Why all "Logical Proofs Of God" fail ...

[heathendegenerate]

Some nonbelievers confuse reality with the physical universe? You need to re-read what you type, friend.

[psychoslice]

Some nonbelievers confuse reality with the physical universe? You need to re-read what you type, friend.

Hi, what do you see reality being ?.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Well, I don't think that God needs provin'. Those who ask for proof should look for it themselves.

But then if those who say they have the proof, why can't they simply show their proof, unless of course they just have faith, which is not proof.

At some level EVERYONE has faith that the world is as it appears to them.

[Silver]

At some level EVERYONE has faith that the world is as it appears to them.

There is science to prove that the world is as it is. Theists are relying upon fantasy to perceive the world the way they wished it was.

[Bad Writer]

Faith is never necessary. What is with this tendency of theists nowadays to laud those with little to great faith? Believing something without proper evidence is the most dishonest position you can possibly take in any walk of life.

[Rampant.A.I.]

But then if those who say they have the proof, why can't they simply show their proof, unless of course they just have faith, which is not proof.

At some level EVERYONE has faith that the world is as it appears to them.

I get really tired of the slimy, intellectually dishonest attempts to equivocate beliefs and faith.

You see this a lot from apologists and epistemologists with an agenda, like Alvin Plantinga.

Faith is by definition an irrational belief still strongly held.

This is not comparable in any way to beliefs about the world based in empirical evidence.

There are also varying degrees of faith and belief.

Believers know this, and yet they continually try to sneak in alternate definitions of the word "faith" as if it's a synonym in every context.

[truthBtold]

At some level EVERYONE has faith that the world is as it appears to them.

I get really tired of the slimy, intellectually dishonest attempts to equivocate beliefs and faith.

You see this a lot from apologists and epistemologists with an agenda, like Alvin Plantinga.

Faith is by definition an irrational belief still strongly held.

This is not comparable in any way to beliefs about the world based in empirical evidence.

There are also varying degrees of faith and belief.

Believers know this, and yet they continually try to sneak in alternate definitions of the word "faith" as if it's a synonym in every context.

George Michael had faith..

[Neo-Scholastic]

Faith is by definition an irrational belief still strongly held.

Don’t be a clown! Faith is not a type of belief; but rather, the stance you take in the absence of certainty. For example, if you believe that other people have minds, then you do so in faith, because there is absolutely no way to know for certain. Claims to the contrary already assume what they try to prove.

---

Believing something without proper evidence is the most dishonest position you can possibly take in any walk of life.

Then I guess that makes you dishonest, unless you have a complete and internally consistent understanding of reality.

[Silver]

Faith is not a type of belief; but rather, the stance you take in the absence of certainty. For example, if you believe that other people have minds, then you do so in faith, because there is absolutely no way to know for certain. Claims to the contrary already assume what they try to prove.

Why live with the irrationality of faith? I never understood why a theist like you, who knows the actual definition of faith, would still persist in avoiding reality for the mere comfort that the unreasonable faith provides. Living a lie is no way to live.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...why a theist like you...would still persist in avoiding reality for the mere comfort that the unreasonable faith provides.

I have faith that logic works. Is that irrational? I also have faith that our senses do not decieve us. Is that irrational too? What is with you, clowns, trying to impose your notions of what may motivate some believers onto all believers? Where is your evidence? By your own definition are your baseless responses rational?