This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

I need a definition of faith that is precise.

#41OrangeWizardPosted 1/14/2013 8:13:15 PM
From: cyclonekruse | #036
It's only nonsense if you can show it's wrong.


It's nonsense UNTIL you can prove it's NOT nonsense.
Burden of proof.
Which I note you're not even acknowledging, but ignoring a problem does not make it go away

Which makes little sense.


It's not my fault you don't know how to parse a Dictionary.


Also, you never answered. Why do you ignore the bible's definition? Is that how Lutherans operate?
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#42cyclonekrusePosted 1/14/2013 8:14:52 PM
Reversal of the burden of proof.
The one making the positive, claim, that X happens, has the burden.
So YOU prove to ME that it DOES happen.

The one making the claim has the burden, whether it's a "positive" or "negative" claim. You made the claim that it doesn't happen. I made the claim that it seems to me to happen. My claim is considerably weaker.

Oh, you must be one of those guys who whip themselves, then, judging by how much you're insulting yourself with your definition of faith.

I don't see how my definition of "faith" is an insult to myself. I see you as trying to insult me, however.

And you must not put much stock in the bible, because, as I already mentioned, and as proudclad JUST mentioned, the bible has it's own definition of faith. Why are you ignoring that definition?

You assume my definition is incompatible with the Biblical one, firstly. You haven't shown that to be the case. Secondly, even if it were incompatible, it's not a sin to have a Biblical understanding of a word and a different philosophical understanding of the word.

I'm not sure why you're so angry at me.
---
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"
#43OrangeWizardPosted 1/14/2013 8:21:50 PM
From: cyclonekruse | #038
The one making the claim has the burden, whether it's a "positive" or "negative" claim.


The one making the positive claim has a far greater burden than the one making a negative claim.
And you made the positive claim.
You're not going to be able to trick me into having the burden by >implying that things are true.

Either stick to your guns, or don't >imply anything in the first place.

I don't see how my definition of "faith" is an insult to myself.


Because it's by your definition, some machination of an insane mind that comes from absolutely nowhere, contrary to logic and reason.

You assume my definition is incompatible with the Biblical one


Why isn't your definition the EXACT SAME as the biblical one? Do you think it to be incomplete? Do you think it needs YOUR help?

You haven't shown that to be the case.


Here we go with the >Implying, and then the soon-to-follow "NO U" with the reversal of the burden of proof.

Is it incompatible? If so, prove it. If not, then sit down.

I'm not sure why you're so angry at me.


Because your definition of faith is bad, and you should feel bad.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#44cyclonekrusePosted 1/14/2013 8:22:29 PM
From: OrangeWizard | #041
It's nonsense UNTIL you can prove it's NOT nonsense.

I did. I showed how it would be possible for a being to have a non-evidential belief.

Which I note you're not even acknowledging, but ignoring a problem does not make it go away

I'm not ignoring it. I've fulfilled my burdens, whether you accept it or not.

It's not my fault you don't know how to parse a Dictionary.

I'm not doing anything different from what you did there. It doesn't work so well.

Also, you never answered. Why do you ignore the bible's definition? Is that how Lutherans operate?

You could give me a chance to respond before you say such things and paint an entire denomination with an overly wide brush.
---
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"
#45OrangeWizardPosted 1/14/2013 8:30:43 PM
From: cyclonekruse | #040
I showed how it would be possible for a being to have a non-evidential belief.


And then I said that it's impossible.
And then you said "prove it".
And then I said "I can't, because doesn't actually happen in reality, but it COULD happen, because we're living in the Matrix and anything COULD happen".
And then I said "SO IT'S IMPOSSIBLE, THEN"
And then you said what I just quoted, that it's "possible".


It's not. And you can't show that it is without appealing to some nonsense "You can't actually disprove anything because we could all be brains in jars".

And that isn't going to fly.

I'm not ignoring it. I've fulfilled my burdens, whether you accept it or not.


See above.

I'm not doing anything different from what you did there.


You misinterpreted a dictionary. You absolutely did something different.

You could give me a chance to respond before you say such things and paint an entire denomination with an overly wide brush.


Respond quicker. Chop Chop. Haven't you ever played speed chess?
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#46cyclonekrusePosted 1/14/2013 8:34:44 PM
From: OrangeWizard | #043
The one making the positive claim has a far greater burden than the one making a negative claim.

No. The burden is equal. The difference between "positive" claims and "negative" claims is illusory. Any positive claim can become a negative claim and vice versa. Observe:

God exists = It is not the case that God does not exist.

And you made the positive claim.
You're not going to be able to trick me into having the burden by >implying that things are true.

I did not imply what you think I implied. You simply thought I made stronger claims that I did.

Because it's by your definition, some machination of an insane mind that comes from absolutely nowhere, contrary to logic and reason.

That is nowhere included in my definition. I would appreciate it if you quit making things like that up.

Why isn't your definition the EXACT SAME as the biblical one? Do you think it to be incomplete? Do you think it needs YOUR help?

The definition might not be incomplete. I would say our understanding of the definition is incomplete though.

I have to say that you sound a bit like a Pharisee right now, trying to use the words of the Bible as a weapon of some sort. Note that I am not comparing myself to Jesus in this case.

Is it incompatible? If so, prove it. If not, then sit down.

In order for your "point" to have any teeth, you need to show that my definition is incompatible with the Biblical one. As I see no reason why it's incompatible, I don't see any reason to put stock in your point here.
---
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"
#47ProudcladPosted 1/14/2013 8:40:41 PM
Was my definition satisfactory?
---
proudclad LAYING DOWN THE SMACK - Error1355
chaoscoalition.net
#48OrangeWizardPosted 1/14/2013 8:41:27 PM
From: cyclonekruse | #042
No. The burden is equal. The difference between "positive" claims and "negative" claims is illusory.


Prove it.
OOOOOOOHHHHHHH BURDEN OF PROOF

See?

That is nowhere included in my definition.


Prove it
OOOOOOOOOHHHHHHH BURDEN OF PROOF


See?

But seriously, that's the only place where faith can ever possible come from, then.

If it's not based on evidence.
And if it's not based on reason.
The where does it come from?

If it comes from emotion, then that's as bad as it coming from an insane mind.

The definition might not be incomplete.


Here we go with the >implying again.

I have to say that you sound a bit like a Pharisee right now


I have to say that I could not care any less about what you think right now.

In order for your "point" to have any teeth, you need to show that my definition is incompatible with the Biblical one.


No. YOU have to show that your definition IS compatible with the biblical one, because I don't see any reason why it IS compatible.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#49OrangeWizardPosted 1/14/2013 8:41:41 PM
From: Proudclad | #043
Was my definition satisfactory?


Sure
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#50ProudcladPosted 1/14/2013 8:42:39 PM
OrangeWizard posted...
From: Proudclad | #043
Was my definition satisfactory?


Sure


I remember you having some strange views a few years ago. We might have to have a conversation some time. :P
---
proudclad LAYING DOWN THE SMACK - Error1355
chaoscoalition.net