[Cipher]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

Anything that can even be considered definite, evidence etc. only came to be because people sought them out. You are assuming here that something must be concrete in it's total form that man can immediately perceive before he will accept it. The fact of the matter is that practically everything was a mystery, an object of belief and even faith itself, before they became accepted truths. This is the very nature of the scientific method! Create your hypothesis, arrange a method of inquiry, then test and experiment until you can prove and conclude something. A hypothesis is itself a belief and a form of faith. It was just an idea, an abstract thought, until one chooses to find out it's truth of whether it exists or not.

I'm not arguing about definitiveness---Its already understood. What I'm arguing about is whether that type of belief will *create* results.

People follow a definitive truth/existence because it has been found as proven and true. Progress follows because humanity sought truth through science and in some ways, religion.

No, people do *not* follow ultimate definitive truth/existence. If they do, then they'd just consider pain as an indefinite foolery of the mind, and thus, won't care if their existence are provoked.

The problem begins when people only want evidence and truth that is already there. They stop thinking, in a sense. This is precisely my point. People move forward because they sought answers; in contrast they stagnate when they want others to find answers for them.

How can you find definitive answers when there's only *one* aspect of reality, yourself, that is true? Belief in Indefiniteness will only a cause a *halt* of those supposed finding of answers.

The ultimate goal of faith is the knowledge of truth: that by believing in the abstract and finding way to prove it then faith is validated. Faith isn't a passive activity, faith is an approach to truth. It just so happens that faith starts of shakier ground than science, but in the end both science and faith are after the same thing.

Agreed. I've been actually continuously using this as an argument.

Originally Posted by monstert

I believe humans do have liberty, although limited. By liberty, I mean humans do have the capability to make choices in life that would affect their future.
By limited, I mean
- not all choices will be availabe to an individual
- every choice has a consequence
- a person may not have the liberty in choosing the consequence

As for destiny, I believe
- God already knows in advance the choices that will be made by humans
- he can and do make his own choices that affect human liberty

One example is Jesus Christ himself. A person has the ability to accept or reject Christ, and that is the liberty and free will that man has. But there are also many who will never hear of Christ before they die. That shows two things, first it shows God's choices do affect humans. Secondly, in other cases it also shows the liberty that believers have in choosing not to spread the good news. And that choice has its own consequence for both the believers and those who never got the chance to believe, even if they wanted to.

Having said all that, I don't know if hearing about Christ would change those people who never heard of him. There are people who have heard of him, and they still rejected him. So maybe it doesn't matter after all. Whatever the case, I believe God knows the hearts of every human beings better than anyone, even themselves. And the choices he made does not erase the liberty, however limited it is, that humans do enjoy. On the other hand, the liberty that humans do enjoy does not change that God is still God and has the power over all human lives.

So for destiny, I do not believe it in the sense that everything we do is directly controlled by God. Although God can certainly dictate every thought and action, and I believe he controls all physical laws, he has chosen to give humans some free will over their own lives. And that choice is what produces the limited liberty we currently take for granted. Just that he is still God and makes his own plan.

We *almost* have the same route of belief. The only problem is how its so hard for me to relate to. I, simply, cannot accept a lowly(pardon if its rude) man, such as I, to be so highly considered as God.