Slam Dunk!
I’ll explain, k?
You told kanicbird, “You CANNOT debate faith with logic anymore than you can make a square circle.”
Yet when pressed you gave me a link that used logical as a descriptor -----an adjective----- for proof.
Your own cite doesn’t make your case. Show me substantively------without witnessing----- how logic can’t be used in faith.
I’ll be waiting.
In all fairness, I don’t have a lot of time, and I really wanted to get back to my discussion with Revenant Threshold so maybe I shouldn’t have posted.
However…without regard to doctrine or ideology, it occurs to me that 2 of the most misused words in GD are rational, and logic.
I’ve wondered if people simply don’t understand the words, or if their subjective beliefs (in some parts that’s called faith…) have blinded them to the plain truth that its mighty hard to say that my subjective beliefs reek of logic, and yours are bereft of it.
It leaves me scratching my head, frankly.
I’ll add one more thing…
It’s entirely appropriate to say kanicbird’s subjective beliefs are illogical as a way of saying they’re flawed.
But when you say that faith------by definition------- cannot be a product of rational, reasoned logic, you are either ignorant of the definition of the word[s] or you’re displaying the greatest of faiths. (blind as it often is…)
In my experience a huge part of debate is paying attention to the side your debating with. So you might want to read that post again. 'cause that is not who I was talking to.
That said, statement still stand. Try using logic to dissuade a Jehovah’s Witness on blood transfusion issues.
Nothing as nefarious as that. A simple Firefox extension linking to Dictionary.com
Again, I how no idea where you get “witnessing” out of anything I’ve written. But if you didn’t understand it the first time, logic, on its own* has little to no chance of persuading a believer that his faith is nonsensical. You’d first have to get said person to understand why logic trumps faith and how. Sure, easy enough for you and I to know as much. For the truly faithful, not so much.
If this weren’t truth, we’d all be a variation/combination of atheism and agnosticism. And unless I am mistaken – which would make it a mistake of Biblical proportions ;)-- that is far from the case.
Trust your accommodations keep you in the utmost of comfort as I refuse to be blamed for any physical discomforts, or worse, injuries, for I am not a nocturnal mouselike animal flying with a pair of membranous wings (AKA bat) Fact: most of my life takes place in daylight.
Enjoy the rest of your evening – and stay away from sunlight, garlic and stakes!
Definition I’ve been using through this entire hijack, which btw, is rather the most common of all (Google it):
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence
Right. Away I must.
Really.
::::yaaawn::::
Apologies…
Ah, but it not resting upon logical proof doesn’t mean that logical arguments cannot be used, nor that there is zero logical proof at all. Your definition doesn’t go as far as you seem to be going.
A promotion! 
Well, if the path I walk, and the life I live seem to you to have in them some message of God, or His nature, then I am joyful, for it seems to me that those things might well be the message He gave me for you. But I distrust human authority over faith, and will make no claim to have any.
For a person so much involved with words, and so easily give to sharing my views, witnessing with words is a dangerous thing. I do it. I do it a fair bit, in fact. Because God is a big part of what my life is, and what my choices are. But I don’t feel anointed in any way. The mantle of the apostles is far too heavy for me. Yet, neither can I deny my Lord, and not speak of Him. So, I limit myself to what I am sure of.
And if you seek to know Him, I shall indeed encourage you, and offer prayer for you. Lord, Jesus, who is Christ the Son of God, have mercy upon this, thy servant Rev. Give to him that same joyous moment that you have given to me, when questions and doubts, unanswered, fall away, understanding becomes simple acceptance of love. Miracles are your provenance, my Lord, but in your name I ask it. And for each who seek you here in this unlikely place, I ask the same, only that they might know of your love. Amen.
Tris
Maybe that depends on what you mean by “embracing.” For me it is a sort of celebration. I celebrate (stand in awe of, laugh at, find joy in) the Mandelbrot Set. Mathmatically, I don’t understand it. But when I find that the pattern of branches of trees in a forest can be indicative of the pattern of the forest itself, it just wipes out my mind. And to find these patterns in all of nature is such a mystery! I both embrace it and I hope that even more can be discovered about it.
I am the same way about religious mysteries. They make me joyful – even when I can’t know the answers yet.
And maybe the source of all of the mysteries is the same. I don’t know. The mysteries so far seem to be endless.
It may be too early to understand, but welcome to the family of God.
I am sure God is grateful to you for making Him aware of things He already doesn’t know! If God has to be told of the needs of anyone then He isn’t any more powerful or all knowing than any human.
What God?
And, isn’t every one supposed to be children of God? Is it a little egotistic to think you are the one to welcome people to a family they are already in?
We are ALL children of God is all she was saying so lets stop all the foolishness. God must be looking down and shaking his head… saying stifle children you are giving me a big headache…
It would be easy to use logic to dissuade a JW on blood transfusion issues. Whether I would be effective or not is not a failure of logic, nor an implicit statement that JWs (or any other believer) reject appeals to logic.
In fact, this hypothetical JW may very well have come to his stance on blood through the use of logic.
And this is where I think you----and many other Dopers who brandish the word logic or rational--------don’t understand the word.
Best as I can tell, people come to different beliefs through different methods; some through caprice of various sorts, some through ignorance and bias, (including peer pressure), and some through well informed, reasoned logic.
It was said of the Apostle Paul, “But Saul kept on acquiring power all the more and was confounding the Jews that dwelt in Damascus as he proved logically that this is the Christ.” (NWT) Amplified Bible Translation.
But logic is nothing more than a science, a method, a process. By saying that people of faith reject logic implies (although it is often explicit) that they are driven solely by their feelings, and are incapable-----or unwilling---- to think critically; to use reason, rationality or logic in establishing their subjective beliefs.
At best this is presumptuous. At worst it is ignorant.
See this is where you leave me convinced you neither understand the [correct use of the] word, or your own witnessing.
The counterargument to faith is not logic. (for anyone but the truest of true believers) Logic says nothing about faith. The counterargument may use logic, but the substance of that argument is something else. Logic is just the *method.
*
No fear of mod action here. You’re in the correct forum for witnessing.
raindog shouts, “Can I get a witness!”
allrighteythen.
It must be nice to know the mind of God.
In post #96 I cited a text that said Paul “proved logically” that Jesus was the Messiah.
Here too, your own cite that faith “does not rest on logical proof.”
In both cites the emphasis was on proof, and logic is simply the method.
Is that not clear to you?
Exactly!
A succinct way of putting what I’ve been saying all along.
raindog,
Whatever dude. You “win” as well.
Have a candy. On me.
Bold mine. We are all children of the same universe, but it is not until God adopts us that we become children of the sovereign King. Before this we have other fathers such as in: