Bfarwell, I continue to disagree with your premise that it is not possible to argue rationally about this with someone who has faith in God. See my exchange at 3:31. I think that sums it up well. There is no logical inconsistency between the following:
1. Insisting on actual knowledge to drive your choices; and
2. Making choices based on faith.
The inconsistency comes when someone who is operating under system 2 confuses it with system 1, and claims to affirmatively know the existence of God. All flaws and inconsistencies begin at that fundamental point.
I can see through that argument as if it were cellophane.
Bfarwell, I continue to disagree with your premise that it is not possible to argue rationally about this with someone who has faith in God. See my exchange at 3:31. I think that sums it up well. There is no logical inconsistency between the following:
1. Insisting on actual knowledge to drive your choices; and
2. Making choices based on faith.
The inconsistency comes when someone who is operating under system 2 confuses it with system 1, and claims to affirmatively know the existence of God. All flaws and inconsistencies begin at that fundamental point.
In fact, one can say that Calculus itself is based on a “leap of faith” of sorts:
SSHH! You’re going to kill my gin budget.
BH and I don’t argue. He just agrees with me! : P
lech – Just to wrap up the discussion – Fear & Trembling
“Legion, hush already- I’m not rehashing that argument.”
Forgive him, he can’t help himself, bfarwell. [eye rolling]
Are you guys Tupperware that you’re making puns?
and I don’t argue with my significant other. no point to that, either.
In fact, one can say that Calculus itself is based on a “leap of faith” of sorts:
The idea of the derivitave and the integral.
The fact that certain functions remain “undefined”
and the jump from “approaching zero” to actual zero.