Faith is a logical fallacy

Author: Best.Korea

Posts

Total: 49
Topic's author
#1
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 388
Posts: 12,209
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Do you define faith as "belief without proof"?

In that case, faith is a logical  fallacy.

In order for something to be considered true, it must be proved to be true.

Otherwise, if proof isnt needed, then you have no way to decide what is true and what isnt.

Then technically, everything is true and nothing needs to be proved.

This is a big problem for religious people who dont seem to understand that their religion is a logical fallacy.

There are plenty of religions in the world which contradict each other. Even people in same religion contradict each other on how religion is supposed to be practiced.

Christians cant seem to decide if Jesus wants for them to live in poverty like he did, or if he wants for them to be rich and fat. They also cant decide if Old Testament is valid or not.

Muslims cant decide which part of Quran to follow, the one which encourages peace or the one which promotes hate and beating up of people who have incorrect type of sex.

Taoists are smarter, but Taoism isnt a religion but its science. Nothing in Tao Te Ching tells you to believe in any God.

Those who believe in Karma cant seem to explain if when one person hurts the other, then does the person who is hurt deserves it due to Karma, or does person who hurt the person gets bad Karma. If the first is true, then second cant be, and anyone who hurts others is basically just giving them deserved punishment. But if first isnt true, then the idea of Karma isnt true.
Topic's author
#2
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 388
Posts: 12,209
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
I like when atheist tells a religious person that he doesnt believe in God, and religious person responds with "So what do you believe in?".

The fact that so many people think that you "need" to believe in something without proof is just a very clear evidence that religion is a mental illness.
#3
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,156
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
Do you define faith as "belief without proof"?

In that case, faith is a logical  fallacy.

In order for something to be considered true, it must be proved to be true.
Can you prove that, or do you just take it on faith?
Topic's author
#4
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 388
Posts: 12,209
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Sidewalker
In order for something to be considered true, it must be proved to be true.
Can you prove that, or do you just take it on faith?
If proof is a requirement for something to be considered true, then the statement is true, as thats what it says.

If proof isnt a requirement for something to be considered true, then the statement above is true again.

Thus, the statement above cannot be "not true".

To say that "Proof isnt a requirement for something to be considered true" is a self negating statement, because if true, then the opposite statement of it must be considered true as well. A logical absurd.

#5
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,156
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
In order for something to be considered true, it must be proved to be true.
Can you prove that, or do you just take it on faith?
If proof is a requirement for something to be considered true, then the statement is true, as thats what it says.
So you are saying you have faith that the statement proves itself to be true.

If proof isnt a requirement for something to be considered true, then the statement above is true again.
This is not a statement of fact, it is a statement of your faith.
Thus, the statement above cannot be "not true".
You believe this without proof.
To say that "Proof isnt a requirement for something to be considered true" is a self negating statement, because if true, then the opposite statement of it must be considered true as well. A logical absurd.
That's my point, your initial assertion is a self-negating statement, there is nothing here but attempts to assert your beliefs without proof.


#6
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,156
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
Your faith-based belief without proof that "In order for something to be considered true, it must be proved to be true." is a logical fallacy.
Topic's author
#7
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 388
Posts: 12,209
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Sidewalker
Do you not know what a logical contradiction is?

System for determining truth is a logical axiom.

If you remove the system and dont replace it with anything, then nothing can be considered true. Thus, your faith isnt true. But it is logically impossible for nothing to be true, thus the mere removal of a system is a logical fallacy.

If you remove the system and say that everything is true, then system also becomes true and you commit a contradiction.

Your only way is to replace this system with another system. But there is no other system for determining truth other than by proof. Thus, since you have no system to replace it with, it remains true.
#8
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,156
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
Do you not know what a logical contradiction is?
Yes, I know what a logical contradiction is, and your faith-based belief that "for something to be considered true, it must be proved to be true." is a logical fallacy.

Do you not know what the word "true" means?

System for determining truth is a logical axiom.
You are self-refuting again. 

In logic, an axiom is a statement that is accepted as true without proof, which you have declared "belief without proof" to be  a logical fallacy.

Your reasoning is circular and self-negating, and because it is strictly faith based, according to you, it is a logical fallacy. 

If you remove the system and dont replace it with anything, then nothing can be considered true. Thus, your faith isnt true. But it is logically impossible for nothing to be true, thus the mere removal of a system is a logical fallacy.
There is no proof of this faith-based assertion, it is itself a logical fallacy.
If you remove the system and say that everything is true, then system also becomes true and you commit a contradiction.
Your belief without proof, a logical fallacy.
Your only way is to replace this system with another system.
This is your belief without proof.
But there is no other system for determining truth other than by proof.
As I suspected, you don't understand what a "system for determining truth" is.  

Thus, since you have no system to replace it with, it remains true.
You are on the internet, becoming informed about the subject matter you are talking about is as easy as a few keystrokes.  Here is AI response to ""system for determining truth", note that philosophically, there are multiple different systems for determining truth and none of them asserts that "for something to be considered true, it must be proved to be true." 

A "system for determining truth" typically refers to a philosophical framework or set of criteria used to evaluate whether a statement or belief is true, often including theories like the "correspondence theory," "coherence theory," "pragmatic theory," or a combination of these, which each approach the question of truth from a different angle, considering factors like how well a statement aligns with reality, fits within a logical system, or proves useful in practice. 

Key points about different truth-determination systems:
  • Correspondence theory:
    A statement is true if it accurately reflects reality, meaning there is a direct correspondence between the statement and the world. 
  • Coherence theory:
    A statement is true if it logically fits within a broader system of beliefs, forming a coherent picture without contradictions. 
  • Pragmatic theory:
    A statement is true if it has practical benefits or leads to useful outcomes in the real world. 
Important considerations when evaluating a "system for determining truth":
  • Context:
    The appropriate system for determining truth can depend on the situation, subject matter, and purpose of the inquiry. 
  • Limitations:
    No single system is perfect, and each can have challenges in specific scenarios, such as dealing with complex or nuanced issues. 
  • Critical thinking:
    To effectively determine truth, one needs to critically analyze information, consider multiple perspectives, and be aware of potential biases. 
Please give me an example of something, that is not abstract mathematics or logic, anything you believe about the real world, that has been proven to be true.
 
Tell me something you believe to be true that is not based on faith?
Topic's author
#9
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 388
Posts: 12,209
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Sidewalker
If you want to contradict yourself, fine. I really dont care for your AI response, or your opinion that self-contradicting statement can be true.

an axiom is a statement that is accepted as true without proof
By that logic, everything is an axiom. But no, thats not what axiom is.

This is your belief without proof
I know that your blind faith prevents you from seeing, but here is an explanation.

You cannot remove what determinines what is considered as truth and still determine what is considered as truth.

Proof is by definition something which determines if something is considered true.

Thus, proof is by definition a system for determining truth.

If you remove what determines truth, you cannot determine truth. This is a logical axiom.

Likewise, if you remove the ability to determine what to consider true and what not, then you cannot at the same time maintain such ability.

Not sure what confuses you here.
#10
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,156
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
If you want to contradict yourself, fine. I really dont care for your AI response, or your opinion that self-contradicting statement can be true.
You are the one contradicting yourself.
an axiom is a statement that is accepted as true without proof
By that logic, everything is an axiom. But no, thats not what axiom is.
You don't even know what an axiom is?  Like I said, you are on the internet, nothing could be easier than becoming informed.

But hey, I'll play along with your "make shit up" approach to philosophy, please tell me what an axiom is then.

You didn't respond to my simple request, tell me something you believe about the real world that is not based on faith, something you believe that has been "proven"

Topic's author
#11
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 388
Posts: 12,209
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Sidewalker
It seems that your faith is based on magic.

By abandoning proof, you cannot at the same time have proof.

Proof represents the ability(the system) to determine what is true.

Thus, by abandoning the ability to determine what is true, you cannot at the same time have such ability.

So unless your faith isnt "belief without proof", I think we are done here.
#12
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,214
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

It's time to rethink what created the Universe.
#13
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,156
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
It seems that your faith is based on magic.
We aren't talking about my faith, we are talking about your faith, you have done nothing but make assertions without proof.

By abandoning proof, you cannot at the same time have proof.
Without proof you can't have proof, my my, how profound, can I quote you on that deep insight?
Proof represents the ability(the system) to determine what is true.
So now you are saying you don't know what the word proof means either?
Thus, by abandoning the ability to determine what is true, you cannot at the same time have such ability.
By abandoning an ability you can't have such ability, wow, another deep insight, can I quote you on this too?
So unless your faith isnt "belief without proof", I think we are done here.
We aren't talking about my faith, you don't know what my faith is, and you obvious;y wouldn't understand it anyway.

So, are you still afraid to try to give me an example of something you believe with proof?
#14
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,156
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@FLRW
It's time to rethink what created the Universe.
Why do you believe the universe must have been created by something?

The consensus scientific opinion seems to be that the universe was not created.
#15
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,214
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Sidewalker

Something never comes from nothing.
Topic's author
#16
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 388
Posts: 12,209
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Sidewalker
I understand that you think your faith is on equal level as scientific observations, which is a common delusion religious people have.

However, if you lack ability to determine if something is true, then you cannot at the same time have ability to determine if something is true.

This is very simple.

People who have faith by definition have no ability to determine if their belief is true.

If they had such ability, then their belief would be proved and it would be considered scientific.

So, unless you want to change definition of faith, at this point you might as well claim that magic is real.
#17
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,156
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@FLRW
Something never comes from nothing.
Agreed, and therefore the Universe was not created, allow me to explain.

The generally accepted Standard Model of Cosmology assumes conventional physics, especially the General Theory of Relativity (GR), and utilizes the FLRW metric (maybe you’ve heard of it). Logically, it represents the Universe as uncreated.

Here’s what I mean by that, logically, for something to be created, it must temporally move from not existing to existing, there must have been a time when the universe did not exist, followed by a time when the universe did exist. But per the General Theory of Relativity, the Standard Model of Cosmology says that this is not the case, temporally speaking, the Universe is finite, around fourteen billion years old, but there was not a time when it did not exist, so it was not “created”.

The Standard model says that time came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang, which means time began when the universe began, consequently, there was no "before" the Big Bang as the concept of time itself is considered to have started then. The question of "what came before" is generally considered to be meaningless within the Standard Model of Cosmology. If there was no time when the Universe did not exist, then it is meaningless to say it was “created”.


#18
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,156
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
I understand that you think your faith is on equal level as scientific observations, which is a common delusion religious people have.
I have faith in science, and I'm not talking about religion, I'm talking about philosophy, specifically, your complete lack of understanding of the philosophical concepts of faith, proof and truth.
However, if you lack ability to determine if something is true, then you cannot at the same time have ability to determine if something is true.
Yes, I get it, you are devout in your unfounded beliefs, sounds like you are one of the "religious people".
This is very simple.

People who have faith by definition have no ability to determine if their belief is true.
Is that why you can't give a single example of something you believe that isn't based on faith?  Because you have no ability to determine is your beliefs are true?  
If they had such ability, then their belief would be proved and it would be considered scientific.
Apparently, you don't have a single belief that can be proven.
So, unless you want to change definition of faith, at this point you might as well claim that magic is real.
Unless you can learn the first thing about philosophy, perhaps you should stick to doing posts about your dick.
Topic's author
#19
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 388
Posts: 12,209
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Sidewalker
I have faith in science
So your belief in science is faith.

I'm talking about philosophy
Most philosophers were considered insane. Most philosophers begin with logic, but end up with crap.

Is that why you can't give a single example of something you believe that isn't based on faith?
Its irrelevant to the topic. If you think everything is faith, then you lack a way to determine what is true. Science usually uses observations, not faith. This is why they say "proved by observation". They dont say "proved by faith".
Topic's author
#20
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 388
Posts: 12,209
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Sidewalker
 The question of "what came before" is generally considered to be meaningless within the Standard Model of Cosmology. 
I guess they dont believe in cause and effect, even tho they see it everywhere in reality.
#21
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,214
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Sidewalker

I now rate your IQ at 170.
#22
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,156
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
I have faith in science
So your belief in science is faith.
You are just a fountain of deep insights, can I quote you on that too?
I'm talking about philosophy
Most philosophers were considered insane. Most philosophers begin with logic, but end up with crap.
If you don't know anything at all about philosophy, then why did you start a thread about philosophy?  
Is that why you can't give a single example of something you believe that isn't based on faith?
Its irrelevant to the topic.
It is the topic, you don't even understand your own post?
If you think everything is faith, then you lack a way to determine what is true.
This idea that everything is faith is your idea, not mine.  You are really talking about yourself in this thread, you obviously lack a way to determine what is true, that's why you can't bring yourself to make a true statement.  I think it's time to go back to talking to Shila about your dick.
Science usually uses observations, not faith. This is why they say "proved by observation". They dont say "proved by faith".
LOL, oh yes, please do teach me all about science Einstein, I could use me some learning about that science stuff.


Topic's author
#23
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 388
Posts: 12,209
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Sidewalker
You are just a fountain of deep insights, can I quote you on that too?
You can.

If you don't know anything at all about philosophy, then why did you start a thread about philosophy? 
The thread is about faith being a logical fallacy. If you want to discuss philosophy, sure. Many philosophers were literally insane. Zeno made pointless arguments about how movement is impossible. Plato believed that you cant actually learn anything except what you already know. Aristotle believed in the existence of soul and made some works of fiction about it. To put it simply, philosophers dont seek truth. They seek to be absurd and mock general knowledge. Philosophers arent really something you go for when seeking truth. This is why science is about observable things. Usually, where observation ends, imagination begins.

It is the topic, you don't even understand your own post?
Topic is: Faith is a logical fallacy.

Thus, things which are not faith are probably irrelevant to the topic.

This idea that everything is faith is your idea, not mine.
You said belief in science is faith. So it seems to be very much your idea.

You are really talking about yourself in this thread, you obviously lack a way to determine what is true, that's why you can't bring yourself to make a true statement.
It is a true statement that faith is a logical fallacy, as proved by its lack of ability to determine whats true.

I think it's time to go back to talking to Shila about your dick.
If girls talk about your dick, its usually a good thing unless they talk about how small or ugly it is.


LOL, oh yes, please do teach me all about science Einstein, I could use me some learning about that science stuff.
Well, first you need to learn about observation. The difference between science and faith is that science is about things you can see, where faith is about things you cant see. For example, if I tell you that I hear the voice of God in my head, you would need faith to believe me. But you say all faith is true, so I guess you would have to believe me.
#24
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,253
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
The Standard model says that time came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang, which means time began when the universe began, consequently, there was no "before" the Big Bang as the concept of time itself is considered to have started then. The question of "what came before" is generally considered to be meaningless within the Standard Model of Cosmology. If there was no time when the Universe did not exist, then it is meaningless to say it was “created”.
That is the same explanation as the Bible. Nothing existed before creation.
#25
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,156
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
You are just a fountain of deep insights, can I quote you on that too?
You can.
Thank you, I'll save that in case I'm ever in a stupidity contest.
If you don't know anything at all about philosophy, then why did you start a thread about philosophy? 
The thread is about faith being a logical fallacy. If you want to discuss philosophy, sure. Many philosophers were literally insane. Zeno made pointless arguments about how movement is impossible. Plato believed that you cant actually learn anything except what you already know. Aristotle believed in the existence of soul and made some works of fiction about it. To put it simply, philosophers dont seek truth. They seek to be absurd and mock general knowledge. Philosophers arent really something you go for when seeking truth. This is why science is about observable things. Usually, where observation ends, imagination begins.
Best Korea, seeker of truth, enlightens us about Philosophy,thank you.
It is the topic, you don't even understand your own post?
Topic is: Faith is a logical fallacy.
You don’t know what faith is, and you don’t know what alogical fallacy is, so what are you doing here, are you just typing nonsense toshow us an example of logical fallacy?
Thus, things which are not faith are probably irrelevant to the topic.

This idea that everything is faith is your idea, not mine.
You said belief in science is faith. So it seems to be very much your idea.
No, I said I have faith in science, you are the one who said you do notbelieve in science.
You are really talking about yourself in this thread, you obviously lack a way to determine what is true, that's why you can't bring yourself to make a true statement.
It is a true statement that faith is a logical fallacy, as proved by its lack of ability to determine whats true.
You don’t know what true means, what faith means, whatlogical fallacy means, or what your thread is about, that is a true statement.

I think it's time to go back to talking to Shila about your dick.
If girls talk about your dick, its usually a good thing unless they talk about how small or ugly it is.
Prove it.
LOL, oh yes, please do teach me all about science Einstein, I could use me some learning about that science stuff.
Well, first you need to learn about observation.
I observed that you said you don’t have faith in science, ifyou don’t believe in science, then what makes you think you can teach anyone anythingabout it?
The difference between science and faith is that science is about things you can see, where faith is about things you cant see.
If science is about things you can see, then what is allthat stuff about quantum physics I hear about.  You can’t see subatomic particles, can you?
For example, if I tell you that I hear the voice of God in my head, you would need faith to believe me. But you say all faith is true, so I guess you would have to believe me.
Nope, I didn’t say “all faith is true”, you said that.  As far as I can tell, you haven’t saidanything anybody can believe.

If you don't believe in science, and you don't believe in philosophy, and you don't believe in religion, then what do you believe in?
Topic's author
#26
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 388
Posts: 12,209
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Sidewalker
I said I have faith in science
Faith = belief without proof

So you think your belief in science is same as believing in unicorns.

If science is about things you can see, then what is allthat stuff about quantum physics I hear about. 
Mostly fantasy, like unicorns. There is an entire army of people writing all kinds of fictional theories, many even contradicting each other. Its all done to milk money from donors, to make it seem like they are doing something. While indirect observations are possible, they are based on inductive reasoning which can be flawed. Basically, they take observation from place A and assume that same exists in place B.

I didn’t say “all faith is true”
How do you determine which faith is true and which faith isnt true?
#27
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,253
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Best.Korea
How do you determine which faith is true and which faith isnt true?
If it brings about a change in your life, your faith is true.
Topic's author
#28
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 388
Posts: 12,209
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Shila
If it brings about a change in your life, your faith is true.
Not sure how is that even observed. Like, when I started doing magic, my knowledge increased greatly.
#29
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,156
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
I said I have faith in science
Faith = belief without proof
No, it isn't.  Is this some kind of religious conviction of yours, this idea that if you dogmatically assert it enough times it becomes true?  That is not the definition of faith, no matter how many times you proclaim it.

So you think your belief in science is same as believing in unicorns.
You Korean's and your belief in unicorns, hey whatever Kim Jong-un says, right?

If science is about things you can see, then what is allthat stuff about quantum physics I hear about. 
Mostly fantasy, like unicorns.
Are you saying King Tongmyong, founder of the Koguryo Kingdom, did not ride a winged unicorn?

There is an entire army of people writing all kinds of fictional theories, many even contradicting each other. Its all done to milk money from donors, to make it seem like they are doing something. While indirect observations are possible, they are based on inductive reasoning which can be flawed. Basically, they take observation from place A and assume that same exists in place B.
Is the rejection of science a precept of your religion?
I didn’t say “all faith is true”
How do you determine which faith is true and which faith isnt true?
Are you asking me why I think your belief in unicorns is not true?

 
Topic's author
#30
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 388
Posts: 12,209
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Sidewalker
That is not the definition of faith, no matter how many times you proclaim it.
If you are not going to agree on a definition, then there is no debate. Either give a definition you want to debate on, or this wont go anywhere.

Is the rejection of science a precept of your religion?
It was a comment on quantum physics. Even Einstein said that its not perfect because it doesnt have direct observation. When there is no direct observation, then there is only inductive reasoning or by results. Inductive is not perfect because its basically built on assumption that things we cannot observe are acting in same way as things we can observe. If you go by results of things you cant observe, it is like observing the effect while not seeing the cause. So while we know that cause exists and reacts to input, it is still not an observation of a cause. So without direct observation, it is very silly to assume that we can know exactly how it works. We dont even know everything about things we can directly observe. Brain can be observed given enough time, but brain has so many connections that mere amount makes it impossible to observe it effectively, let alone make complete theory from such an observation. With the things you cant observe directly or which rely on flawed observation instruments, it is even harder. Science isnt some magic which gives instantly correct answers. Most scientists spend decades working on theories, and face many failures. It is years of effort which eventually reveal a working theory out of bunch theories out there. Even theory of evolution today isnt same as it was when it was first produced.