I do present it endlessly esq.
The question of God cannot be known. Therefore the assumption has to be made. The evidence of coherent supporting logic that would make that assumption viable enables faith.
Your objection rests on the substantiation of proof, which as Maelstrom has demonstrated above, is impossible.
Do you think proof of God is possible? If so, please describe what form that proof might take. If you cannot reason any workable hypothesis, then you hold a position of blind faith.
The Maelstrom conundrum:
1. There cannot be proof of God
2. We cannot believe in God without proof
3. 1 defeats 2
The question of God cannot be known. Therefore the assumption has to be made. The evidence of coherent supporting logic that would make that assumption viable enables faith.
Your objection rests on the substantiation of proof, which as Maelstrom has demonstrated above, is impossible.
Do you think proof of God is possible? If so, please describe what form that proof might take. If you cannot reason any workable hypothesis, then you hold a position of blind faith.
The Maelstrom conundrum:
1. There cannot be proof of God
2. We cannot believe in God without proof
3. 1 defeats 2
