it, are you going to take the red pill or the blue pill?

You believe, without much supporting evidence, that you are discussing topics with "real" people on this forum.

There are a great many assumptions that you take on faith that cannot be arrived at by reason, or proved mathematically. Without following these assumptions, your worldview would fall apart.

And while we're at it, are you going to take the red pill or the blue pill?

It's not necessary to believe that my assumptions are correct.

It's not necessary to believe that my assumptions are correct.
Yes, that's what Deep Kimchi said.

I'm saying that a conclusion has an absolute truth value.

Certainly. But a wrong conclusion can - and often is - reached through reason.

Mathematics is an internally consistent logical construct.

Exactly. It is a construct. Life on the other hand? Not so much.

Any sound logical system can provide that level of certainty, given your assumptions.

Any sound logical system must be based in sound assumptions. Most of our assumptions in real-world systems, however, cannot be determined with any certainty.

Logic only draws conclusions that are necessarily true.

This isn't true. Logic draws conclusions that are consistent with available evidence. A requirement of "necessarily true" would mean that one could never use logic to draw a conclusion.

Dalton had only evidence that the atom was indivisible, but it wasn't conclusive evidence. Dalton knew that the atom was indivisible under the circumstances existant in his tests, but that's all he knew. Inferring that the atom was indivisible under all possible circumstances was poor reasoning.

In fact, inference is always poor reasoning.

In that case, science itself is "poor reasoning". Inference or inductive logic are the very basis of science.

Right, but you're aware that you're assuming your data to be accurate. Given your assumptions, you can draw conclusions with certainty. It's just that your assumptions were wrong.

It makes no sense to say, "Given your assumptions, you can draw conclusions with certainty." You have introduced uncertainty by introducing the assumptions.

I never claimed I would draw the same conclusions are you did. I'm really just offering to check your math.

According to you, a logical conclusion is one that any person would reach. Thus, the only way you could accept my process as logical would be to agree with me - to reach the same conclusions.

Only you would know which details are relevant.

You are the one trying to determine whether or not I used reason - thus you know what relevant details you need. Trying to describe the experience of God's guidance to someone who has not felt it is like trying to describe the taste of "apple" to someone who has never tasted it. It tastes like, well, apple.

Certainly. But a wrong conclusion can - and often is - reached through reason.

Not given your assumptions.

I thikn we need to go over what assumptions are, for a second. Assumptions are assertions to take to be true for the purposes of your reasoning. You're well aware that you may have no confidence in the truth of your assumptions, but the point of having them is to give your reasoning some sort of starting point. The conclusions the reasoning draws are guaranteed to be true in the world only if the assumptions are right, but you can know that with certainty. If my assumptions accurately describe the world, then my conclusion is guaranteed to decribe the world.

Exactly. It is a construct. Life on the other hand? Not so much.

And our assumptions bridge that gap.

Any sound logical system must be based in sound assumptions. Most of our assumptions in real-world systems, however, cannot be determined with any certainty.

The logical system is just a process of deduction. If I define an axiomatic logical system, I don't need to know anything about the world to know whether the system is sound.

This isn't true. Logic draws conclusions that are consistent with available evidence. A requirement of "necessarily true" would mean that one could never use logic to draw a conclusion.

While the conclusions are consistent with available evidence, if they're not required by the available evidence they're just induction. A non sequitur, if you will.

In that case, science itself is "poor reasoning". Inference or inductive logic are the very basis of science.

Patently false. Inference and induction are entirely unnecessary. You'd only need them if you wanted to claim, as Dalton did, that the atom was indivisible under all possible curcumstances. Such universal claims are always unprovable, and it was irresponsible of Dalton to make one.

Instead, Dalton should have claimed that his experiments were unable to detect the divisibility of the atom and left it at that.

It makes no sense to say, "Given your assumptions, you can draw conclusions with certainty." You have introduced uncertainty by introducing the assumptions.

Absolutely not. In real world terms what I'm saying is that we can know with certainlty the truth value of the conditional "If A then C" where A is my set of assumptions and C is my conclusion.

According to you, a logical conclusion is one that any person would reach. Thus, the only way you could accept my process as logical would be to agree with me - to reach the same conclusions.

Any logical person, yes. And I'm confident I would.

You are the one trying to determine whether or not I used reason - thus you know what relevant details you need. Trying to describe the experience of God's guidance to someone who has not felt it is like trying to describe the taste of "apple" to someone who has never tasted it. It tastes like, well, apple.

But if you drew some conclusion about the apple based on having eaten it, you'd know which characteristics of the apple were relevant to that line of reasoning. For example, if you concluded that the apple was not poisonous because you ate it and did not get sick, those are the relevant parts of your experience. The colour of the apple wouldn't have been relevant. I might then amend your conclusion to be the apple was not poisonous to you, assuming that you did actually eat the apple and not get sick.

So if God appeared before you and gave you stone tablets, I'd probably accept that you were reasonable to conclude that God exists. I don't actually know whether God did appear before you and give you stone tablets, so I can't draw any conclusions about God's existence myself, but I can at least make sure that you haven't made any errors on your end. If I think you have, then I can try to convince you that you don't actually have enough information to conclude that God exists.

what if i told you that a religious scripture from the 2nd century seems to describe quite accurately the creation of galaxies and stars, in the way that only recently scientists have started to hypothesise?...

would that be a reasonable argument?
If you can show me the scripture and the scientific hypotheses-then I might believe it.

here are the scientific observations:
"Using a giant natural telescope, astronomers have discovered a distant star factory where a new sun is being born every 10 hours. The stellar nursery surrounds a supermassive black hole that pours out enormous amounts of energy. The find supports the relatively new idea that black holes and galaxies grew in lockstep in the early days of the universe.

According to this scenario, massive bursts of star formation should have accompanied the initial growth of black holes, but so far, that has been hard to confirm.
govertschilling (http://www.govertschilling.nl/artikelen/science/030403_sc.htm)

Black holes are best known for ripping stars apart, but new observations of the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way show that it’s actually helping stars form.

Until now, scientists had disagreed about the origin of a collection of massive stars orbiting less than a light-year from our galaxy’s central black hole, which scientists call Sagittarius A*. The stars were first seen by infrared telescopes.

The new finding, based on observations from the Chandra X-ray Observatory, confirms the theory that black holes can help form massive stars and gives more support to the idea that black holes play a big role in galaxy formation."
space.com (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/blackhole_history_030128-1.html)

so, the theory that blackholes are the beginning is getting strength by the year. and this is the scripture, with modern interpretation, wording and notes in bold.

Jesus teaches Judas about Cosmology: the Spirit and the Self-Generated

Jesus said, “[come], that I may teach you about [secrets] no person [has] ever seen. for there exists a great and boundless realm (Cosmos), whose extent no generation of angels has seen, [in which] there is [a] great invisible [Spirit] (hydrogen molecules - not atoms - are invisible and so is dark matter),

which no eye of an angel has ever seen,
no thought of the heart has ever comprehended,
and it was never called by any name.

and a luminous cloud appeared there (it is accepted that the universe began with clouds of hydrogen gas). he said, 'let an angel come into being as my attendant.' a great angel (blackhole), the enlightened divine Self-Generated, emerged from the cloud. because of him, four other angels came into being from another cloud (because the energy of a black-hole ignites star and therefore could ignite more black-hole formation in stellar nurseries), and they became attendants for the angelic Self-Generated. the Self-Generated said, ‘let [...] come into being [...],’ and it came into being [...] (unfortunately, we don't know what was refered here as being created because some bits of the manuscript were lost). and he [created] the first luminary (luminary means star, which points to a distinction between luminaries and angels) to reign over him. he said, ‘let angels come into being to serve [him],’ and myriads (myriads=tens of thousands) without number came into being. he said, ‘[let] an enlightened aeon come into being,’ and he came into being (aeon derives from the greek word 'aion', which meant "a period of existence" or "life" and "life" exists on planets, obviously). he created the second luminary (star) [to] reign over him (a reference to binary solar systems?), together with myriads of angels without number, to offer service. that is how he created the rest of the enlightened aeons. he made them reign over them, and he created for them myriads of angels without number, to assist them.

please don't ask me how this description fits so well or how someone could make such a description in the 2nd century AD (which is the date of the only surviving copy of the manuscript, but not necessarily the date of the original). please don't ask me how Jesus could have known these things.

""I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.""


Eh, contrary to popular belief, even without faith, god is still god. He won't suddenly stop being god if people find out he exists for sure.

Originally Posted by Big Jim P
Reason can only take us as far as proven knowledge, and it can expand that knowledge. Once you move beyond what can be proven, you enter the realm of faith. Both are viable human traits that attempt to explain the universe around us. However, once something can be proven, faith (In this one area alone) has to give way.

Can reason lead to faith? No. Reason can lead to proof, and faith cannot stand against proof, Nor does it need to.

Reason is of the mind. Faith is of the soul.
I nearly agree. I would say that reason can lead to faith, if we consider the step into faith as "off-roading." Reason can take us up to the point at which faith begins. Reason can also define -- or maybe just suggest -- the form of that which we have faith in. Reason can also help to maintain a balance, reconciling discrepancies, between faith and experience.

Checklandia
Thats a very good way of putting it,does this mean you think that people who have faith are unreasonable?

No, because
Big Jim P
I look at a persons faith, and reason as two seperate parts of that person. Asking if the faithful are unreasonable is like asking their toes if their fingers are itching. Faith itself is only unreasonable when it is blind faith.
and
German Nightmare
Doesn't reason also incorporate the possibility of the unknown and doubt? If so, faith is a certain way of reasoning. ;)
It can be, provided it is used by a reasoning and reasonable person.

Thanks for making my points, guys. :)

I reached my faith through reasoning and logic. Of course, I can't prove any of it through anything more than theory and assumption.
Same here. I think of it as faith primarily because I can't prove it to anyone but myself.

here are the scientific observations:

govertschilling (http://www.govertschilling.nl/artikelen/science/030403_sc.htm)


space.com (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/blackhole_history_030128-1.html)

so, the theory that blackholes are the beginning is getting strength by the year. and this is the scripture, with modern interpretation, wording and notes in bold.



please don't ask me how this description fits so well or how someone could make such a description in the 2nd century AD (which is the date of the only surviving copy of the manuscript, but not necessarily the date of the original). please don't ask me how Jesus could have known these things.
scripture with a modern interpretation.you are assuming what jesus meant!