- Joined
- May 17, 2009
- Messages
- 10,967
- Reaction score
- 2,134
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The "purpose" of proof. I don't think he meant to say that belief needed proof. Or have I misread?
First of all you got something to ask about my post ask me not another poster.
Second of all the point I was making whch apparently missed it's mark,and I will take the blame for that,
Is that belefs or faiths should not be critisised solely on the absence of proof.
Examples .
1 there is no God because there is no proof that God exist only faith from the people that do and some writing that may be questionable.
However people still beleive that God exist.
2 God exist he talks with me I know for certain how a where and when he created everything I know his plans for the future of all living things
Well no although I have faith in God I do not beleive nor have faith in this tyoe of beleif, fact is I don't know exactly how God works I have faitrh God does though.
Now for the flip side.
The universe and everything started with a BIG BANG in space, some have even documented the time.
Well no cause according to natural law to have an explosion you need energy and matter.
In the nothing of space there is no matter although I beleive in the process of evolution I do not beleive it started by an accidental explosion without the needed ingredients