Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Time Travel Forum
Alternate Histories & Timelines
Timeline without Christianity
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="SinisterThinking" data-source="post: 198162" data-attributes="member: 12714"><p><strong>How can faith be separated from the reason when the entire system is either evidence or no evidence or logic or no logic,</strong></p><p></p><p>You're assuming the binary nature of existence. When you do, you run the risk of false logic.</p><p>The absence of evidence is much different than "no evidence". Same with logic.</p><p> </p><p>Science sometimes calls something "evidence" when the proof is actually based on a resultant outcome. Which is fine, as long as the hypothetical portion remains consistant.</p><p>Kinda like light speed. Einstein said, "nothing travels faster than light" For decades, scientists tried to show that something must.The whole foundation of the development</p><p>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.</p><p>In my estimation, that's all I ever needed to hear to understand that God exists.</p><p></p><p>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"</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>purpose is a subjective value based off the individuals incomplete opinion.</strong></p><p></p><p>I would respectfully disagree because purpose isn't opinion. It's a self-proclaimed truth based on experiential practice. The key word being "experiential". </p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>how did Aristotle do it without breaking a sweat?</strong></p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SinisterThinking, post: 198162, member: 12714"] [B]How can faith be separated from the reason when the entire system is either evidence or no evidence or logic or no logic,[/B] 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. Science sometimes calls something "evidence" when the proof is actually based on a resultant outcome. Which is fine, as long as the hypothetical portion remains consistant. Kinda like light speed. Einstein said, "nothing travels faster than light" For decades, scientists tried to show that something must.The whole foundation of the development 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. 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" [B]purpose is a subjective value based off the individuals incomplete opinion.[/B] I would respectfully disagree because purpose isn't opinion. It's a self-proclaimed truth based on experiential practice. The key word being "experiential". [B]how did Aristotle do it without breaking a sweat?[/B] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Time Travel Forum
Alternate Histories & Timelines
Timeline without Christianity
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top