Now if we consider the absence of reason from faith, I may have confused you. Faith is filled with reason but it's not a necessary component of "having faith". I only need to point to your arguments which are closely related to Thomas Aquinas' arguments for God's existence. Essentially Aquinas said something like(Im paraphrasing cause I don't have anything to refer to),"if nothing moves on it's own, but it moves, then something moved it"
You define faith as philosophy arguements and emotion? Did not know that, you are talking about the prime mover? True, but let me pose the question what moved the mover? The mover cannot be purely mass as nothing with purely mass can move itself, my arguement goes a step further and I state something that does not have mass is what causes movement as nothing with nothing with only mass moves on own, something that I yet have to completely grasp.
I will go a step further then that, I argue what is the shape and the cause of an objects shape are dimensions which is a property and separate which is visually and conceptually self evident. I argue that what shapes substance are dimensions any concept not understood like directions, and what causes things to be able to move that have to exist are different dimensions. a 2d person cannot visualize depth innitially I think, and a 1d person cannot visualize 2d, and a 3d person cannot visualize well and grasp 4d and so on. I argue that time is connected to the physical that the very structure has to be connected yet separate to be able to effect all objects, that time is what allows other dimensions to "move", dimensions are not completeky understood and do not have mass and time has to be a shaper to influence the physical. I argue that all dimensions that can exist exist as there is nothing stopping that I know of any dimensions from existing yet they exist, some exist and there is no reason why one exists instead of another therefore there are no requirements for none not existing and argue that all must exist for one to be what it is.
You're assuming the binary nature of existence. When you do, you run the risk of false logic. The absence of evidence is much different than "no evidence". Same with logic.
I am not assuming the binary nature of existence, I am described the abstract binary nature of abstraction, true that I have an incomplete picture of existence in other words not a philosophical theory of everything. For example, something is or something is not, you are correct or you are not correct, what is faith, you are describing faith within the confines of language, correct? Do you describe faith as a belief, if so and you think of a belief the same way I do then faith is an emotion or and something that is not proven; how does that prove the existence of a god. You are correct that people that do not conceptually understand what words represent do cannot know what you might understand faith to be, for example what is matter and what is abstraction? can something exist without the other half existing in the same area of substance, can I grasp the entirety of that at this very moment, can I understand the magnetude of emotion and its philosophical meaning, what it might prove or might not? not now. maybe everything exists and I can only describe the idea of nothing, well in the temporary deteriating state I am in probally would not know.
of the universe is predicated on things moving faster than light.The tickler here, is that scientists make a distinction by saying "nothing is something" therefore it can travel faster than light.
In my estimation, that's all I ever needed to hear to understand that God exists.
unless you understand a philosophical theory of everything or understand a specific part relating to that statement, what requires a god to exist? It might be a tickling sensation in the back of your neck and some partially subconsciously understood logic but how can you know for sure?
I would respectfully disagree because purpose isn't opinion. It's a self-proclaimed truth based on experiential practice. The key word being "experiential".
Which type of purpose are you referring because all self derived purpose is subjective there is no objective purpose, or the perceived objective purpose for example the god tells you this is your purpose and life and you believe there is no other that the things the god told you to do is "right"?
Nihilist Book Nihilism: A Philosophy Based In Nothingness And Eternity Released « Nihilism
Reality is Nihilism
If you believe in nihilism, do you believe in anything? – Nolen Gertz | Aeon Essays
René Descartes Quotes (Author of Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy)
Aristotle(not particularly religious), assessed that outcome determined process. We could almost say, "effect and cause". He reasoned that, Earth(nature) required specific outcomes and through that specificity, determined that improper processes faded away for the outcomes to remain consistent. Pretty ingenious. So in effect, everything is here and the processes keep it that way. For example, I want to eat pizza so step 1 is to get teeth. To sum it up, nothing happens by chance. It's outcome driven.
why is that outcome a "god"? remember that nothing can be created or destroyed and nothing is all powerful at least based off my understanding. When nothing is there is no place for something to come from and to be, and nothing can be created because for something to be created or something new to come from where there was not something before, well nothing is there to cause that, and nothing can be destroyed becaused there is nowhere for the something to become nothing in. Therefore, god cannot create or destroy things, and the god cannot cause itself to become nothing and then because something again because nothing is there to cause something.
