...and "impossible." :yes:But couldn't that be because that's how you're defining "faith"?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
...and "impossible." :yes:But couldn't that be because that's how you're defining "faith"?
But couldn't that be because that's how you're defining "faith"?
...and "impossible." :yes:
Ah, I make no such distinction in my thinking. Whether a thing is "greater than myself" or a pen, it is equally believed in.
To me belief is an expression of self, a part of who I am. Whether I am believing in a "something greater" or a pen, it's still me believing in them.
What is the possibility of anything being impossible? Is it possible?What is the possibility of something being impossible? Is it impossible?
The "heart" is metaphor for a part of the mind.The only distinction I would like to be seen here; is to act based off the heart or to act based off the mind.
...and "impossible." :yes:
Context is always good (necessary, even).Impossible as far as the known laws of science define it to be.
The "heart" is metaphor for a part of the mind.
What is the possibility of anything being impossible? Is it possible?
Just so. As I see it, in speech "impossible" serves a function of opinion. I could declare something impossible, but I could never know it to be so. It's figurative, nothing more.Of course it is. One could throw absolutes out the window all together; in the mind at least. In speech I think they still have a place.