Faith Science - Logically Indefensible

If you look at the setup in the OP you will find that this thread isn't about whether the Bible is fact or fiction.He's making a logic argument. To counter him, you need to show that his logic is flawed. He hasn't specified faith in what. So the question is, if we have faith in something, does that mean 100% certainty (no doubt)? If no explain why, if yes, move on to the next premise. Now the question is, if we have 100% certainty (no doubt) in something, do we consider anything that opposes that certainty to be false no matter what evidence says otherwise? If no explain why, if yes, move on to the next premise. Now he puts it together. Personally, I don't like setups like this. They give me a headache.In reality, can he show that someone of faith has 100% certainty (no doubt)? I don't think so.Can he show that 100% certainty (no doubt) in something means that we consider anything that opposes it to be false despite the evidence? I don't know. But do scientists actually function that way all the time? Probably not.I don't think you can counter this because of the way it is set up. It isn't based on anything real.I don't know how one counters logic statements, that's why I don't like them.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

I don't see how 100% certainty makes a person unable to objectively analyze evidence. We can choose not to accept the results of the evidence, but that doesn't mean the person wasn't able to view the evidence objectively.Science has an SOP, but humans ultimately decide whether to accept the results or not. Those decisions are based on money, power, faith, career moves, etc.A scientist starts with some sort of premise or idea to prove or disprove.A creationist starts with a premise from the Bible. I think they can objectively view the evidence, but will reject that which contradicts the foundation of their faith or reject that which will not make them any money, etc.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Faith is an end user, not a scientist.If you're going to discuss whether Creationist Science is possible, you would need to look at what their actual "scientists" do. Not how the end user functions.As an end user, I hear reports that science has discovered such and such. Then another scientist reports a contradictory discovery. Both claim to be right. As an end user I will stick to the discovery that works for me.How I look at the "evidence" provided isn't necessarily how standard science functions.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Yes I understand objectivety, I'm trying to look at what the statements are actually saying. Are his statements true before he gets to his conclusion. This attempt is new to me, so my thoughts may be all over the place. I'm trying to stay away from the Bible argument.The OP states: Since certainty is the state of being certain and certain means known or proved to be true, is that statement really true? Faith (not the member) seems to imply certitude even when there is no evidence or proof, but is it certainty or are they just certain in the sense that they are assured. If this is a true statement, shouldn't it be true whether the certainty is faith based or not? His conclusion is that they are unable to objectively analyze, not how they present their findngs to the world.Are they truly unable to analyze evidence objectively or do they refuse to accept evidence that opposes their faith based position.How do they know it opposes their position until they anayze it?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz