Faith Vs Knowledge

[max-greece]

Yes it is true that "without faith it is impossible to please God." But what kind of faith does God require? It's seems, at least in this forum, that most people define faith something like: a belief in something with no evidence nor reason, and something that cannot be proved. I'll define this as blind faith for the purpose of this discussion. Does God require blind faith? While the account of Thomas does show us that Thomas wouldn't believe unless he saw there is more to learn. Consider that if in fact God did demand blind faith showing Himself to Thomas would have disqualified Thomas. Yet the scriptures do not teach that Thomas was disqualified. (John 20:19-25) The end of the verse, "Blessed are they who have not seen and yet believe" is an encouragement to those who at the time believed but did not physically see Jesus resurrected as well as all subsequent generations of believers. Secondly consider Abraham. It is written that "Abraham believed God and his faith was credited as righteousness." Here is a man where the 'knowledge' came first, God spoke to him personally, therefore Abraham knew He existed. Yet this knowledge was not what was considered faith but rather it was when Abraham put his trust in God, in His words, and put them into action, that Abraham had faith. God does not demand blind faith.

This is an interesting turn around on what an atheist like myself sees as the inconsistency of God. He appears to some, but not to others. If your interpretation is correct then one would naturally expect that anyone who truly believes WILL get this knowledge confirmation.

The point of bringing up Mother Teresa is that, according to her diaries, she suffered doubts simply because that confirmation was not forthcoming. It appears that she never got it. As she is a candidate for Sainthood this is odd - and at odds with your interpretation.

It appears that there are some with genuine belief who are sentenced to a life-time of no-proof. This seems incredibly unfair of God, don't you think?

While I'm open to a counter example, there is not a way in which a person can have genuine belief (i.e. faith) while not having a confidence in the existence of God. It's not an issue of 'God not wanting you' but rather an issue of whether or not a person has faith or is merely professing it. It is cause for self reflection.

I think the point is that having genuine belief that yields non of the surety and knowledge of God would lead, reasonably, to doubt. It is not simply a case of having faith or merely professing it if faith is rewarded by proof for some but not others. This is what makes the example of Mother Theresa so powerful.

It is my opinion that absolute confidence and/or the "knowledge" of God is a delusion based on this evidence - even ignoring all of the other issues that an Atheist might raise.

If God doesn't exist such knowledge cannot be had.
If God does exist such knowledge could only be had if God was spectacularly inconsistent and very un-godlike in his behaviour.

Do you see what I am saying now?

[archangle]

guess we all have faith. But I think we should use what you know to support your faith. I have faith the sun will rise .... why? Because not only me but everyone I know has seen it rise "in the morning".

If 2 told me it wasn't going to rise because they saw it not rise. I would have faith in observations . As best we can that is. But boy would I feel like an ass if I found out they spent the winter above the arctic circle.

[Severan]

I'm struggling with something and I wanted to get others opinions on this.

It appears to me that we have various theists on the forum, along with innumerable famous theists / Christian Apologists etc. that claim to know, for certain, that God exists, that he's their God and so on and so forth.

My understanding is that God is supposed to withhold that knowledge - which is the point of his demanding faith.

If they do have that knowledge or certainty doesn't that make God a liar?

At the same time how can they demand or even request others to follow their path on the basis of faith if they have the luxury of knowledge and are not reliant on belief alone?

Anyone?

Their inability to comprehend biology is NOT proof of god.

[archangle]

I'm struggling with something and I wanted to get others opinions on this.

It appears to me that we have various theists on the forum, along with innumerable famous theists / Christian Apologists etc. that claim to know, for certain, that God exists, that he's their God and so on and so forth.

My understanding is that God is supposed to withhold that knowledge - which is the point of his demanding faith.

If they do have that knowledge or certainty doesn't that make God a liar?

At the same time how can they demand or even request others to follow their path on the basis of faith if they have the luxury of knowledge and are not reliant on belief alone?

Anyone?

I have a question:

Why can't they have the traits wrong? This withholding thing. I would say that if there was a god he/she would withhold nothing.

In fact ... he would show us as fast as we can.

I would also add. our lack of understanding with science is not evidence of no god. It is however good enough to say "your traits of god are probably wrong."

It has little to do with faith.

[max-greece]

I'm struggling with something and I wanted to get others opinions on this.

It appears to me that we have various theists on the forum, along with innumerable famous theists / Christian Apologists etc. that claim to know, for certain, that God exists, that he's their God and so on and so forth.

My understanding is that God is supposed to withhold that knowledge - which is the point of his demanding faith.

If they do have that knowledge or certainty doesn't that make God a liar?

At the same time how can they demand or even request others to follow their path on the basis of faith if they have the luxury of knowledge and are not reliant on belief alone?

Anyone?

I have a question:

Why can't they have the traits wrong? This withholding thing. I would say that if there was a god he/she would withhold nothing.

In fact ... he would show us as fast as we can.

I would also add. our lack of understanding with science is not evidence of no god. It is however good enough to say "your traits of god are probably wrong."

It has little to do with faith.

Whilst you and I might agree - them's the rules according to Christianity as I understood them.

What I am interested in is how theists might juggle this apparent contradiction.

[archangle]

I have a question:

Why can't they have the traits wrong? This withholding thing. I would say that if there was a god he/she would withhold nothing.

In fact ... he would show us as fast as we can.

I would also add. our lack of understanding with science is not evidence of no god. It is however good enough to say "your traits of god are probably wrong."

It has little to do with faith.

Whilst you and I might agree - them's the rules according to Christianity as I understood them.

What I am interested in is how theists might juggle this apparent contradiction.

it's like texting and driving ... it has to be a written thing in the law for some people to actually understand why they were flogged. It's just us crazy humans.

Also, I think most get bullied by fundies. Some peeps aint sure. They are even a little insecure. so the fundie focuses on what they don't know or fear. Like spellering natzies do. If you write to + to = four in some sites. You are wrong because "to" is spelled wrong. It has little to do with the facts.

I have actually had christians say "its ok to believe in the big bang and god?"

lmao, "yes !!!"

[Chas]

How many of those have you seen frods? Genuine question, because I can't think of anyone here who would describe themselves as such nor have I ever seen someone on the internet or IRL that does so either.

I'm sure I've seen a few on here. I think it's a more tenable position than gnostic theist... plenty people claim that science is the only way we can know anything, for example.

But that doesn't make someone a gnostic atheist.

[fr0d0]

I'm sure I've seen a few on here. I think it's a more tenable position than gnostic theist... plenty people claim that science is the only way we can know anything, for example.

But that doesn't make someone a gnostic atheist.

Indeed. But that is the basis people use to claim knowledge that God doesn't exist I've seen.

[Chas]

But that doesn't make someone a gnostic atheist.

Indeed. But that is the basis people use to claim knowledge that God doesn't exist I've seen.

No, it supports the claim that god isn't necessary, that the existence of god doesn't explain anything, therefore there is no reason to believe in the existence of any gods.

[archangle]

Indeed. But that is the basis people use to claim knowledge that God doesn't exist I've seen.

No, it supports the claim that god isn't necessary, that the existence of god doesn't explain anything, therefore there is no reason to believe in the existence of any gods.

You are making an assumption that has nowhere near the information to do so.

If the universe is alive, which is very real possibility unless you can support it being not alive. Then the formation of the universe as it is may have "it's life" as a requirement.