Faith Vs Knowledge

[orangebox21]

---

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.

I would say yes He provides knowledge though not always through a physical appearance. God spoke to Abraham, Christ appeared to some after His resurrection, today we rely on the completeness of His word.

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.

Why do you conclude that she is a candidate for Sainthood?

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?

As you have this written yes it would seem incredibly unfair. To be sure it is in fact unfair one must determine the truth value of your initial premise: "It appears that there are some with genuine belief who are sentenced to a life-time of no-proof." Does the appearance of genuine belief equal genuine belief? Does the Bible make a distinction?

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?

I think I understand your argument. I've organized a formal argument below, please review it and let me know if it is accurate.
Premise 1: Faith in God produces knowledge of God's existence.
Premise 2: Some people have faith in God but without knowledge of God's existence.
Premise 3: If God doesn't exist, then there is no knowledge of God's existence.
Conclusion: If God does exist, knowledge of His existence could only be had if God is not consistent.

Why can't they have the traits wrong?

To clarify, what do you mean by traits?

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.

To clarify when you say 'withhold nothing' do you mean a knowledge of His existence or do you mean God would literally give us everything? Why do you conclude that God would withhold nothing?