(July 18, 2013 at 8:10 am)fr0d0 Wrote: 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.this is rather odd. if i understand you correctly, you think that god is a question that can never be proven. what i do not understand is how you get to "the assumption has to be made". i think the difference is just that atheists don't find the need for this assumption, we're happy enough to say we don't know, no point to act like there is a god.
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
it also wouldn't be blind faith at all on our part, because as Texas Sailor pointed out above, a being like god, even though can never be proven, would at least show some signs of existing, in the absence of all these signs, there's no reason to assume it exists. otherwise it'd just be a figment of our imagination. i could imagine a being right now, and it'll be impossible to prove it, but there's no reason to think it exist to begin with.
