Faith in no God

[rrobs]

No jumping required. Your OP was quite clear on the matter.


Why would proof be required? Why is that your standard?

A related question: without opening it to look, how much cheese is in your refrigerator right now?


Nonsense. Do you understand why that's a false equivocation?

You're getting off the track here. Can you prove there is no God? No, you can't any more than I can prove there is a God. Lacking proof, both of us accept what we think by faith. That's all I'm saying.

The reason I brought the whole think up was to make non-believers realize that the faith with which they accept their world view is no different than those whom they often criticize for living by faith. Just wanted to point out the hypocrisy. I'm not trying to convert anyone, just give folks a chance to see that faith is not such an evil thing. We all have it.

 

[rrobs]

The difference is that when people have faith in no God, they aren’t conscious of it and don’t call it “faith.” Also, sometimes when people are defending God beliefs they look to me like they have more faith in no God than some people who are denouncing God beliefs. I don’t think they would act the way they do if the God they say they believe in was real to them.

According to the scriptures, the whole reason we need God is precisely because we all act the way we do. God doesn't expect perfection. He got that in Jesus Christ. As the scriptures say, death came by one man, Adam, and life also came by one man, Jesus. Of course there is much more to it, but that answers to the generally depraved state of humanity. We just can't just can't be able to act in a purely functional way. Lot's of dysfunction in our neck of the universe. We all tend to blow it, Christians and non-Christians alike. I'm sure you've heard the old saying, "the spirit it willing, but the flesh is weak." You also may already know that it came straight out of the scriptures.

 

[ratiocinator]

Not being able to prove God does not exist, you must necessarily have faith that He does not exist. The only other option is that you don't know if God exists or not. He might or might not exist. Pure logic dictates it be such.

The thing is that you're confusing absolute knowledge with reasonable, default beliefs - or more strictly lack of beliefs. I cannot prove that the world is not being run by lizard aliens from the Andromeda galaxy but, since I have absolutely no reason at all to suspect it is, I don't actually believe that it is (I lack any belief that the world is being run by lizard aliens from Andromeda).

So it is with all the many thousands of gods that people believe in or have believed in.

 

[rrobs]

You seriously can't infer anything else from a lack of evidence for unicorns?

Well, I think I told you I don't believe in unicorns. Nonetheless my conclusion must necessarily be based on faith since I've not been able to prove they don't exist. Most people's reality is based on pure faith more than they'd like to think.

 

[rrobs]

There would be no faith for not believing in a God because there actually is no God. That's the reality.

If there was, where is it?

Just because you don't know where God is does not prove anything. Your belief in no God is just that, a belief and nothing more.

 

[ratiocinator]

Well, I think I told you I don't believe in unicorns. Nonetheless my conclusion must necessarily be based on faith since I've not been able to prove they don't exist.

It's not faith at all - that's an absurd use of the word. It's a perfectly reasonable provisional conclusion until and unless some solid reason is given to take the idea of unicorns seriously.

Trying to compare it with faith in the religious sense of faith that a particular god exists, despite lack of evidence, is just silly - sorry.

 

[rrobs]

There "is" not god. How does one answer this when the only thing they know about god is what people say and read?

What you yourself read is what's important. The scriptures, like any body of writing, say one thing. People may read it differently, but that is not God's fault. He in fact tells us many times to be of the same mind.

I can tell you that the trinity and Jesus being God is not only the accepted basis of the scriptures but it is the very thing that makes them all but unintelligible, thus causing much of the dissension in the orthodox church. They read clear verses that call Jesus a man and then go on to say he was God. From there it goes down hill. I'll just quote a couple of verses that say he was a man:

Acts 2:22,

Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
​

1Tim 2:5,

For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
​

My point is that if one can't keep the two main characters in any story straight, there is little chance the story will be read as the author intended. It's not what people say or read that counts, it's what God says that matters. I believe statistics show that 98% of Christians believe Jesus is God. That is why it is better to see for yourself rather than believe what the church says. Of course that means one must study the scriptures while ignoring preconceived ideas, something many have a hard time doing.

 

[rrobs]

NT speaks about works making faith viable or complete; so works of a Creator or non Creator should be visible by the physical and seen.

Joh 4:34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

Joh 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

Jas 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Thanks for the reply. Couldn't agree more. I have seen many miracles so I have no problem believing in God and the scriptures.

My OP was to point out treating faith as inferior to proof is not valid. Not being able to prove there is no God, they must accept no God by faith. Perhaps they may think again when they criticize Christians for having faith.

 

[rrobs]

Not that tired old attempt to provoke people into a stupid discussion, yet again.

This gambit has been tried countless time on this forum. There is nothing to be gained by recycling it for the umpteenth time. Everybody is sick of it.

And yet you engage. Wouldn't it be better to avoid what makes you sick?

 

[rrobs]

That rings hollow after a while.
At some point, one believes - not on faith, but due to lack of evidence - that unicorns do not exist. If one were to be discovered, that would be evidence that they do exist and one would have to adjust their position accordingly.

On the other hand, if one claimed that there a supernatural entity that had flooded the entire world to the height of the tallest mountains, a sensible person would ask for evidence. A world-wide flood, especially one in the timeline of the biblical literalist, should have left a LOT of evidence.

Yet... There is none. In fact, the evidence there is contradicts such a notion.

So at some point, a person would have to admit that a world-wide flood did not occur.

And yet....

My statement was based on pure logic. But we all live our lives based much more on faith than pure logic. Reality is a slippery thing.

 

[rrobs]

One faith is words and the other is trust.

Words: The faith of people saying that they believe in God is just some words that they say to themselves and others, associating that with some thoughts and feelings about the world around us. It may or may not say anything about how they live their lives.

Trust: The faith of people whose ways of thinking don’t include any God beliefs is trust, trusting that there really are no such gods. They may not consciously think of it that way, and if they do, they don’t call it “faith.”

One faith is words, the other is trust.

I see that same faith in no God sometimes, in some of the behavior of people who say that they believe in the God of their scriptures. Sometimes they act like they’re trusting that there really is no such God.

That's people for you. With the exception of the man Jesus Christ, we all say one thing whole all too often doing another.

 

[rrobs]

well, try to say at a party that it takes faith to believe the planets are not moved by some invisible angels inside of them. Angels who love conic sections, and that is why they follow elliptical curves. And see the difference your self in the faces of your friends.

for, can you prove that there are no invisible angels moving the planets along elliptic trajectories, because of their obsession with conic sections?

ciao

- viole

Nobody can prove there are no angels moving the planets. Therefore we all, myself very much included, accept it by faith. Personally, I don't see anything at all wrong with faith. The only reason I brought up the whole thing was to let those who criticize Christians for living by faith, see that they themselves also live by faith. It's just faith in something different.

 

[rrobs]

I think you're approaching this issue with some assumptions about God's importance that are probably unfounded.

Whether God is important or not is beside the point. Can you prove God does or does not exist? If not, you must of necessity base your conclusion based on faith apart from actual proof. You live by faith as much as the most devout Christian lives their life by faith.

 

[lukethethird]

Nobody can prove there are no angels moving the planets. Therefore we all, myself very much included, accept it by faith. Personally, I don't see anything at all wrong with faith. The only reason I brought up the whole thing was to let those who criticize Christians for living by faith, see that they themselves also live by faith. It's just faith in something different.

Yes, and bats fly out of my butt when I fart.

 

[rrobs]

The thing is that you're confusing absolute knowledge with reasonable, default beliefs - or more strictly lack of beliefs. I cannot prove that the world is not being run by lizard aliens from the Andromeda galaxy but, since I have absolutely no reason at all to suspect it is, I don't actually believe that it is (I lack any belief that the world is being run by lizard aliens from Andromeda).

So it is with all the many thousands of gods that people believe in or have believed in.

I can't argue with you on that. I know that to be the case. Nonetheless, technically, not having been to the Andromeda galaxy to gather proof, we both must accept the world is not being run by lizards by faith. More of life is based on faith than most want to accept. We think we all "know" things, when we really don't.

 

[rrobs]

It's not faith at all - that's an absurd use of the word. It's a perfectly reasonable provisional conclusion until and unless some solid reason is given to take the idea of unicorns seriously.

Trying to compare it with faith in the religious sense of faith that a particular god exists, despite lack of evidence, is just silly - sorry.

Yes, it is absolutely reasonable to not believe in unicorns. I myself don't believe they exist. Still we believe they don't exist without actual empirical evidence.

 

[rrobs]

Yes, and bats fly out of my butt when I fart.

LOL...I'll take your word for it.

 

[viole]

Nobody can prove there are no angels moving the planets. Therefore we all, myself very much included, accept it by faith. Personally, I don't see anything at all wrong with faith. The only reason I brought up the whole thing was to let those who criticize Christians for living by faith, see that they themselves also live by faith. It's just faith in something different.

well, OK, but then you have to define faith to me. My first impression is that you strip all differentiating semantics from the word.

And, if I were a cynic, i would think you are trying to drag free thinkers into the intellectual abyss of delusional belief without evidence, so that you are not all alone down there.

like some theists think atheism is a religion. Fine, but by doing that, they deprive “religion” from its differentiating character, since it will be logically impossible to not be religious. And therefore “being religious” would be a meaningless tautology.

for instance, the Bible says faith is the hope in things not seen. Now, either the Bible is suboptimal when it comes to definitions, or you must believe that I hope no invisible fairy is eating my carrots, on account of my “faith” that garden fairies do not exist.

Ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Whether God is important or not is beside the point.

No, it's precisely the point. If God doesn't warrant a second thought, then the question of whether God exists or not is irrelevant.

Can you prove God does or does not exist? If not, you must of necessity base your conclusion based on faith apart from actual proof. You live by faith as much as the most devout Christian lives their life by faith.

Since you've seen fit to ignore my posts when I actually gave a thought-out response, this time I'll keep it simple: you're wrong.

 

[Valjean]

Not being able to prove God does not exist, you must necessarily have faith that He does not exist. The only other option is that you don't know if God exists or not. He might or might not exist. Pure logic dictates it be such.

Yes, it is impossible to prove a negative. That is my whole point and precisely why one must deny the existence of God by faith and nothing but faith.

Lack of belief is the epistemic default position. It's logical and reasonable. Lack of belief is not a belief.
Maybe the Abrahamic god exists. Maybe the Greek gods exist. Maybe an invisible pink unicorn, Cthulu or the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. Do you give these equal credence?

Believing everything until contrary evidence is produced is unworkable and unreasonable. It's not 'logical'.
The reasonable position is to begin with a blank slate and add belief as evidence comes to light. A blank slate does not require faith.
Faith is a type of belief. How can it apply to a lack of belief?

I'm sure you're tired of our demands of concrete evidence by now, but it's apt.
There are hundreds of different 'faiths', and different gods, and different scriptures, and different creation stories. Often they "interpret" their scriptures to accord with current scientific thought, when possible. Yet they stilldisagree, and have no concrete evidence justifying their particular take on the issue..
They have only faith.

Scientists disagree, too, but they don't duel with scripture or tradition. They follow the evidence, they test their assumptions, and accept the conclusions regardless of faith or orthodoxy.

Unlike religion, basic science is homogenous worldwide -- because it's fact based. Controversy does occur at the cutting edge, but it doesn't invalidate the basics. With continuing research the controversy's are clarified and new ones appear at the expanding edges.

Pointing to the controversies does not support magical religious belief. That's a false dichotomy. Only evidence would do that. Thus far I see none, and what's claimed as evidence is inconsistent, untested and variable.