Do you believe in God?

  • Thread starter Patrik
  • 24,489 comments
  • 1,141,823 views

Do you believe in god?

  • Of course, without him nothing would exist!

    Votes: 624 30.6%
  • Maybe.

    Votes: 368 18.0%
  • No way!

    Votes: 1,051 51.5%

  • Total voters
    2,042
The testimony of millions of people regarding purely subjective, personal experiences with religion are not evidence for the physical existence or Godhood of another person who lived in another time and place. If purely subjective personal experiences were evidence of anything, then Dianetics, alien abduction, ghosts, Hindu and Tibetan reincarnation (as well as pagan faith healing) would also be considered true beyond reasonable doubt.

nitrorocks
The Catholic/Christian bibles! The old testament, new testament, NIV, I can go on for hours naming the countless versions there are and they all lead to the same place

Unfortunately, they don't. In fact, as pointed out, many of the books that make up the Bible don't even agree with each other.

Why don't you go to Bethlehem and Israel?

To see the place where we think Jesus was born, where we are told he died and where we think his body was buried after crucifixion before resurrection? You do know that countless archaeologists and Biblical scholars have been through every grain of sand in the Holy Land and are still trying to find concrete, physical evidence for Jesus?

This is not to say that Jesus did not exist. This is to say that physical proof of his existence is exceedingly hard to find (if it still exists after centuries of war and looting in the Holy Land), and many of the relics associated with him have been shown to be counterfeit.
 
The testimony of millions of people regarding purely subjective, personal experiences with religion are not evidence for the physical existence or Godhood of another person who lived in another time and place.


Really, and why not?



Unfortunately, they don't. In fact, as pointed out, many of the books that make up the Bible don't even agree with each other.


'Many' of the books of the bible is utterly inaccurate in your statement. Since this is such a strong part of your disbelief, I'd be curious to know which said disagreements you can even name offhand.
 
Really, and why not?

Because subjective is subjective. As stated, eyewitness testimony can only be used to corroborate, but is usually not enough. In fact, it is considered the least accurate evidence available, unless the witnesses are already familiar with the people involved in the crime or were the direct target and had a suitably long period of time to see the assailant during the crime, identification is problematic at best and dangerously inaccurate at worst.

Do you believe in alien abduction? In the hundreds who claim, with full conviction they were abducted? Or those who claim (with full conviction, also) to be reincarnations of former religious leaders? (Which would "prove" that theirs is the right religion).

Quality before quantity. If the quality of the evidence is suspect, then the quantity is immaterial.


'Many' of the books of the bible is utterly inaccurate in your statement. Since this is such a strong part of your disbelief, I'd be curious to know which said disagreements you can even name offhand.

Not so much inaccuracy (though, as pointed out, there are many... this link is a bit easier to digest: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html ) as disagreement on values. Jesus's "laws" are only partly compatible with Moses' laws... which are ignored in part or in whole by later generations, anyway... where the Hebrew nation conquers, pillages and kills off other small nations and tribes in wars of conquest... all with the "blessing" of God. Jesus with one hand says "to love thine neighbor as thyself" and on the other beats vendors in the temple with a switch.

I'm not a Bible scholar per se, but I find it amusing that many Bible-thumping evangelists can find an odd scripture of the fire-and-brimstone variety to justify their beliefs in direct contradiction of Christian values of acceptance and brotherhood.

The Roman Catholic Church still bans condoms based on an Old Testament line about "spilling seed on the ground", which said spiller was punished by God for.

No, his punishment had nothing to do with the fact that he was shacked up with his brother's wife, no... because that wouldn't make any sense given that adultery is forbidden... right?

-

Fact: The Bible has many authors. All of whom claim to have been inspired by God. Many of whom have predicted things that did not come to pass and others who predicted a Messiah, but not specifically enough for us to say: "It has to be Jesus and no other"... otherwise there would be no Jews left, just Christians.

Of those many hands that wrote those many books, many have had their own agendas and wrote of their own times. The "fire-and-brimstone" writers wrote in troubled times, and that was what was written. Others wrote during the grand ages of the Hebrew nation, and cited God as justification for their victories and conquests. Others wrote during trying times of slavery and bondage, and cited God's wrath over posited sins as justification for this state of affairs.

The Bible is not some monolithic book with a single message or purpose. Which is why modern Christian religions pick and choose which parts to accept as fact and which parts to cite as allegory. Which is why theology is a thriving field of study within these religions... as interpretation and re-interpretation of scriptures is necessary to make everything make sense.
 
Last edited:
I think he's referring to these.


Oh, I've never seen one of these lists before... 💡 These are fun.


- 1st 'contradiction' occurs in the bible with footnotes that say the information was derived from separate sources, even naming the so-called 'contradiction' verses in Chronicles as a reference.

- The 2nd is not a contradiction whatsoever. Both verses are (typical) taken strictly out of context. Reading the surrounding passages confirms that it was Abraham's faith that proved him righteous, and that his actions reflected THAT.

- 3rd is also not a contradiction. As Abraham is the father of all who have faith, because he offered his only son. Again, twisting of words and context.

- 4th - Abiathar and Ahimelech were the names of both father and son. Not a contradiction.

- 5th - Skeptics generally focus their criticism upon the genealogy of Abijah. Was his mother the daughter of Absalom, son of David, or was she the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah?

If the term “daughter” was used only in one sense in the Bible—to mean strictly the direct, physical, female offspring of a parent—then Christians might have a legitimate problem on their hands. In this specific sense, Abijah’s mother, Micaiah, could not be both the “daughter” of Absalom and the “daughter” of Uriel. The truth is, however, like the word “son,” the term “daughter” is used in the Bible in a variety of ways.

- 6th - Exact same answer as the 5th. They tried to double-up on the same issue.

- 7th - 1 Samuel 7:1 -

"So the men of Kiriath Jearim came and took up the ark of the LORD. They took it to Abinadab's house on the hill and consecrated Eleazar his son to guard the ark of the LORD."

1 Samuel 7:2 -

"It was a long time, twenty years in all, that the ark remained at Kiriath Jearim, and all the people of Israel mourned and sought after the LORD."

1 Samuel 7:3 -

"And Samuel said to the whole house of Israel, "If you are returning to the LORD with all your hearts, then rid yourselves of the foreign gods and the Ashtoreths and commit yourselves to the LORD and serve him only, and he will deliver you out of the hand of the Philistines."

What does the "twenty years" in the second verse refer to? It refers to the span of time between the events described in the first and third verses. Nothing more, nothing less. It refers to the span of time that begins with the ark being moved to Abinadab's house and it ends with Samuel convening the house of Israel.





That's about all I have time for. One thing to keep in mind is that there are people aware of, and researching these things (like scientists), on both sides of the faith spectrum. It's a bit funny when people propose these lists as if no one on the other side had considered these things before them. Not to mention people such as yourselves who have never researched possible explanations to these things, only using the existence of these lists to back your likewise unresearched premonitions.


Good night.
 
1 Cor. 8:2 - "Any man that thinks he knows does not yet know as he should."

Words which truly represent the entire point of science, and the reason why I so distrust religion. Of a scientist who is constantly making new discoveries, revising hypotheses and changing their view of the world, and a Christian who believes (and would claim "knows")the Bible is and always was and will be the word of God, no matter what science has to say about it, who is doing this quote more justice?

👍👍 Absolutely, dylansan, perfectly stated.

Of course, you are interpreting that phrase as a scientist might. I suspect, however, that it was quoted with a different intention, i.e. "Human knowledge can imply whatever it wants, but if it contradicts the word of God, it's wrong".
 
Last edited:
What about the part that Adam and Eve had 3 sons, and 2 of them had sex with their sisters? How does the church explain (ignore?) that?

Kain humps Awan, and Seth humps Azura.
If I go to church now, am I allowed to hump my sister?
 
What about the part that Adam and Eve had 3 sons, and 2 of them had sex with their sisters? How does the church explain (ignore?) that?

Kain humps Awan, and Seth humps Azura.
If I go to church now, am I allowed to hump my sister?

Yes. All true christians have to do it or else they go to Hell. It's a well-known fact, I wonder why you are asking this.
 
I just found this by Isaac Newton: 'In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God's existence.'. Elsewhere he asked, 'Was the eye contrived without skill in optics, and the ear without knowledge of sounds?'
 
What about the part that Adam and Eve had 3 sons, and 2 of them had sex with their sisters? How does the church explain (ignore?) that?

Kain humps Awan, and Seth humps Azura.
If I go to church now, am I allowed to hump my sister?

Aha, finally someone brings this up.

Depends on if there are any witnesses, or her physical appearance. :sly:
 
Really, and why not?

The testimony of millions of people regarding purely subjective, personal experiences with religion are not evidence for the physical existence or Godhood of another person who lived in another time and place. If purely subjective personal experiences were evidence of anything, then Dianetics, alien abduction, ghosts, Hindu and Tibetan reincarnation (as well as pagan faith healing) would also be considered true beyond reasonable doubt.

It drives me crazy to see this argued over and over in this thread. Sach_F1, and every other deist who attempts this argument, please pay attention to what's being said here.

A 1500-year-old book full of stories is not proof of anything other than man's abilities to write words on paper. Anybody can write anything. In all other areas of your life, I'm sure all of you choose what to believe and not believe based on logic, evidence, reason and facts.

Yet for some reason, when it comes to this one area of your life, suddenly an ancient book, that has been translated (read: mistranslated) dozens, if not hundreds of times, and shown to be riddled with inaccuracies, is all the proof you need?

Do you lend the same credence to Egyptian hieroglyphs? I'm sure the people who inscribed them believed what they were writing every bit as much as did the people who wrote the gospels. Do you get up every day and worship Ra? Do you pray to Osiris? Of course not. Your ability to think logically and reasonably allows you to recognize those myths for what they are.

But when it comes to Christian scriptures, you relax those same standards, ignore the dearth of evidence, and invest yourself into something that holds no more water than those ancient superstitions.

Now, please, just for one moment, hold off on hitting that "reply" button, and really think about it. What makes your faith any more worthy of your attention and your investment than any of the others that you have chosen to not believe in? Because in the end, they all have the exact same evidence behind them.
 
It drives me crazy to see this argued over and over in this thread. Sach_F1, and every other deist who attempts this argument, please pay attention to what's being said here.

A 1500-year-old book full of stories is not proof of anything other than man's abilities to write words on paper. Anybody can write anything. In all other areas of your life, I'm sure all of you choose what to believe and not believe based on logic, evidence, reason and facts.


I was done with this tired discussion, but you just accused me of several things that are untrue.


When I said "Really, and why is that?", I was referring to people's personal testimonies. Just because something falls outside of the physical and testable realm of science doesn't mean that it is ultimately subjective and without value. To say otherwise is simply foolish and arrogant. I wasn't referring to your suggested comments regarding the bible.


Yet for some reason, when it comes to this one area of your life, suddenly an ancient book, that has been translated (read: mistranslated) dozens, if not hundreds of times, and shown to be riddled with inaccuracies, is all the proof you need?


Another assumption you are making about myself, also untrue. As an intelligent person who has always had academic success (mathematics in school, language, now music/composition, etc.), and engaged in critical thinking, I can promise you that I have pondered over the validity of the bible on a countless numbers of occasions. I would even wager a great deal to say that I have questioned its validity even more so than the vast majority of skeptics here. You are also assuming that people more intelligent than yourself, or equally intelligent as those whose opinions you do respect, have not also scrutinized the validity of the biblical documents and found them to be trustworthy.



Do you lend the same credence to Egyptian hieroglyphs? I'm sure the people who inscribed them believed what they were writing every bit as much as did the people who wrote the gospels. Do you get up every day and worship Ra? Do you pray to Osiris? Of course not. Your ability to think logically and reasonably allows you to recognize those myths for what they are.


I honestly haven't studied the Egyptian hieroglyphs, so I can't comment. But your comment is a typical insert-here response to encountering someone with faith who claims to know the truth. I would find it empty to worship those 'gods' because they are not gods at all. A critical error that nearly every skeptic makes is to withhold room for the 'super-natural', divine, transcendent, and possibility of an absolute truth.

Any critically thinking person understands that the concept of absolute truth can exist. If that concept can exist, there can also be such a thing as a singular deity that created everything, one who is 'the way', as Jesus said, and that every other god created by man can be false. People criticize Christians for being close-minded, when in fact to deny the possibility of absolute truth and the possibility that they are right is no less foolish.

Because the concept of absolute truth can exist, there can also exist a universal standard of morality. Whether humans choose to exercise their freedom to abide by it or not, and to form their own versions of it, does not change the fact that it can exist, ignored or not. Because a singular God and standard can exist, it is also possible that things are not created around the way that we would have them be, that perhaps we are merely subjects to the predetermined standards of reality, and that God can absolutely be justified in whatever he wants to do. Justification ultimately depends on the standard by which you set it, and if God has the power to create the reality that we use to set this standard, then he is also not restricted by it, and ultimately he can also be the ultimate standard by which all judgment comes.



Now, please, just for one moment, hold off on hitting that "reply" button, and really think about it. What makes your faith any more worthy of your attention and your investment than any of the others that you have chosen to not believe in? Because in the end, they all have the exact same evidence behind them.


They don't have the same evidence behind them. If you knew me 10 years ago we would be side by side in this discussion. Like I said, I have always excelled in my studies, always been regarded as having a strong intellect, was in the gifted class, was considered for skipping 4th grade, was the top jazz musician at my 3 university years after picking up the craft, etc. I am a person that has always enjoyed thinking critically, questioning where everything comes from, and forcing myself to accept the hard truths. I promise you that I am also very selfish with my time and way of thinking while on this earth because I know how short life is, and I did not come to believing in God without years of fierce intellectual battles with myself and ultimately transcendental experiences that proved that things can exist outside of the realm of logic, even physical evidence. And this is not even a surprise when you consider that I believe in a God who has performed miracles. Just consider for one minute, that if Jesus was in fact who he said he was, miracles and things that defy the logic of all sciences would be expected in this reality.

Once you come to the neutral acceptance that a singular truth can exist, you will understand that a God can exist, even in theory, and how a person can come into believing as a Christian. Because that is true, you will either explore the implications that can have or you will not. I know that because it is a valid concept, that a singular God can be the creator of every law in this universe, and does not have to play by the rules of his own design. A work of art cannot argue to any avail with the artist. And this is also what I mean when I quote, "Any man that says he knows does not yet know as he ought to.".


And lastly, if you think that I have just sunk into some static place of deluded acceptance of a set of beliefs over the years, you are also sorely mistaken. Every believer struggles to maintain faith and understand morality, and to balance those with worldly experiences. Every person in the bible did so as well, and this is not a new concept. It is a lifelong series of experiences, full of seasons of doubt and disbelief, and seasons of true understanding of God's nature.
 
Last edited:
If one believes in God, one has to believe in a Creator. A single one, no ifs, no buts. Or else we wouldn't be talking about GOD.

That excludes polytheism.

If one believes in God, one has to believe in a Creator. A Creator that is not one entity with the Creation, he was there before the beggining of it. Or else we wouldn't be talking about GOD.

That excludes pantheism.


And leaves us with monotheism, and there are many ways to try and find GOD, and His message. Because we're just "Interpreters" of it.

And you get Jesus Christ, His message, His life, the Church/Legacy He left us. And I do believe, based on these 3 realities, that He was of divine nature.

But I do respect any and all other beliefs in God, I hold nothing against Muslims. It's the same God, I hope they reach unity with Him through their own faith. And I believe that to be the case with many, as I do with Christians.
 

Great post 👍

One part I'm still not clear on though...

I honestly haven't studied the Egyptian hieroglyphs, so I can't comment. But your comment is a typical insert-here response to encountering someone with faith who claims to know the truth. I would find it empty to worship those 'gods' because they are not gods at all. A critical error that nearly every skeptic makes is to withhold room for the 'super-natural', divine, transcendent, and possibility of an absolute truth.

This is where I lose you. They're not gods to you, so you just toss them aside. But to the people who believed in them, they are gods. That's the part of all this that bothers me.

Can't you see that the way that you just throw aside their beliefs can be applied to your beliefs as well? You don't think the ancient Egyptians' religion had any credence, and I agree with you. We differ in the fact that I realize all religions equally lack the necessary objective evidence to be considered true.
 
If one believes in God, one has to believe in a Creator. A single one, no ifs, no buts. Or else we wouldn't be talking about GOD.

This is ridiculous, unless I'm completely missing the point you're trying to make.

Monotheism must be true because we use the singular form of the word god? OK, then, let's imagine that every instance of the word 'god' was replaced with 'gods' in the last 250 pages. Now, why is monotheism any more credible than polytheism?
 
huskeR32
This is ridiculous, unless I'm completely missing the point you're trying to make.

Monotheism must be true because we use the singular form of the word god? OK, then, let's imagine that every instance of the word 'god' was replaced with 'gods' in the last 250 pages. Now, why is monotheism any more credible than polytheism?

Polytheism has many complications. I have explained above.
 
Polytheism has many complications. I have explained above.

I believe in a monotheistic God, rather than multiple Gods (like dualism or polytheism). I believe both Ideas are man made.
I would provide my own explanation to why dualism is wrong, but C. S. Lewis hits the nail on the head:
"Neither of them chose this tête-à-tête. Each of them is therefore conditioned - finds himself willy-nilly in a situation, and either that situation itself, or some other unknown force which produced that situation, is the real Ultimate."
Basically you have to ask if there is some kind of unity between these two competing forces, and if so, does this not destroy their godlike status and reduce them to secondary players operating within a greater reality?

As for polytheism, it states that different 'God's' are hierarchically structured. This is like the idea of a God of war, God of the Sun, etc. I would imagine polytheism as an interesting way to view the world, but it makes no sense to me.

And then there is animism, which is clearly man made.

Monotheism just

You explanation amounted to "it doesn't make sense so I don't believe it." I don't find that satisfactory at all. So now I'm interested in hearing somebody else try to explain it. explain their view.

My first wording of that sounded very rude, so I edited it. I didn't mean offense.
 
This is ridiculous, unless I'm completely missing the point you're trying to make.

You are completely missing the point.

Monotheism must be true because we use the singular form of the word god? OK, then, let's imagine that every instance of the word 'god' was replaced with 'gods' in the last 250 pages. Now, why is monotheism any more credible than polytheism?

Now this gets to not only be ridiculous, but also mildly insulting as a way of discussing. Do you really think it's a question of adding an "S" to the word God?

If you put the "s" in God, you won't get Gods, you'll get "supernatural-creatures-created-by-God-as-everything-else" ... at best.

GOD - A Creator before all things, the very concept of Uncaused Cause, of Unmoved Mover. Aristotle rings a bell? Maybe he was ridiculous too.
 
You are completely missing the point.

Now this gets to not only be ridiculous, but also mildly insulting as a way of discussing. Do you really think it's a question of adding an "S" to the word God?

If you put the "s" in God, you won't get Gods, you'll get "supernatural-creatures-created-by-God-as-everything-else" ... at best.

GOD - A Creator before all things, the very concept of Uncaused Cause, of Unmoved Mover. Aristotle rings a bell? Maybe he was ridiculous too.

Then please tell me what you meant by this:

If one believes in God, one has to believe in a Creator. A single one, no ifs, no buts. Or else we wouldn't be talking about GOD.

I don't see any evidence to back up your "a single one, no ifs, no buts." Please help me see why you're so sure of this. And if you're not emphasizing the singular form of the word god, why did you put it in all caps?

I honestly don't see anything at all to back up your certainty that monotheism is credible, but polytheism is not.
 
Last edited:
I used all caps because I wanted to emphasize the nature of the entity. God as the Creator of everything, and not a Creature himself.
 
I used all caps because I wanted to emphasize the nature of the entity. God as the Creator of everything, and not a Creature himself.

Fair enough, my fault for misinterpretation there. Now, why is monotheism credible when polytheism is not?

Neither ideas is backed up by objective evidence, so how can you say one is right and the other is wrong?
 
Great post 👍

One part I'm still not clear on though...



This is where I lose you. They're not gods to you, so you just toss them aside. But to the people who believed in them, they are gods. That's the part of all this that bothers me.

Can't you see that the way that you just throw aside their beliefs can be applied to your beliefs as well? You don't think the ancient Egyptians' religion had any credence, and I agree with you. We differ in the fact that I realize all religions equally lack the necessary objective evidence to be considered true.


I don't throw their beliefs aside at all! This ultimately gets to the core of the so-called Christian 'arrogance' that people have a problem with, because it is a thing decided on the principle that a believer knows that he or she is worshiping the one true god, that the biblical word is proven true, and that Jesus was the one son of the only God, but the believer can't possibly explain it through anything less than personal testimonies that other people cast aside as being 'subjective'. But their criticisms of those 'subjective' explanations really have little logical authority to weaken the Christian perspective in the slightest, because Jesus did not claim to be of this world, and nor does God.

Like I said, if the possibility does occur that a singular God can exist beyond the confines of what we have only observed to be the principles and laws of reality to this point, why would you even expect the description of such a God to be based on the limiting terms of the observable reality? The answer is because we "think we know" already, but in fact we are so uncertain of reality in countless ways. People want to hear an answer that they can easily wrap up into a nice physics-abiding wrapper, but to exclude possibilities outside of the realm of our knowledge of reality is arrogant and foolish. Even Einstein left room for God. That's not going to make hearing someone's experiences with the divine any easier to swallow if you have no reference for it, but those experiences and explanations are expectedly of that nature.


Personally, I find that most scientific truths point toward a universal truth, which only confirms my belief in God's singularity even more. What are Stephen Hawking and so many others trying so fervently to find? The one truth of everything. It's curious that they would be looking for such a thing so desperately when so many people also say that even the concept of a single god is an arrogant one. I disagree, and find it to be quite logical.
 
Well if we're talking about the Christian God, he supposedly wants us all to go to heaven, and to do that, we all need to believe he exists. So if, for example, I don't believe a god exists, shouldn't god try to convince me of his existence so that I don't have to go to hell? Since I haven't been convinced, either he isn't capable of convincing me (not omnipotent), isn't interested in saving me (not omnibenevolent) or just doesn't exist.
 
I don't throw their beliefs aside at all!

I honestly haven't studied the Egyptian hieroglyphs, so I can't comment. But your comment is a typical insert-here response to encountering someone with faith who claims to know the truth. I would find it empty to worship those 'gods' because they are not gods at all. A critical error that nearly every skeptic makes is to withhold room for the 'super-natural', divine, transcendent, and possibility of an absolute truth.

:confused:
 
I respect their beliefs and how they came to be. I would never pretend to know what God plans to do about their chosen beliefs, or to limit God to the confines of what we know from the bible's teachings. You are also selecting a part of an answer, without including the explanation that brought it about. Try to imagine that the bolded comment is simply an unbiased statement, explained in the manner of x=x, so x≠y, and then consider the reasons for why I made the statement.


Well if we're talking about the Christian God, he supposedly wants us all to go to heaven, and to do that, we all need to believe he exists. So if, for example, I don't believe a god exists, shouldn't god try to convince me of his existence so that I don't have to go to hell? Since I haven't been convinced, either he isn't capable of convincing me (not omnipotent), isn't interested in saving me (not omnibenevolent) or just doesn't exist.


Not surprisingly, that's very close to a famous quote that skeptics have never really looked at from any other perspective than the easy one. And the definition of faith in God doesn't hold up if all of the work is done for you. Jesus specifically said that God is unseen, and unknown, that faith in God will not work that way. He did not even consider knowledge of God's ways to be attainable even for himself. He humbled himself as a servant before God's purposes.
 
Last edited:
I respect their beliefs and how they came to be. I would never pretend to know what God plans to do about their chosen beliefs, or to limit God to the confines of what we know from the bible's teachings. You are also selecting a part of an answer, without including the explanation that brought it about. Try to imagine that the bolded comment is simply an unbiased statement, explained in the manner of x=x, so x≠y, and then consider the reasons for why I made the statement.

How are their gods "not gods at all?" That's the part that to me seems as if you're just throwing their beliefs aside. How is your god any more real that theirs?

I don't think I took anything out of context at all.
 
I answered that through a few explanations of how I came to know that Jesus was who he said he was through transcendental experiences over the course of my life, struggles with my faith, and ultimately and inescapably coming to the same conclusions over and over again through critical thinking and tough 'subjective' experiences.


This investigation is going exactly where it was designed to go, to the grounds of faith. That is because it is God's plan for it to work that way, and no other way. Some will have faith, some won't, and it won't be an easy absolute even for the believer, because that's not what it is meant to be.


The point I've been trying to explain is that through critical thinking and scientific principles, a truly unbiased person will accept the possibility that there can be an absolute truth, and then likewise the possibility the existence of one true God is not really all that astonishing, that Jesus could then in fact be exactly who he said he was, that he did what he said he came to do, and that explanations beyond the limits of the known laws and properties of reality are required to explain God. I would never claim to have those things figured out, and I personally don't think they are meant to be known, but I arrived to my beliefs through the same kind of thinking that the skeptics have. It's where my observation of the truth of reality has continually pointed me, whether I wanted it to or not.
 
Not surprisingly, that's very close to a famous quote that skeptics have never really looked at from any other perspective than the easy one. And the definition of faith in God doesn't hold up if all of the work is done for you. Jesus specifically said that God is unseen, and unknown, that faith in God will not work that way. He did not even consider knowledge of God's ways to be attainable even for himself. He humbled himself as a servant before God's purposes.
Faith: The belief in something regardless of evidence or lack thereof.

Look, I only have two options here. I can accept things based on whether they are supported by evidence, or I can accept anything I want to just by having faith. I can't pick and choose depending on the topic.

Here's an example.
I believe in unicorns. You may not, but I have had personal experiences which convinced me that they must be real. There may not be obvious evidence of their existence, but they wouldn't be such beautiful, mythical creatures if they were obvious to everyone. I have faith that they exist. There is no proof that they don't exist either. You should look deep inside yourself and ask to accept unicorns into your life, because they will add so much meaning and value to your life.

Now, try to convince me that my faith is misplaced. It can't be done. An argument on faith is completely immune to all logic because it's completely illogical. And yet surely you agree any thinking person would dismiss the belief in unicorns as unfounded. Why? Well, think about that for a bit.

What is the actual observable difference between having faith in God, having faith that unicorns exist, or having faith that there's an invisible pink teapot orbiting the Earth?
 
Back