You are arguing for randomness?
Why canāt god just be some random phenomenon. The ancients saw random phenomenon as gods.
Ok. I donāt buy it because we donāt know of a single random thing, but thatās cool.
Random as in lack of agency.
So you can say scientifically why there is lightning but if there is a god behind it then you have to ask why did god create lightning.
I did say ^^^ up there, that I was not making a defense for religion, but was defending theism or Aristotelian origin; philosophy.
Religion is predicated on the fact that God exists. If you donāt believe that fact, thereās no point even delving into religion. If God does not exist, all religion is ridiculous.
And you said āfaithā not belief. If a mistake was made, it was yours. In any event everybody inevitably believes things they could never possibly prove.
Believe in history and historical facts? Me too. But itās all hearsay. We are believing people of yore, and those studying it now are not lying to us about the facts that occurred in the past. We have to believe them because there is no way to know for ourselves. And if they are lying, weād never know.
So that means we are believing people we donāt know and putting faith in their good nature to be telling us the truth.
Oh dearā¦ Talk about believing in things that are counter factual. Believing in randomness in a universe where no such thing exists is a fools errand.
1 Like
You still confuse faith with belief.
Also, religion is not predicated on the fact that God exists. Itās predicated on the faith that God exists. And if god does exist, religion can still be ridiculous.
So your saying, things happen for no reason what-so-ever? Just Blam!, pink elephants fall from the sky? Oh myā¦
That is the very definition of irrationality. Believing something that is contrary to the facts that are known to exist.
I am not the one who is confused, dude. Your projecting things on me you hope to be true, by some random luckā¦No. Bad dog.
Name one thing, anything that has ever happened for no reason?
I didnāt say reason, I said without agency.
You conflated belief in history with faith. A belief is something that can be proven true or false. Faith is believing something that cannot be proven.
Almost everything you think you know, you cannot prove beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt.
You cannot prove what you perceive and think about reality is actually real. The reason you cannot prove it is because you cannot take you out of the equation, perception could all be illusory.
So you believe reality is what you suppose it to be and you have faith that it will continue to be that way.
The only propositions we can know to be true are analytic a priori propositions that are true independent of anything else being true.
Synthetic a posteriori propositions require other things to be true for those propositions to be true.
Long story short, there is very little you can know for certain and you function operationally through life on faith.
Was this post written without agency?
Whether or not I can prove it is irrelevant. Itās whether or not it can be proven true or false. Again, you confuse faith and belief.
Which post?