Is faith logical?

[KingandPriest]

Although I am still relatively new to this forum, I have posted an interacted with multiple theist and non-theist. The conversation typically breaks down when faith/belief is introduced. This prompted a question about which rules apply to faith and which rules apply to logic.

1. Is faith/belief logical/rational? (simple yes or no should suffice)

2. If yes, what rules of logic apply to faith/belief?

3. If no, can any 'rules of logic' apply to faith?

[Zzyzx]

.

It is no mistake Jesus is the cornerstone of the temple. Just like it wasn't mistake for the death of Jesus, its not a mistake that knowledge starts with God, that Logic is derived from God, that Faith starts with God, and that we all live faithfully in our universe in which we can even define physical laws. It wasn't a mistake that we can use our reasoning, faith, and logic, to define physical laws..

Opinion noted. Kindly present verifiable evidence to support the contentions / speculations.

[MadeNew]

.

It is no mistake Jesus is the cornerstone of the temple. Just like it wasn't mistake for the death of Jesus, its not a mistake that knowledge starts with God, that Logic is derived from God, that Faith starts with God, and that we all live faithfully in our universe in which we can even define physical laws. It wasn't a mistake that we can use our reasoning, faith, and logic, to define physical laws..

Opinion noted. Kindly present verifiable evidence to support the contentions / speculations.

You can read my last post, you can read about Logos and logic, you can read prophesies and historical documents about Christ, you can observe science and what we can just "assume" to be true, and you can open your eyes and look around, evidence is all around you.

[MadeNew]

"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'(Luke 16:29)

[Zzyzx]

.

You can read my last post, you can read about Logos and logic, you can read prophesies and historical documents about Christ, you can observe science and what we can just "assume" to be true, and you can open your eyes and look around, evidence is all around you.

Preaching noted.

Kindly present verifiable evidence to support the contentions / speculations.

It is NOT honorable and reasoned debate (or presenting evidence) to tell people to go look for evidence.

[MadeNew]

.

You can read my last post, you can read about Logos and logic, you can read prophesies and historical documents about Christ, you can observe science and what we can just "assume" to be true, and you can open your eyes and look around, evidence is all around you.

Preaching noted.

Kindly present verifiable evidence to support the contentions / speculations.

It is NOT honorable and reasoned debate (or presenting evidence) to tell people to go look for evidence.

There is no reason i should even amuse such things, you ask for evidence but you don't want it and you fight against it... Go look it up yourself.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 235 by KingandPriest]


[center]Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
Confusing claims for evidence, and ignorance of the scientific method while trying to explain it[/center]

Could you elaborate just a little more on how the BBT is founded on faith?

The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it talks about the universe as we know it starting with a small singularity, then inflating over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today.

http://www.space.com/25126-big-bang-theory.html

Hence the BBT relies upon the concept of inflation. There is no empirical evidence for inflation.

You never watched a balloon inflate?
Ever?

That would be empirical evidence for inflation.
As for an inflationary universe.. yah.. they have empirical evidence.
That's why they HAVE a BBT.. because it explains the empirical observations that they have. All scientific theories explain facts... which have been observed. This method has nothing whatsoever to do with faith.

You couldn't be more wrong.

Although it fits our mathematical models, there is no further support. It was a concept someone thought of and then it became an accepted belief. The concept of cosmic inflation is a statement of faith.

Nah, science isn't faith, and it not just "mathematical models", either. And when it comes to the BBT... you really should have read the article you quoted. It explains what the data is. There is lots of empirical data..

People have come to the conclusion of an expanding universe based on empirical evidence. Scientists don't sit around making stuff up.

You have a very weird view of what science is and how it works.
A view which happens to be very wrong.

Without this claim of faith, the BBT cannot even be modeled or conceptualized.

Repeating your claim like that is not evidence for the claim.
You might imagine saying "I'm right because I'm right" is good evidence, but I don't.

I asked for some reputable scientific source talking about how they need to have faith to do good science.

You forgot that part.

As with any theory, a number of mysteries and problems have arisen as a result of the development of the Big Bang theory. Some of these mysteries and problems have been resolved while others are still outstanding. For example, the horizon problem, the magnetic monopole problem, and the flatness problem are most commonly resolved with inflationary theory, but the details of the inflationary universe are still left unresolved and many, including some founders of the theory, say it has been disproven.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang# ... in_physics

So some of the founders of the inflation theory think it actually doesn't work, which would result in an immediate destruction of the current widely accepted theory.

Yep, if someone disproves a theory, it's discarded... that's how science works.. But you forgot to explain how that connects AT ALL with "faith". Remember that?

You were going to explain how science "needs" faith.. right?
Did you forget that part?

Do you think that reputable scientists pretend to know EVERYTHING?
Maybe you imagine that science is like religion.. some "gospel" out there that is taken as absolutely true for all time.

But.. nope.
That's not how science works.

Science isn't religion.
You'd have to back up your claim.
Repeating a claim is not really backing it up.. it's "doubling down".

The science of the BBT relies on the faith of many who accept inflation as true. They accept inflation as true with no empirical evidence.

Who on earth are you TALKING about?

Claims are easy to make.
Please back them up or drop them.

Modern science relying on faith. In the case of the BBT, its not just a bit of faith but a large amount of faith.

Back up your large claims or drop them.

[Zzyzx]

.

Modern science relying on faith. In the case of the BBT, its not just a bit of faith but a large amount of faith.

In spite of Apologists efforts to insert Big Bang into discussions whenever needed to hide their own lack of evidence to support supernatural tales and claims), astrophysics and the origin of the universe is but a tiny, tiny part of science -- one that is not fundamental to understanding of other areas of study -- and one that is admittedly highly speculative.

Stepping into the real world, 'faith' is NOT required to study and understand biology, geology, chemistry, meteorology, hydrology, oceanography, medicine, etc.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 235 by KingandPriest]

Could you elaborate just a little more on how the BBT is founded on faith?

The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it talks about the universe as we know it starting with a small singularity, then inflating over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today.

http://www.space.com/25126-big-bang-theory.html

Hence the BBT relies upon the concept of inflation. There is no empirical evidence for inflation.

You never watched a balloon inflate?
Ever?

That would be empirical evidence for inflation.

None of these inflated balloons have ever inflated faster than the speed of light. The theory of inflation is that the universe expanded uniformly faster than the speed of light. No empirical evidence that the universe expanded uniformly faster than the speed of light.

Also no explanation as to why inflation slowed down. There was no friction or resistance, but yet an expanding universe slowed down with no explanation.

As for an inflationary universe.. yah.. they have empirical evidence.
That's why they HAVE a BBT.. because it explains the empirical observations that they have. All scientific theories explain facts... which have been observed. This method has nothing whatsoever to do with faith.

You couldn't be more wrong.

Please provide supporting evidence for your claim that there is empirical evidence of the universe expanding faster than the speed of light and then slowing down.

Not empirical evidence of other theories, but specifically for cosmic inflation.

Although it fits our mathematical models, there is no further support. It was a concept someone thought of and then it became an accepted belief. The concept of cosmic inflation is a statement of faith.

Nah, science isn't faith, and it not just "mathematical models", either. And when it comes to the BBT... you really should have read the article you quoted. It explains what the data is. There is lots of empirical data..

Yes there is lots of empirical data, but no empirical evidence of cosmic inflation. Empirical data of an expanding universe that is not expanding faster than the speed of light.

People have come to the conclusion of an expanding universe based on empirical evidence. Scientists don't sit around making stuff up.

You have a very weird view of what science is and how it works.
A view which happens to be very wrong.

Guess you have never seen theoretical physicists theorizing. When they are coming up with new ideas or theories, they are making them up. They then test their made up ideas by running various simulations and mathematical calculations.

String theory was just a crazy idea of a few physicists years ago. Now it has gained some traction alongside multiverse theory. You look at the end result of a confirmed theory and ignore all the made up theories which were wrong along the way. There are hundreds of theories which were made up and discovered to be incorrect.

Without this claim of faith, the BBT cannot even be modeled or conceptualized.

Repeating your claim like that is not evidence for the claim.
You might imagine saying "I'm right because I'm right" is good evidence, but I don't.

I asked for some reputable scientific source talking about how they need to have faith to do good science.

You forgot that part.

Now you are attempting to change your question. Your request was:

Could you elaborate just a little more on how the BBT is founded on faith?

You asked to elaborate how the BBT was founded on faith. Now you attempt to change the question to reputable scientific source talking about how they needed to have faith to do good science. Your attempt at bait and switch did not work here.

I have already demonstrated that the theory for cosmic inflation is not supported by empirical evidence. It is believed to be true because it is the best explanation that fits the model. It is a statement that physicists have to accept by faith. Accept with no empirical evidence.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/09/ ... tion-wanes

http://www.space.com/28423-cosmic-infla ... -dust.html

http://www.counterbalance.org/cq-guth/evide-frame.html

The main evidence that supporters of cosmic inflation use is the observation of uniformity in the universe. In summary, the view goes like this. I observe the universe to be fairly uniform in dispersion of matter. Conclusion, it must have inflated uniformly like a balloon faster than the speed of light.

What is the difference from a theist making a claim, the universe is uniform. Conclusion, God did it.

Both lack empirical evidence.

As with any theory, a number of mysteries and problems have arisen as a result of the development of the Big Bang theory. Some of these mysteries and problems have been resolved while others are still outstanding. For example, the horizon problem, the magnetic monopole problem, and the flatness problem are most commonly resolved with inflationary theory, but the details of the inflationary universe are still left unresolved and many, including some founders of the theory, say it has been disproven.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang# ... in_physics

So some of the founders of the inflation theory think it actually doesn't work, which would result in an immediate destruction of the current widely accepted theory.

Yep, if someone disproves a theory, it's discarded... that's how science works.. But you forgot to explain how that connects AT ALL with "faith". Remember that?

You were going to explain how science "needs" faith.. right?
Did you forget that part?

Do you think that reputable scientists pretend to know EVERYTHING?
Maybe you imagine that science is like religion.. some "gospel" out there that is taken as absolutely true for all time.

But.. nope.
That's not how science works.

Science isn't religion.
You'd have to back up your claim.
Repeating a claim is not really backing it up.. it's "doubling down".

See clarification above. The theory of cosmic inflation has no supporting empirical evidence.

A claim that God caused the expansion is just as valid. Both are claims of faith. The BBT hinges on a claim of faith.

The claim of faith that the BBT hinges on that the universe expanded faster than the speed of light, and then slowed down. No evidence, just a claim.

The science of the BBT relies on the faith of many who accept inflation as true. They accept inflation as true with no empirical evidence.

Who on earth are you TALKING about?

Claims are easy to make.
Please back them up or drop them.

Sorry, I forgot you do not allow context when reading a post. Those who accept the BBT as true also accept cosmic inflation as true with no empirical evidence. By accepting a claim as true with no empirical evidence, they have relied on faith.

If you believe my claim to be false, please present counter evidence rather than making requests for me to drop it. You are great at asking questions but rarely presenting an actual position. Easy to defend nothing I guess.

Modern science relying on faith. In the case of the BBT, its not just a bit of faith but a large amount of faith.

Back up your large claims or drop them.

Already did.

[Danmark]

There is no reason i should even amuse such things, you ask for evidence but you don't want it and you fight against it... Go look it up yourself.

I'm sorry, but I do not understand your "There is no reason i should even amuse such things." What does that mean?
I also don't understand your, "Go look it up yourself."
It is not your debate opponent's responsibility to do your research for you. Is it unreasonable when asked for evidence to support your position that you, the proponent of the position, be required to provide evidence to support your claim?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 237 by MadeNew]

[center]Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
I believe something, therefore, it's true.[/center]

Lets assume you can think for yourself.

Well, that's a stretch if you ask me.....

I'm an agnostic, how COULD I possibly think for myself? But what the hey....lets just go ahead and assume it for the sake of your argument.

Let's pretend. But make it quick, I have to not think for myself again.. It really HURTS for me to think for myself.. OUCH.. hurry hurry..

"Deductive reasoning is a logical process in which a conclusion is based on the concordance of multiple premises that are generally assumed to be true."

This kind of reasoning that establishes the scientific method must first just "assume" certain things to be true, like the universe is unchanging... We don't live in chaos!

Are you sure that the universe doesn't change?

Thanks be to a faithful God, who cannot deny himself.. Our universe has order, and we can understand our universe if we have a faithful perspective of our universe.

Is that your opinion, or is it a fact that we can verify?

You can not get anywhere without it, science would be nonsensical and chaotic, if chaos was our assumed position. That is why faith is fundamental to life, we can just "assume" certain truths.

Are you defending a claim or making a claim?

Knowledge starts with God.

Could you explain how you know that knowledge starts with God?

Do you know where our english word "logic" is derived from?? It is derived from "the Word of God, or principle of divine reason and creative order". Our word for "logic" is actually derived from "Logos", the Word of God.

So, when people make up words and meanings to words, that proves the word of "God" is true?

This wasn't just some mistake and our universe isn't just some mistake.

Who talked about a mistake?
OH.. right ... you did.

You seem to believe that the universe wasn't some kind of mistake and that THEREFORE.. the universe wasn't some kind of mistake.

Are you saying that all beliefs prove themselves like that, or just yours?