{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
9/25/2015 2:00:37 AM
11
Who are you to say god is real or not real? You cant, you have no idea. God is all knowing, and his way of testing man's faith is to put odds against him. On the other hand, why would you believe in some absurd god in which there are 1000 different versions?
It's not that I believe, it's not that I dont. I simply don't know. Part of being controversial is to keep an open mind, otherwise you are stereotyped as atheist. Which I don't believe you are.
English
-
Who are you to say god is all knowing? How have you determined that conclusion?
-
[quote]Who are you to say god is all knowing? How have you determined that conclusion?[/quote]
-
You understood my post poorly, accept all angles, from small religious theory to breakthrough scientific succession.
-
I understood your post perfectly. It's you who doesn't understand the fault in it. Which is why you continue the same reasoning in this reply. We shouldn't accept all angles. But rather reject all, until they are demonstrated to be worthy of our acceptance.
-
If we reject all then we won't take the time to understand. It's the same story as when we thought the earth was flat, everyone "rejected" the idea of it. It took 1 man to accept the possibility that the earth was round to prove all the people who rejected the idea wrong. Acceptance is a philosophers most valuable trait. Those who reject only wait for someone else to prove them wrong or right.
-
Edited by IamPluto: 9/25/2015 4:13:56 PMOr they find out if they are wrong or right for themselves. Rejecting all is the only true option. It leaves you open to all, yet you don't accept all. Accepting all leaves you with contradictions. It leads you to believing all kinds of absurd things. We don't actually know if big foot exists. Yet I won't accept it does until there is sufficient evidence. This can go on and on. For everything. I'm actually surprised you don't see the path accepting everything will lead you down. I would like to add btw, that maybe it was reasonable to accept that the earth was flat. Given the knowledge and lack of knowledge at the time. [b][u]It's the reason Science changes with new information[/u][/b]
-
Your actually implying that accepting and believing are the same thing? Accepting the possibility is how theories start, theories (once proven) lead to facts. If we reject all ideas, we would never advance.
-
Accepting a claim as true, and believing it is true. Is the same thing, yes. Belief by definition is accepting something as true.
-
Depending on the context. If you would have read properly, you would have understood to begin with. "Accepted the possibility." Nowhere in that sentence does it insinuate belief.
-
I know what you said.. What I said still remains. You reject it until you are given reason to accept it. But I'm done..
-
Look, I know where your trying to get at, I just think your not using the right words. Sorry if I offended you.
