In my mind faith has the burden of proof. When I choose a belief, I'll
call this belief "c", then I require a logical "a + b" to arrive at "c".
For instance if c = 3 and a & b are not some combination of numbers that
add up to 3, then I have a problem. If I were going to choose a belief
that does not follow from this logic, I would just invent my own. It
would be every bit as logical and I would like it much better.
>
> Socrates figured out that you can't have knowledge without a
bit of
> faith- that if you keep asking "How do you know that?" you get to the
point
> where you say "I just know"- a belief not grounded in empirical evidence.
>
I believe that we will reach a point that this question may be answered
by existing evidence. It would be like a circle; "a" is true because of
"b", and "b" is true because of "a". I would like to hear some opinions
about the implications of this situation. I am not quite sure what to
think about this concept.
-- John Aten jwa@inx.net =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Truth demands to be declared even if it is ugly and unethical" -F. Nietzsche"Of each thing ask, what is it? What is its nature? What is it of itself" -Marcus Aurelius