It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What defines proof for you and how do you apply it to your religion?

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147

I would ask the same question to you, sure I have in the past.
I am inclined to believe you reject the logic of science to maintain a faith


I've explained to you how what you view as faith is actually based off of a misconception. I could explain again if you'd like?


originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
What justifies science to you, what evidence do you accept as scientific, theory?
Someone elses assumptions enough?


Scientific Theory and the common use of the word "Theory" are two very different things and are not interchangeable terms.

To be scientific, the research should follow the scientific method:



I find that many hypotheses do not have enough evidence to formulate a very solid conclusion, and so take their findings with the assumption that it could be relatively accurate, but certainly isn't complete enough to be said to be highly-likely, or entirely factual.

Science isn't meant to be black and white, absolute answers. The hypotheses are often there because evidence suggests a particular conclusion, and leads us in a good direction without necessarily providing a solid conclusion yet.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
Can you not, dont have the capacity to draw a line between belief and science, can you not on a logical level.
I have never seen any scientific evidence of evolution, yet you preach it from your pulpit like a "creflo dollar"


You've seen plenty of evidence, you just reject it all regardless of the content.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
Where is the repeatable observable testable data


Modern medicine is a good example...


originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
Do you believe in aliens, UFOs, any crypto stuff etc? Or do you say anything that science cant explain is not real?


I would say that I believe that aliens exist. From the observations we see here on Earth and the observations we've made within the universe it would seem to be highly likely.

I don't know what I think about UFO's. I would say I am leaning towards 'plausible'.

Cryptozoology is interesting, but I find that the vast majority to be highly unlikely or simply misidentification.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
I dont really care what you think. I just think you believe is some seriously fairyttail stuff, I just think its funny that I see you as a very religious person and you dont see yourself that way at all. That you are as brainwashed as those you despise


I'm aware you believe that of me.

But in my OP i'm referring to any form of evidence, not necessarily Evolution specifically.

Although from the discussions we've had the confusion in OP stems heavily. It is honestly extremely confusing how you cannot understand this particular scientific field, yet accept many others (that's not an insult, it's actually quite confusing)
edit on 19/4/17 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 08:51 PM
link   
It's completely subjective.

I'd be a hardcore atheist if it were not for two things

1) Exposure to religious teachings as a child. I''d still be an atheist though if not for

2) Personal experience. I've spoken of it many times he on ATS, but it has lead me to believe there really is another realm out there. And said realm, presented itself in religious terms to me.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: markosity1973
It's completely subjective.

I'd be a hardcore atheist if it were not for two things

1) Exposure to religious teachings as a child. I''d still be an atheist though if not for

2) Personal experience. I've spoken of it many times he on ATS, but it has lead me to believe there really is another realm out there. And said realm, presented itself in religious terms to me.


Would you be comfortable elaborating on your experiences?
edit on 19/4/17 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Sure, it will have to be much later today though. I'm heading into work now.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

But thats your problem Ghost
The fact you always think you are right is subjective.
You are wrong, completely hull up like a ship on the water, then warning other ships that they are upside down because they are not hull up like you

Its clear you have never studied or understood philosophy

I can in no way understand how people like you can just imagine evolution outside of everything else, big bang (you believe that by faith or is that science?) Abiogenesis (you believe that by faith or is that science?)

You believe evidence in a void, how. How is that even logical?
How can you not see position and say, I get where you are coming from, I understand your questions.

You say I have seen plenty of evidence, I categorically deny I have seen any evidence for evolution, not a jot or title (outside of micro) and no one here has ever shown me any. Flys turning into flys
come on...

It amazes me.
I have come across other atheists, hardened anti christians and fundies like your self and many have said,
"I understand your position, I understand your questions, I understand why you dont believe what I do. I see the faults still in evolution"

You, I dont get you, you are like a fundie christian. You just cant understand another persons view, what makes them disagree with you. You can not simply say, I get why you question the theory. You Ghost, can not see any faults, deny with a religious like fervor any questions, deny any problems, deny with that religious zeal anything at all that brings into question your faith in evolution.
Its religious like, its baffling you cant see the problems

I dont believe the flat earthers, I do understand their argument, why they believe what they do. I see the validity of their issues and questions

You dont see anything but yourself, you cant, you are as bad as those you despise.

Conversely, as a christian, I see the issues, the problems the failures of my faith myself and the followers. I question my faith, push it, live it and try to understand it every day, more and more
More repeatable, observable and testable is my experience with my faith than you are with your science



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Of course, the way you speak of it, you understand that there is a certain amount of faith involved in science too. The drive to search for the answers needs a certain amount of faith that not only is there an answer but that one is headed in the right direction or at least will be able to ascertain which direction one should go from the outcome of one's current investigation.

Faith that that there are answers out there is what leads all of us into the unknown to begin with.

For the religious, the first truth to swallow is that we may simply have to believe without ever knowing for sure. After all, there are plenty who never receive the benefit of direct experiences of what we call the Divine. But is that much different from the scientists who have died without ever knowing if their grand hypothesis was ever valid or not?

And I think the journey of faith is a lot like the journey of science in a different way. You aren't looking for one to prove or disprove the other. At least I'm not. Of course, because I do like the subject of science quite a bit, I have had to think about how the two intersect and reconcile them, but it's extremely possible.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 10:11 PM
link   
I happen to believe accepted science is as much a religion as any that believes in a god. There are many examples of holes in the accepted scientific theory of every major science field. Go to your favorite video site, and search for an opposing viewpoint, and you will find it. Many times with better evidence than the accepted theory has. The only theory of the basis of our existence I have found that makes sense, is the holographic universe theory. If that is the correct theory, someone had to do the original programming. God may be a kid, playing the sims, and you are just an AI in a very big MMOG. Look up the dual slit experiment, and go down the rabbit hole. Quantum physics is the current endpoint of our science, and it strongly suggests a god, or at least intelligent design. Big bang theory, evolution, relativity, and my favorite, man made climate change have all been effectively disproven. Science can't even decide if light is a particle, or a wave. They just think it can't be both at once, but it is both, depending on the expected behavior. Personally, God has saved my life several times. The laws of physics were broken to do so. There is no doubt for me, and it is up to you to find your own way to what you believe.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: bill3969

and then string theory to marry relativity to quantum mechanics and then-11 dimensions from string theory?
Science is just throwing darts at things hoping something sticks.

Just so many questions come out of one theory



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 10:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Ghost147

Of course, the way you speak of it, you understand that there is a certain amount of faith involved in science too. The drive to search for the answers needs a certain amount of faith that not only is there an answer but that one is headed in the right direction or at least will be able to ascertain which direction one should go from the outcome of one's current investigation.

Faith that that there are answers out there is what leads all of us into the unknown to begin with.


Again, Religious faith and the word faith aren't interchangeable terms.



originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Ghost147
For the religious, the first truth to swallow is that we may simply have to believe without ever knowing for sure. After all, there are plenty who never receive the benefit of direct experiences of what we call the Divine. But is that much different from the scientists who have died without ever knowing if their grand hypothesis was ever valid or not?


Yes, absolutely it is different.

With religious faith you're truly believing in something as factual, regardless if there is any evidence at all. With Science it's not about believing in something and then searching for evidence to verify the belief, it's about finding evidence first, and then forming a hypothesis around that evidence.

Scientific terminology is admittedly incredibly misleading. "Theory" and "Hypothesis" in everyday conversation could very well be baseless speculation. However, a Scientific Hypothesis is only formed once evidence suggests 'something' (such as the functionality of an particular observation), and a Scientific Theory is essentially a scientific hypothesis that has been through such intensive and extensive testing that all the conclusions of those individual tests are continuously pointing to a particular conclusion. Both require there to already be evidence.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 10:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: bill3969
I happen to believe accepted science is as much a religion as any that believes in a god. There are many examples of holes in the accepted scientific theory of every major science field. Go to your favorite video site, and search for an opposing viewpoint, and you will find it.


As stated before, Science is not an absolute answer. It never is and it never will be. Science is only our best means of researching something and forming as accurate of a conclusion as we can (which in many cases only shines a small glimpse of how a particular phenomenon functions).

It is not a means to find absolute answers, and anyone claiming it does is being incredibly disingenuous (or ignorant).

This is actually a very common view. Many people believe that science is portrayed as some end-all conclusion of how things work, but this is a gross misunderstanding.


originally posted by: bill3969
The only theory of the basis of our existence I have found that makes sense, is the holographic universe theory.


The "Holographic universe theory" is actually not a scientific theory, it's actually a scientific principle founded from theoretical physicist Gerard 't Hooft and then interpreted from a String Theory perspective by Leonard Susskind.


originally posted by: bill3969
Quantum physics is the current endpoint of our science


When has science become linear? Quantum physics is just one of many fields of research in science.


originally posted by: bill3969
, and it strongly suggests a god, or at least intelligent design.


Is that a personal interpretation or can you provide research papers that suggest this?


originally posted by: bill3969
Big bang theory, evolution, relativity, and my favorite, man made climate change have all been effectively disproven.


Citations please



originally posted by: bill3969
Science can't even decide if light is a particle, or a wave. They just think it can't be both at once, but it is both, depending on the expected behavior.


You do realize that the conclusion you're making came from science...


originally posted by: bill3969
Personally, God has saved my life several times. The laws of physics were broken to do so. There is no doubt for me, and it is up to you to find your own way to what you believe.


Scientific laws are able to be broken. The definition of a Scientific Law doesn't state that it cannot. In fact, we just had a very interesting topic here on ATS that also broke a law of physics just this week (negative mass, very interesting)



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Yes, you are correct. Throwing darts until one sticks is the basis of science. Just because the dart sticks, doesn't necessarily mean a theory is true, just that it is the most accepted explanation at the time. Then other theories are made based on a possibly flawed premise. Darwin himself said his evolution theory had many holes, and he expected it not to stand in his book. It was based off ants, and aggressive territory wars. Most species don't exhibit the necessary level of competition to make his theory valid. But this is never told to students learning science. Science is a guess, and layers are put on top of it. It doesn't matter if it is true or not, just if it was accepted in the community. I think they are higher than 11 dimensions now. Is it true? We may never know. Is it possible? I guess. All I know is they are doing the same experiments, and getting the results they expect. Regardless if someone else does the same experiment, expecting a different result, and they get what they expect. It seems at the fundamental building block level of our existence, It is all probabilities, and conscious controlled outcomes. This tells me science has absolutely no idea what is really going on. On the other hand, my experiences tell me, physics were disregarded in order to save me. I have much more evidence of God than absolute truth from science. Does science allow cool gadgets to be made? Sure. Do the scientist really understand how it works? On some level, but not completely. Another rabbit hole is vortex math. Another emerging science that seems to be putting the others into obscurity.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 10:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147

But thats your problem Ghost
The fact you always think you are right is subjective.


How is it subjective when I'm constantly posting research papers by hundreds of other scientists?


originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
I can in no way understand how people like you can just imagine evolution outside of everything else


I am quite aware that you lack an understanding of Evolution.

Of course, I am always here to help you try to understand it more clearly if you'd like.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
big bang (you believe that by faith or is that science?)


I'm actually not very familiar with the Big Bang Theory. But from what I've read, it seems like the most plausible explanation and I have not seen anything that suggests it isn't accurate.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
Abiogenesis (you believe that by faith or is that science?)


The prevailing hypothesis within Abiogenesis also seems the most plausible.

Notice how I'm saying "plausible" and not "oh yeah sure! Thats definitely the answer without a doubt!"

You see, and I'll say it again, Science isn't black and white. Many people, like yourself, seem to think that if an article says something new regarding scientific research, that their conclusion is stating something as absolute fact. Which it never is. It is only our best explanation from what evidence we've gathered so far.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
You say I have seen plenty of evidence, I categorically deny I have seen any evidence for evolution, not a jot or title (outside of micro) and no one here has ever shown me any.


Right, because you don't understand the evidence being presented to you. You have a gross misconception of what you believe evolution claims to be, and you refuse to acknowledge that your false premise is a false premise.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
You just cant understand another persons view, what makes them disagree with you.


Yes, that's why I'm making this topic...


originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
You can not simply say, I get why you question the theory.


I understand full well why 'they' question the theory of evolution, and it's because they have a false premise regarding what evolution actually is. Most, after a detailed discussion about the topic, actually begin to understand it more. But not you, you keep holding onto the false premises as if your life depends on it regardless of how simplistic anyone makes the explanations.

For some reason you simply cannot accept that evolution isn't how you view it to be. No matter what articles you're presented. No matter what evidence is shown. Hell, I've even seen you reject the very definitions and hold onto your false premise when we give you direct quotes from Darwin himself.

And that's why this topic is made. I just don't get how someone can reject reality to that degree.

You don't have to accept Evolution. You just need to understand that your concept of what the Theory of Evolution is, is not accurate to what it really is.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
You Ghost, can not see any faults, deny with a religious like fervor any questions, deny any problems, deny with that religious zeal anything at all that brings into question your faith in evolution.
Its religious like, its baffling you cant see the problems


You view my posts this way because you don't actually understand Evolution. If you can provide research paper that definitively shows how Evolution isn't actually real, then that's all you need to do and I'll instantly change my position.

You seem to have this weird view that I and others are so desperately trying to hold onto this particular theory, when you simultaneously don't understand that if we had a more accurate explanation for the diversity of life on earth, we would instantly drop the old theory and embrace the new one.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
You dont see anything but yourself, you cant, you are as bad as those you despise.


Who is it that I despise?



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 10:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
You are missing the difference between something that absolutely can be proven or disproven and matters of faith which only require belief.

The universe itself is so vast that there is no way that we will ever unravel or know everything there is to know about it in our lifetimes.

To me, that says that you can no more definitively say there is no God than I can say there is one. This means the issue falls back to one of faith for both of us. Do you believe? Some don't and won't or they put their faith in what we do know choosing to believe that since we have so far not to their satisfaction uncovered anything that proves God to them, that we will continue to see a universe absent of evidence.

I prefer to believe. I have my own reasons for this based on several things including personal experience that I won't go into. Since my best reason to believe *is* in the realm of personal experience, it is useless to someone who wants quantifiable, tangible proof. Testimony is generally going to be met with skepticism by such folks. But you should likewise know that people who have personal reasons to believe are also going to be some of the stronger believers.

And honestly, I don't think you are ever going to find God inside the confines of this universe. He created it. He isn't bound by it.


Matters of faith still need to be judged for viability with logic and reason or else you will necessarily need to accept every matter of faith as equally possible/plausible. Some people believe in some really wierd stuff, and you don't believe them because it seems really improbable that it is true. Like fairy's, dragons, and magic, to keep it simple. Just because someone adamantly believes in something doesn't make it possible and it certainly would not be feasable to treat every belief as though it could be true. We have to judge beliefs based on reasonable evidence. Since none of the worlds religions can be shown to be based on anything reasonable, i do not subscribe to any of them. The same things go for omnipotent or omniscient gods. I won't start believing in something unless i have a good reason too.

Religious people are the opposite. Their position is to believe in a god which there is no evidence for, until someone can present evidence that it doesn't exist.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 11:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
So science doesn't count testimonials at all.. if you cannot create a repeatable peer reviewed experiment, then you don't have proof of anything..

Which makes perfect sense because humans are horrible witnesses even when telling the truth and lie quite often.

With religion feelings and testimonials are considered proof, hell the Bible is just one big testimonial....

So one sides threshold for evidence is just OMG lower than the other.


Sure, but that still leaves me wondering how actual evidence that can be repeated and tested also be blatantly denied no matter what despite being so tangible


What physical evidence..

I love supernatural/conspiracy stuff and have never seen anything....every time I have looked up the mainstream opinion on an ooopart of whathave you, it makes way more sense than the supernatural take.


I'm referring to scientific evidence in that response


What scientific evidence??

I have seen no scientific evidence for the divine or supernatural



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 11:22 PM
link   
I think the big problem here is the lack of research. In order to understand something fully, you need all the information. Look up things that contradict what you think, then make an educated decision with all the information. Faith to me is an educated choice, and a result of personal divine intervention. Look up things that contradict what you believe.

Sorry, I cant give footnotes for years of research. It wouldn't matter anyway, because the experts you want citations from are just regular people's opinions that you somehow gave higher value to. I personally value independent thinking more than regurgitation of other's so called facts. Some things are concepts that require a base knowledge that can't be arbitrarily pointed to in a research paper.

Try this for a start, it may send you in a whole new direction:


edit on 19-4-2017 by bill3969 because: Added video



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 11:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
So science doesn't count testimonials at all.. if you cannot create a repeatable peer reviewed experiment, then you don't have proof of anything..

Which makes perfect sense because humans are horrible witnesses even when telling the truth and lie quite often.

With religion feelings and testimonials are considered proof, hell the Bible is just one big testimonial....

So one sides threshold for evidence is just OMG lower than the other.


Sure, but that still leaves me wondering how actual evidence that can be repeated and tested also be blatantly denied no matter what despite being so tangible


What physical evidence..

I love supernatural/conspiracy stuff and have never seen anything....every time I have looked up the mainstream opinion on an ooopart of whathave you, it makes way more sense than the supernatural take.


I'm referring to scientific evidence in that response


What scientific evidence??

I have seen no scientific evidence for the divine or supernatural


Haha, No i think you're misunderstanding me.

you said: With religion feelings and testimonials are considered proof, hell the Bible is just one big testimonial....

and I responded to that, saying (along the lines of): "yes, I understand that from a religious standpoint, feelings and testimonials are considered proof. However, those same people sometimes demand tangible proof for everything else, yet when that tangible proof is given, it's entirely rejected, regardless of how evident it is."

It's just very confusing to me that they accept intangible "evidence" why simultaneously requiring tangible evidence elsewhere, but also rejecting tangible evidence



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

No need for "proof" when one has "faith". It can be enough.



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147


There are many members here whom seem to accept...



There are many members here whom seem to reject...



There are many members here whom demand proof and evidence, but seem to shy away from providing the same quality of evidence they demand...

Hmmm... Got any proof of these assertions?

But I'm bored so I'll play along anyway.


1. Religious Proof

Religious "proof" to me is personal proof. I have absolutely nothing to show to others as proof. But my entire life has been filled with experience after experience that proved to me that there was more to life than what meets the eye; that there was an unseen negative influence that was trying to get me to do certain things; and that there was a positive force that was guiding me in a different direction.

I guess a nonbeliever would say it was a constant series of coincidences, hallucinations, out of body experiences, near death experiences, sleep paralysis experiences, etc. But for everything to consistently line up with the same belief system is beyond mere coincidence, especially when the creatures/things explained spiritual things to me, warned me of certain other experiences I'd later have, and even "proved" themselves to me through different "stunts". I'd been getting mental checkups off & on from 2nd grade through middle school. But not only did they never find anything wrong with me nor prescribe any drugs or mental health "treatments" for me, I was put in the gifted classes & scored a 20 on my ACT in 7th grade.

It wasn't until my Senior year in high school that I accepted that what I was going through matched up w/the things described in the Qur'an. I'd already accepted that a devil figure was real, but I didn't know whether it was ghosts, spirits, or whatever. And I'd accepted that God was real, though I still studied various religions to see what matched up w/my actual experiences. That's why I'd still be a Muslim even if the Qur'an never existed. Because I worship, fear, and respect the powerful positive entity that's been guiding me my entire life while I oppose the negative cowardly entity that's try to misguide me my entire life. Their commonly accepted names don't mean much to me.

ETA: I should probably add that "The Devil/Shaytan" in the Qur'an is not some 30 ft tall, bat winged, goat hooved, super muscular, dragon clawed red beast that can magically show up to destroy the world. He's called the "Sneaking Whisperer", his only "power" is the power speak to our spirits, & he basically convinces people to do bad stuff. He's described as the source for all evil simply because he's that inner voice that helps people justify and rationalize doing things that we know we shouldn't do. That's why the first step in jihad is to overcome our personal vices. It's literally rejecting Shaytan's influence over us.

2. Accepting & Rejecting Scientific Claims

I accept a lot of aspects of science but completely reject others. The biggest problem I have with many scientific claims honestly comes from the charlatans; meaning that many times, scientific "discoveries" are misrepresented in order to increase funding, fame for the "discoverer", ad revenue for the outlet misrepresenting the study/findings, etc. A lot of times, follow up studies refute the grande claims but those follow up studies don't get the same publicity as the false/misrepresented one. That ruins credibility for me.

I also am completely turned off by the members of the pro-science crowd that basically proselytize as if their beliefs are the only true ones. This is because I've taken a look at many scientific "truths" that were preached for decades that turned out to be false (such as "ether", pseudosciences like "scientific racism", etc). Even some of the big name scientists like Hawking & Einstein have been wrong before.

I wouldn't have a problem with the 100% pro-science crowd saying their findings are most likely accurate; my problem comes when they act like their findings are 100% accurate and then try to shame others for not accepting them as 100% accurate. 50 years from now, many of the things we think are scientifically true will be proven false. That should be proof in itself that it's stupid to claim anything is 100% scientifically true, much less to get mad at others for being skeptical of those claims. And don't get me started on the the pro-science "God of the gaps" umbrella term "mental illness" or the theoretical physicists who take accepted findings and then start making up crap with no evidence whatsoever (well, I guess I already got started there but whatever).
edit on 20-4-2017 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 01:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147
What defines proof for you and how do you apply it to your religion?

'Proof' is anything that validates your 'beliefs'.
A religion is a congregation of people infected with similar 'beliefs'.
The symptomology of 'beliefs' is that they constantly require 'defense', 'feeding/validation' ('proof'), and 'propagation' (spreading/evangelizing). And it is never enough!
By the symptoms we know 'beliefs'.

Beliefs are caught, not 'chosen rationally'.
Infection of the ego/thought/self.

No one ever deliberately harms others without harboring some 'belief', or other.

'Proof', what people of no Faith require constantly!





edit on 20-4-2017 by namelesss because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 01:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147
I think the value of "proof" may be overrated. Solipsists have always argued that one cannot even prove, beyond all doubt, the existence of the external world. Consider this famous philosophical conversation;

There is a case that evidence does not prove things. It merely assists the choice being made by faith, to various degrees. This would mean that believing or disbelieving in anything is ultimately an act of choice, however unconscious it may be.
Biblical faith is based on reports of communication with a personal entity, so it comes down to trusting or not trusting in those reports and in the goodwill of the personal entity.







 
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join