| RadiantDanceMachine said: Yes there is, it's what I quoted for you. How did you miss it? Restriction? Uh...words have to be defined if they are used in arguments, which is why I supplied the corresponding definition to be used in the argument. In the argument supplied that is the definition used, there is nothing to argue about. As I stated previously, definitions are granted a priori true value. You arguing definition is essentially a red herring fallacy due to ignorance about how propositional logic works or emotional fragility because of the conclusion. All you can do if you find the argument sound is to say that "Yes, under those definitions you are correct." It's a bit silly to supply the secular definition of faith to controvert the one supplied when it draws straight from the Bible, no? Secular faith and religious faith are different, I'm glad you finally acknowledge it. Your contention that logic isn't tautology is completely wrong, much to your chagrin. Law of Identity A = A (tautology) Law of noncontradiction A is B and A is not B are mutually exclusive, because...tautology. If A is B, we can substitute B for A in the second example, (B) is not B. Honestly, don't spread bullshit please. It's quite obvious you aren't logically inclined.
|
Yes there is, it's what I quoted for you. How did you miss it?
Let me rephrase. There is no religious definition of the word "faith" besides what you made up in the OP.
Restriction? Uh...words have to be defined if they are used in arguments, which is why I supplied the corresponding definition to be used in the argument. In the argument supplied that is the definition used, there is nothing to argue about. As I stated previously, definitions are granted a priori true value. You arguing definition is essentially a red herring fallacy due to ignorance about how propositional logic works or emotional fragility because of the conclusion.
Words need to be defined, but within reason. You can't just suddenly decide that faith is arbitrarily limited to what you have absolutely no evidence for. This is exactly why topicality arguments exist within the world of debate; because while there is a right to define, that right only exists as long as the definition is fair to both sides.
The rest of the quoted section is a rather absurd personal attack, which I'll simply respond to by saying I've been quite respectful in disagreeing with you, and I would ask that you extend the same courtesy to me.
Your contention that logic isn't tautology is completely wrong, much to your chagrin.
Law of Identity A = A (tautology)
Law of noncontradiction A is B and A is not B are mutually exclusive, because...tautology. If A is B, we can substitute B for A in the second example, (B) is not B.
You're ignoring a vast portion of the field of logic if you're going to seriously suggest that all of logic is confined to tautologies.
A tautology is simply saying that the starting position is the same as the ending conclusion. S is E because the two are equivalent.
That's by no means the extent of logic, however. To reference other examples, there are contradictions (the opposite of tautologies), there's simplifications, predicate logic, etc. As an extremely basic example of logic that is not a tautology, I can say that if the United States elects Donald Trump, then Obamacare will be repealed. The two are by no means logical equivalents, but it is a very basic if then statement that forms the fundamental blocks of logic.
Honestly, don't spread bullshit please. It's quite obvious you aren't logically inclined.
Again, I've been quite civil in debating this, and I'd ask you to extend the same level of respect. There's no need for insults in what should be a simple, enjoyable debate of ideals.
