>>11569772The great philosophers in the western tradition never speak of "faith" in their philosophy with respect to arguing for the existence of God. Even Aquinas and other Catholic philosophers never appealed to faith or religious dogma in their philosophy -- they kept it entirely separate from their theology. With respect to the epistemological question of faith (what is faith? is religious belief epistemologically justifiable) the only philosopher who treats it in great depth is Kierkegaard (of course it's also in Aquinas and Augustine, etc).
Philosophy has nothing to do with religion, at its core.
>>11569778I was simply saying that I believe those who deny the existence of God are wrong because I have presented an argument which seems to me to prove the existence of God -- i.e., a necessary being. IF one cedes that the argument is logically valid, one must then cede that God is a necessary being and cannot be thought not to exist. But that's a big IF. Those who conceive of God as not existing do not cede my argument.
That argument is, formally, logically valid. So to disagree with it you cannot attack the logic but rather must take issue with the premises. As you do here:
>Why do you assume that nothing comes from nothingThis is a big question with this argument. This has to be taken for granted, it's a metaphysical first principle. You can't prove it. I happen to take it for granted so I believe the argument is valid. Kant, in the Critique of Pure Reason, did not take things like these ("antinomies") for granted, and so he thought it was impossible to prove or disprove the existence of the "soul" or God. However, I think there are good reasons to take it for granted -- like this guy
>>11569736 is saying.
>If we call the nothing "God" have we reached agreement?No, because nothing cannot be said to exist, and I claim God exists.
