Iano writes:
Your missing the point. You can have no grounds given empiricism, per definition, can have no grounds. Faith can, per definition, have grounds.
All it takes is for
a) God to exist
b) God to communicate with man.
It can have grounds and it can make the statements without being necessarily arrogant. You said it was arrogant which denied the possibility of grounds.
One can say you are being arrogant - for you can have no grounds. But one cannot be so sure in the opposite direction.
Iano, it is you who has totally missed the point. I freely admit I have no "grounds" for any assumptions about the unknown.
You, like NJ, on the other hand continue to stubbornly assert that your faith is "the answer" because you think it is "the answer". A classic circular argument.
You could not have demonstrated my point in a more elegant way!
You also dodged the question about which faith you were referring to. There are any number of ideas regarding those things which lie beyond our current understanding. So I'll ask again, which faith do you mean?
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.