ahappyheretic

What is faith?

It seems like believing something because you want it to be true even though there is no evidence for it.

If you're going to believe based on faith, how do you know what to put your faith in? Why this religion and not the other?

It can't come down to faith, it still has to come down to argument and whatever little evidence is there.

Chili

[/QUOTE]

Atheism is not a religion because that which a theist calls 'God' an atheist calls 'not God.' The fact here is that faith cannot be conceived to exist without doubt nor can doubt be conceived to exist without faith to make theism the unity wherein believers gather while atheism is the unbelief wherein doubters scatter.

So is it with the position of an agnostic that cannot be conceived to exist without its counterpart gnostic. From this follows that there is nothing wrong with being agnostic except that he is not smart enough to deny the gnostic or he would be one.

vanessas

Doesnt "PROOF" mean the same to everybody?

I'll check my dictionary.........:rolling:

browntoven

Can anyone offer a rebuttal to this 1st argument?

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/100203.htm

"The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God. "

I haven't found much material on this particular argument.

-B

Wiploc

After Einstein, this is nonsense.



No reason to believe this. Whether something is in motion is a matter of viewpoint.



There's no reason to believe this.



This is a peculiar way to think of motion. It has no virtue that I see other than weirdness. It is certainly not truer than other ways of thinking about motion.



A bald claim, unsupportable.



This theory can be falsefied. For instance, electricity, which is not hot, can make light bulbs hot. Compression, which is not hot, can make air hot.



So an unlighted match cannot be hot? That's absurd.



One word: "automobile."



Unsupportable pre-Einsteinian nonsense.



To move something else is to move yourself, because every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Therefore, there can be no unmoved mover.

There may be an infinite regress of causes, and there may be uncaused events. Neither posibility is very palatable, but one or the other has to be true. But unless one of those posibilities can be ruled out, we can't conclude that the other is true. Saying, "I don't like infinite regress, so there must be a first cause," is not a stronger argument than saying the opposite.



This is clearly uncandid. For instance, many people who believe that the big bang is the first cause also believe that god is something other than the big bang.

crc