Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Janey
I don't want to belabour the point, but I think that you are incorrect in your definitions.
there are basically two:
1) Those who believe or disbelieve because of faith.
2) those who believe or disbelieve because of proof (which by the way, contains all four of your definitions)
|
Hmm. My definitions meant to encompass both of these points, actually. I talked about those who don't accept proof, but believe (which would be believing through "faith")
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Janey
furthermore, this act of faith is not irrational. It is quite rational from the perspective of their paradigm. Faith does not require proof. It just requires belief, thus it is sustainable, and inpugnable.
|
I meant rational in the philosophical sense of the word - that is, accepting that human reason can solve this problem. The group of "rationals" are people who feel that reason can be applied to metaphysical questions.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Janey
As d*d stated earlier, empirical proof must by definition adhere to the natural universe from which we can perform the observation (measurement) and is therefore limited to that which is created. If the creator is by definition extende to outside that which is created, all those who await empirical evidence of God, may go on waiting for eternity, and therefore have their belief remained unresolved. They remain unknowing, or Agnostic.
|
However, once again, we're not talking about empirical proof. (Or at least I'm not). Empirical proof is very weak, and can't actually prove anything in a strong sense. Deductive reasoning can. At least within the bounds that asaris and I discussed.
Bingle