Eliza asked:

Why do people reject anything that has a cause? They seek something absolute, infinite, unborn. If
there was such a being, wouldn't philosophy be worthless? If we needed faith and dogma, we'd
choose theology. We can't regard God's existence as a philosophical hypothesis, this means
accepting the possibility of it's falsity and doubts of this kind are inconsistent with faith (if faith is blind
acceptance). So we're all faithless; otherwise we're not doing philosophy, we are just using it to make
our certainties seem more appealing.

============

Even if there was something absolute and infinite, philosophy would not be worthless because we
can only come to understand mankind, his concepts and the world as the finite beings that we are
regardless of whether God exists. As Kant has shown, God cannot be disproved, so He can be a
philosophical hypothesis, hence the philosophy of religion. Faith is not the same as dogma and you
cannot throw them together as you do. Faith is what you need to believe in God, and dogma is a body
of authoritative doctrine established by a church. You can have faith without dogma. Faith is not "blind
acceptance" but a commitment to another sort of reality than the empirical, but this does not entail a
denial of empirical reality or logical thought.

Rachel Browne