B
basser
Guest
Faith, by definition, is not defensible by reason. If it were, it would be knowledge, not faith. No matter how a person argues that a given list of reasons may lead one to the likeliness of faith, nonetheless, at some point one accepts beliefs that are not proveable.
In such a case, a person accepts beliefs soley on the word of a person, or group of persons, witch cannot be known to be true. Mormon’s, Jehova’s Witnesses’, Muslims, and all adherents of religious faiths do this and are criticized for it by apologetics arguments from their religious opponents (for example: Catholic Answers). But everyone does it, it’s just a matter of calling your opponents contradictions, “contradictions”, and one’s own contradictions are called “mysteries”.
Is this true? Any thoughts?
In such a case, a person accepts beliefs soley on the word of a person, or group of persons, witch cannot be known to be true. Mormon’s, Jehova’s Witnesses’, Muslims, and all adherents of religious faiths do this and are criticized for it by apologetics arguments from their religious opponents (for example: Catholic Answers). But everyone does it, it’s just a matter of calling your opponents contradictions, “contradictions”, and one’s own contradictions are called “mysteries”.
Is this true? Any thoughts?