• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Faith in no God

rrobs

Well-Known Member
Since it can not be proven there is no God any more than it can not be proven there is a God, it would take no less faith to believe there is no God than it would take to believe there is a God.

Without faith in one or the other, the only true thing someone could say is they don't know if there is not, or there is a God. At least that would accord with the lack of evidence one way or the other.

If there is a difference in the faith required to believe one way or the other, I'd be curious to hear about that difference.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
Since it can not be proven there is no God any more than it can not be proven there is a God, it would take no less faith to believe there is no God than it would take to believe there is a God.

Without faith in one or the other, the only true thing someone could say is they don't know if there is not, or there is a God. At least that would accord with the lack of evidence one way or the other.

If there is a difference in the faith required to believe one way or the other, I'd be curious to hear about that difference.
Why does it requires faith to not believe in something? Would you say that you have faith in there not being any unicorns? Not really sure I get that reasoning, but then again I might have misunderstood what you meant?
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
Why does it requires faith to not believe in something? Would you say that you have faith in there not being any unicorns? Not really sure I get that reasoning, but then again I might have misunderstood what you meant?
Just because I have never seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched (the only way to gather data to prove something) a unicorn does not mean they don't exist. Apart from faith, the only thing I could logically say is, "I don't know."

To answer your question, I admit to having the faith that unicorns don't exist. But there are folks out there who have the faith they do in fact exist. How are we to really know?
 

lukethethird

unknown member
Just because I have never seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched (the only way to gather data to prove something) a unicorn does not mean they don't exist. Apart from faith, the only thing I could logically say is, "I don't know."

To answer your question, I admit to having the faith that unicorns don't exist. But there are folks out there who have the faith they do in fact exist. How are we to really know?
OK, how much faith is required to not believe the invisible pink unicorn exists? I bet not much if any at all.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Since it can not be proven there is no God any more than it can not be proven there is a God, it would take no less faith to believe there is no God than it would take to believe there is a God.

Without faith in one or the other, the only true thing someone could say is they don't know if there is not, or there is a God. At least that would accord with the lack of evidence one way or the other.

If there is a difference in the faith required to believe one way or the other, I'd be curious to hear about that difference.
The God the Father is proven already by Prohvet Jesus Christ in 33 AC at least to the people of that time (as example, there is historic video about "crucifixion darkness"). Latter on, He is re-proven by Angelic Dr. Thomas Acquinas'es 7 ways (which were never debunked, but simply trolled by idiotic mob). Then there is strong evidence from Genetics Research: presence of M-Eve and Chromosomal Adam in all genes of the human population in 2020; and the intelligent design of DNA. However to prove is not to convince. Why? Because of negative emotion called "scientific scepticism".
What is scepticism and how it is different from logic? It is a negative emotion like this: "Nobel Commitee can not find flaws in Einstein's E=mc^2 derivation, but we have strong persistent feeling, that there is something wrong with his derivation of E=mc^2. That's why we grant Einstein no Second Nobel Prize."

Finally, if the God of Knowledge is not perfectly 100% proven, then there can not be any knowledge or proof, even physical or mathematical. Because there is no Absolute Judge what is wrong and what is right, even in scientific sense. Therefore, He would have no right to burn atheists and sinners after the Judgement Day. Conclusion: the God is Spirit of Truth Himself.
 
Last edited:

rrobs

Well-Known Member
OK, how much faith is required to not believe the invisible pink unicorn exists? I bet not much if any at all.
I tend to lean towards your belief. Nonetheless, neither of us can prove they do or don't exist. We both have to have faith regarding their alleged non-existence.

I'm not sure there are degrees of faith. We may not be sure of what we believe, but once we decide what to believe, we believe. It's a binary thing.

I think life is based on more faith than we'd like to believe (excuse the circular reasoning. I trust you can see my point). We like to think we all know, when what we really do is believe.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Since it can not be proven there is no God any more than it can not be proven there is a God, it would take no less faith to believe there is no God than it would take to believe there is a God.

Without faith in one or the other, the only true thing someone could say is they don't know if there is not, or there is a God. At least that would accord with the lack of evidence one way or the other.

If there is a difference in the faith required to believe one way or the other, I'd be curious to hear about that difference.

Let me put it this way. I have no reliable knowledge of a "God" existing. That's a fact. That is not a belief. Because of that fact, I choose not to have any beliefs about any God.

I could believe is a God, a good God, an evil God. a pagan God, a nature/animist type God. Without actual knowledge of God any God I decided to believe in would be completely arbitrary. I don't know what God you believe in but whatever God I'd decide to believe in could be totally different. Since there is no knowledge about any God, any one belief is as good as the next.

So rather than come up with some God to believe in that I think ought to exist, I choose not to. That's not to say a God does or doesn't exist. What I'm saying is that I have no knowledge of any God to support any beliefs. For me it is just acknowledging the truth of this.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
I tend to lean towards your belief. Nonetheless, neither of us can prove they do or don't exist. We both have to have faith regarding their alleged non-existence.

Why would I have any consideration for proving or disproving something I have no knowledge about?

I'm not sure there are degrees of faith. We may not be sure of what we believe, but once we decide what to believe, we believe. It's a binary thing.

Or one can choose not to make a decision.

I think life is based on more faith than we'd like to believe (excuse the circular reasoning. I trust you can see my point). We like to think we all know, when what we really do is believe.

I have beliefs with regard to things I have no knowledge about. I'm never 100% certain but more knowledge provides more certainty to support what I believe. Things I really have no knowledge of, there really is no point in having a belief about.

To say I have some beliefs doesn't require me to have a belief about everything. God is one of those things I have no beliefs about.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
The God the Father is proven already by Prohvet Jesus Christ in 33 AC (as example, there is historic video about "crucifixion darkness"). Latter on, He is re-proven by Angelic Dr. Thomas Acquinas'es 7 ways (which were never debunked, but simply trolled by idiotic mob). Then there is strong evidence from Genetics Research: presence of M-Eve and Chromosomal Adam in all genes of the human population in 2020; and the intelligent design of DNA. However to prove is not to convince. Why? Because of negative emotion called "scientific scepticism".
What is scepticism and how it is different from logic? It is a negative emotion like this: "Nobel Commitee can not find flaws in Einstein's E=mc^2 derivation, but we have strong persistent feeling, that there is something wrong with his derivation of E=mc^2. That's why we grant Einstein no Second Nobel Prize."

Finally, if the God of Knowledge is not perfectly 100% proven, then there can not be any knowledge or proof, even physical or mathematical. Because there is no Absolute Judge what is wrong and what is right, even in scientific sense. Therefore, He would have no right to burn atheists and sinners after the Judgement Day. Conclusion: the God is Spirit of Truth Himself.
Well said. The purpose of my OP was not to prove there is a God. Personally, I absolutely believe God exists. The scriptures declare that God is in Christ and Christ is in me. It's hard not to experience such a reality in a tangible way every day. The miracles Jesus has enabled me to perform are good enough for me.

The purpose of the OP is to answer to those who say faith in God is somehow a "lesser" reason for one's conduct in life. Science is held to be the only proof for anything.

I'm trying to give the God skeptic the benefit of the doubt. Science is not capable to prove God does not exist any more than I can use science to prove there is a God. Since science, the popular bastion of truth, can not prove it one way or the other, then, as I said, it requires equal faith to go one way as the other.

Of course, there is in fact much science in the scriptures, but it is not my intent to go there. I'm addressing more those who don't believe in God than those who do.
 

lukethethird

unknown member
I tend to lean towards your belief. Nonetheless, neither of us can prove they do or don't exist. We both have to have faith regarding their alleged non-existence.

I'm not sure there are degrees of faith. We may not be sure of what we believe, but once we decide what to believe, we believe. It's a binary thing.

I think life is based on more faith than we'd like to believe (excuse the circular reasoning. I trust you can see my point). We like to think we all know, when what we really do is believe.
Besides religion is there any other aspect in your life where you accept claims without evidence?
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
There is no way to prove that anything doesn’t exist.

It’s a non-argument which philosophically ignorant theists try on year after year....

Next....
So not being provable, it does in fact require faith to believe there is not God. It's an argument to which scripturally ignorant skeptics have no retort.

I can tell you one thing; if I'm to be ignorant, I'll take ignorance of philosophy over ignorance of the scriptures any day of the week.
 
Top