Do you then question the existence of God?

often. That's the main pruport of my joining this community. Constant reflection of self is important to me personally. Generally on most days my belief outweighs my faith though. And before we get into then why believe in something that's not real question. I feel the proof should be in the pudding. Scientif theories should be supported by scientific evidence, historical truth by historical evidence, mathmatical certainty through the application of mathmatics, etc. I find I have substantial nonsubstanial (not unsubstantiatable)evidence of insubstantial beliefs. .. I think I've gone past tired with that remark you'll have to forgive me.

I'm intrigued.

What is the difference between your faith and your belief?

Faith in my opinion is belief without evidence. My belief is substantiated evidence from my perceptions of reality, nature and logic, etc solidly tested without doubt. Whenever doubt creeps in, due to the nature of the insubstantial, new fact finding is required to resolidify my belief.

(January 8, 2010 at 8:45 am)tackattack Wrote: My belief is substantiated evidence from my perceptions of reality, nature and logic, etc solidly tested without doubt.

So do you have faith in God, or belief?

P.s belief is not the same as knowledge

i think tackattack has faith in god because if logic and reality is involved then we'r not talking about god!

belief definately as of this moment. Nor did I say your reality A897. I said my perception of reality which is subjective and not viable for scientific evidence, but it is valid for non-substantial evidence. We can only percieve God with the tools we have available which are logic, reality, etc. I think the argument is moot because Atheists, in general, are looking for physical evidence of something insubstantial. I believe that there is more to life than the reality of the chair I'm sitting in and the computer I'm typing. IMO, there is an insubstantial reality of toughts, ideas, beliefs, forces outside of ourselves, will, spirits etc that also exists and I think that is the main difference between a theist and atheist. Is that far off from the definition, because I'm still learning atheist and agnostic definitions?

And how did you use logic and reality to prove the existence of God?

[quote='tackattack' pid='49320' dateline='1263042054']
Atheists, in general, are looking for physical evidence of something insubstantial.

Atheists, in general just don't believe in God.
Am I looking for this elusive evidence of which you speak?
The answer is no.
Am I checking my garden for fairy nests?
Again no.
Am I travelling far and wide searching for unicorns?
You can guess my answer....

The point is, I dont believe that the concept of god is a concept that has any merit at all, so why look for proof.

It is up to people who DO believe to supply some evidence that is strong enough for me to change my mind.

(January 9, 2010 at 9:00 am)tackattack Wrote: Atheists, in general, are looking for physical evidence of something insubstantial.

Only atheists who have never read something philosophical. I certainly don't look for physical evidence; you can't expect physical evidence for the existence of non-physical, non-temporal, non-corporeal beings. Hence why I reject materialism, on the basis that although it's very nice to believe that physical matter and energy is all there is, you can't prove it either way. Materialism is useful, however, for science, since science by definition deals with the material world.