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
Paranormal Forum
Spirituality & Mysticism
Would Jesus promote punishing the innocent instead of the guilty?
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="dimension-1hacker" data-source="post: 197611" data-attributes="member: 11791"><p>why "should" the burden rest on the person arguing the opposite only, the first opinion is not proven by saying the opposition of the initial opinion has to prove otherwise. Faith being defined as truth contradict what truth is because without understand about why something is true , you do not understand why; faith is a feeling and unless you can prove why feeling a type of logic then there is no proof that faith proves anything. You think something does not need a reason to be true can be true yet all words have definitions and the definition is what the word means. The definition has another definition and that one has another definition and so on, as there is no difference between your statement and any other statement every statement yours requires proof. Every reason needs a reason to be true or there is no reason for that reason to be true. tauntology</p><p>I am arguing says thinking something is true without proof is rolling an infinitely sided die and hoping that your opinion is the truth.</p><p>proofs against?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="dimension-1hacker, post: 197611, member: 11791"] why "should" the burden rest on the person arguing the opposite only, the first opinion is not proven by saying the opposition of the initial opinion has to prove otherwise. Faith being defined as truth contradict what truth is because without understand about why something is true , you do not understand why; faith is a feeling and unless you can prove why feeling a type of logic then there is no proof that faith proves anything. You think something does not need a reason to be true can be true yet all words have definitions and the definition is what the word means. The definition has another definition and that one has another definition and so on, as there is no difference between your statement and any other statement every statement yours requires proof. Every reason needs a reason to be true or there is no reason for that reason to be true. tauntology I am arguing says thinking something is true without proof is rolling an infinitely sided die and hoping that your opinion is the truth. proofs against? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Spirituality & Mysticism
Would Jesus promote punishing the innocent instead of the guilty?
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