Quote:
Originally Posted by Freebase Dali
That would be a neat trick.
But honestly, I can't apply the laws of logic to an illogical being any more than believers can apply an illogical concept to a logical world.
I'd sooner believe that something can come from nothing before I could believe that this nothing had some sort of intent, although it would practically make the same amount of sense.
Neither concept is more fundamentally credible than the other, and I wouldn't treat either as fact regardless of the side of the fence I happened to be standing on.
Faith only exists due to the absence of knowledge.
I just have a problem with people treating it like fact.
Funnily enough... fact is a matter of faith to begin with.
I've come to a point where the entire discussion makes just as much sense to argue about, as it does trying to prove.
|
It's not faith. Faith is believing in something without evidence. Certain facts are just true as far as can be possibly determined (I am currently wearing a shirt, I am standing on the ground, I am sitting in front of a computer). We have reason to believe (and belief does not necessarily constitute faith) in other "facts"(gravity, evolution, microbial life) because a scientific community has provided a preponderance of evidence that these are true. To question the validity of these facts, one would have to show evidence that society and the scientific community was perpetrating a gigantic fraud.
Faith is belief, not only without evidence, but belief even in the face of evidence. To call belief in facts faith, is to change the definition of the word "faith".