Enmos
Valued Senior Member
'belief and faith' must be involved
- Thread starter Bishadi
- Start date
having trouble are you? you said the earth was rational and i said it had nothing to do with gravity and that was your comment....... wow dude!
you got some gooood stuff
not even close
our perception has nothing to do with gravity of the moon.
you funnny, dooood
seeing an action gives few conclusions; when did newton coin the term? and still not a graviton ever been observed; because the assumptions are wrong!
and mixing water and dirt makes mud; quran said that is what man came from. I supposed that is vindication to you?
why not just admit; newtonian physics is good, but far from perfect a they don't even know what the gravity is of matter.
just a basic fact
they do, they thought up a space shuttle, built it and magically lift off the earth, as witnessed by the ducks, dogs and mice.
if your garden is that small, then i see why you think like that
Big difference in acknowledging that one is part of a whole as opposed to saying one is the whole
basic
big difference; as people believing something is true and correct and then others actually knowing that something is true and correct.
some folks just trust that gravity is understood and then some actually know enough to be honest and tell the truth; they have no clue!
"Beliefs and faith" plague the folk on both sides of the scientific and theological renditions of existence.
Some know what is true, and some believe what they accept, as true.
God ain't no separate entity between us and existence and the community of science has no clue how life exists between mass nor what the heck gravity is.
the 'bold' is all fact
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Who are you to say what God is and isn't ?
Forums; people talk
so i return with;
WHO are you to contest anything i say?
i have faith, in the beliefs of being honest
if i know, mother nature is where i can observe all life, as well that all that exists, is entangled; then identifying a definition to God as being all that exists at the same time; is not only MY choice in opinion......
but when math, logic, science, theology and many of the writings and opinions on the globe suggest the same thing; then i will choose my opinion where reality can be grounded to existence itself.
my opinion is based on combining knowledge not believing in what others accept or even discredit; based on their own limited scope of education.
seems to me, that unless you can define god and/or mother nature (existence) itself; then you have no en to mos the opinion
you just contesting what you don't understand!
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
as much as you are (well i weigh about 220)
are there no rules about misquoting
the line you cut up is
my opinion is based on combining knowledge
every word, representation and line item any human posts; technically is an opinion from that 'i'.
fact is, you troll, twisting words rather then observe threads and participate
the difference of my opinion and your, is verifiable evidence is supporting the rendition as if simply preformed and represented; rather than of opinions from opinions of someones elses un-educated opinion.
grounding an opinion to what nature and evidence sustains is what Newton and even Darwin shared. Neither had anything to perform of fact rather to provide an opinion of evidence.
Knowledge evolves from this kind of pattern; learning, combining and being honest about what evidence shows, then the next generations can pick up from there: the evolution of knowledge.
Seems like the concept is unique to you?
That 'belief" in the integrity or honesty of the rendition is the faith each kid has in all of us.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
as much as you are (well i weigh about 220)
are there no rules about misquoting
the line you cut up is
my opinion is based on combining knowledge
every word, representation and line item any human posts; technically is an opinion from that 'i'.
fact is, you troll, twisting words rather then observe threads and participate
the difference of my opinion and your, is verifiable evidence is supporting the rendition as if simply preformed and represented; rather than of opinions from opinions of someones elses un-educated opinion.
grounding an opinion to what nature and evidence sustains is what Newton and even Darwin shared. Neither had anything to perform of fact rather to provide an opinion of evidence.
Knowledge evolves from this kind of pattern; learning, combining and being honest about what evidence shows, then the next generations can pick up from there: the evolution of knowledge.
Seems like the concept is unique to you?
That 'belief" in the integrity or honesty of the rendition is the faith each kid has in all of us.
Please provide the evidence !
This.
Bishadi: If you are going to make a statement of faith, belief, or opinion, put "I believe" or "I think" before the statement. We don't want to appear like an intolerant dick claiming exclusivity, now do we?
This.
Bishadi: If you are going to make a statement of faith, belief, or opinion, put "I believe" or "I think" before the statement. We don't want to appear like an intolerant dick claiming exclusivity, now do we?
and did you forget to read my reply
THIS:
Forums; people talk
so i return with;
WHO are you to contest anything i say?
i have faith, in the beliefs of being honest
if i know, mother nature is where i can observe all life, as well that all that exists, is entangled; then identifying a definition to God as being all that exists at the same time; is not only MY choice in opinion......
but when math, logic, science, theology and many of the writings and opinions on the globe suggest the same thing; then i will choose my opinion where reality can be grounded to existence itself.
my opinion is based on combining knowledge not believing in what others accept or even discredit; based on their own limited scope of education.
seems to me, that unless you can define god and/or mother nature (existence) itself; then you have no en to mos the opinion
you just contesting what you don't understand!
would be nice to see if you understood what that meant
it means; i just witness or 'call em' as i see em.............. No one told me, tells me, or gave me the 'opinion'
there is no single source on this globe, to share what is being said, otherwise i would NEVER inclinate to be speaking in the first
evolution!
nature created us over time. see the whole world of biology for your evidence.
as i would believe darwin's common sense idea over the idea of being created from dust/mud/magic/omnipotence............ or the gazillian of other stories 'created' by mankind.
to me it seems, evolution is proven by nature, that all that exists is within MOTHER NATURE/the universe/the total of existence at the same time (kind of like the Big Bang combined into math) all mass, energy and time (the trinity) into ONE.
So my proof is simply combining, both the religious rendition of 'god created everything' coupled with the scientific ideology of all of existence being of the total of the universe.
I like my feet on the ground while other like magic to be the last word!
your god my be some dude on the thrown, mine is all of existence at the same time; that i KNOW i live within!
Yeah, actually, I did forget to read it. My bad.
thanks
for being a friend
as now i can see you being fair, equal
Peace to you and your fathers/mothers.
please..... contribute for life!
Actually I think it is far more difficult to demonstrate how we are the summum bonum of knowledge, the process of knowledge and anything that is a a knower.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
You have perfected the art of never ever answering a single damn question.
I thought I was indicating the complete absurdity of questioning it.
If you want to label "we" (ie us humans) as the complete field for knowledge and the knowable, it becomes difficult to understand why or how our knowledge base increases (both individually and collectively). Where does this new knowledge come from? Are we simply pretending to be stupid to lend life the illusion of a challenge?
:m:
:m:In my mind there are two types of faith. Inner faith and blind faith. Inner faith is why the penguins won the Stanley cup this year. They knew, in there minds, that they could beat the red wings and followed threw. Dose this mean the wings didn't think they could beat the penguins. No it dose not. The Pittsburgh "wanted it more". Inner faith is what put humans on the moon because one day we had to ask our selves, can we really make it there? Blind faith is when someone takes an otners word for truth "as is". Examples of this can encompass anything that we, as homo-sapiens, accept without question such as theology, history, politics, news coverage, the way we teach children ... This list gose on and on and yes, for majority of the population, science is on this list. I will agree that it takes a degree of faith in order to conceive and accomplish a goul, thats about the extent of its power. That is unless we hand it over to someone else threw blindly following them. Can you see the distinction between the two?
Belief can be based on sound evidence. It isn't always a virtue for this belief to be absolute, one should consider new evidence. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. In common usage sometimes we say faith but we mean confidence in a hypothesis. We have faith in our favorite sports team because we have evidence of their prior performance, although selective attention to the good things and ignoring the negative can distort our view. We have "faith" in gravity because it is a daily experience.