Faith in no God

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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 difference is actually ginormous!

Believing in a God (such as the Abrahamic God of Jews, Christians and Muslims) means needing to know (or supposing that you can know) what that means, what it requires of you, what happens if you default -- just an immense amount of stuff, all completely without epistemically justifiable answers.

Believing there is no God of that sort requires -- well, it doesn't require anything else at all, except figuring out who you are and what your life is going to be about in the world you inhabit.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

And you will be the poorer for it -- every day of the week.

 

[rrobs]

Besides religion is there any other aspect in your life where you accept claims without evidence?

Probably a million things. Still, accepting any claim without evidence is the classic definition of faith.

Christians are often lambasted because their life is based on belief and not that which is allegedly provable. Fine, but the lambasters have no less faith in what they themselves are equally unable to prove.

 

[questfortruth]

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.

Brother in Truth, the Science is constructed that way, that it looks only for naturalistic explanation, and in case if it can not find such, the Science hopes to find one in the future. This method is called "methodological naturalism". However, the Science can be changed, so it could study both theism and nature.

 

[Howard Is]

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.

It is a non-argument. It is meaningless.

You simply fail to understand that.

 

[Maximus]

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.

Existence is a pretty solid argument for a transcendent Creator. That is just one of the reasons atheism is an irrational worldview.

 

[rrobs]

The difference is actually ginormous!

Believing in a God (such as the Abrahamic God of Jews, Christians and Muslims) means needing to know (or supposing that you can know) what that means, what it requires of you, what happens if you default -- just an immense amount of stuff, all completely without epistemically justifiable answers.

Believing there is no God of that sort requires -- well, it doesn't require anything else at all, except figuring out who you are and what your life is going to be about in the world you inhabit.

You couldn't have made my point any clearer:

"Believing there is no God..."
​

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

I doubt that. Seems like your mind is already made up.

 

[rrobs]

And you will be the poorer for it -- every day of the week.

And you know my daily life, how?

If you want to take it from somebody who does live my life, i.e. me, I can tell you it is richer every day of the week.

 

[McBell]

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.

To the best of my knowledge there isn't any difference.
At least when you break it to the root of the fact that both actively believe something..

 

[McBell]

Existence is a pretty solid argument for a transcendent Creator. That is just one of the reasons atheism is an irrational worldview.

For you perhaps.
But then there are those who need more than "God Did It"....

 

[rrobs]

Brother in Truth, the Science is constructed that way, that it looks only for naturalistic explanation, and in case if it can not find such, the Science hopes to find one in the future. This method is called "methodological naturalism". However, the Science can be changed, so it could study both theism and nature.

I know; science changes. God, on the hand, is the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow. A true anchor upon which someone can base their life. Science is great as long as we understand it's limitations. Anyone who says science has not limits does not understand science.

 

[rrobs]

It is a non-argument. It is meaningless.

You simply fail to understand that.

Can you prove God does or does not exist? I'm going to say no to both. Therefore how does it not require faith to believe either way?

Instead of simply saying I have no case, perhaps you can explain yourself in more logical terms.

 

[rrobs]

Existence is a pretty solid argument for a transcendent Creator. That is just one of the reasons atheism is an irrational worldview.

Well, I totally agree with you. I'm as much a Christian as God ever birthed.

I was just saying that those who denigrate Christians for living by faith are in fact themselves also living by faith. Somehow it smacks of hypocrisy.

 

[Howard Is]

Can you prove God does or does not exist? I'm going to say no to both. Therefore how does it not require faith to believe either way?

Instead of simply saying I have no case, perhaps you can explain yourself in more logical terms.

Forget it.
It’s pearls before swine.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You couldn't have made my point any clearer:

"Believing there is no God..."
​

Fine, you tripped me up on a linguistic tic. Enjoy, if it makes you feel superior.

 

[rrobs]

I doubt that. Seems like your mind is already made up.

Don't jump to conclusions (too much like having your mind already made up).

Seriously though, if you have a method to prove either the non-existence or the existence of God, I'd be interested in hearing. Minus such proof, you must have as much faith in the non-existence of God (an assumption on my part, maybe ill conceived) as I have in the existence of God.

 

[rrobs]

Forget it.
It’s pearls before swine.

OK, I'll forget it.

 

[Maximus]

Well, I totally agree with you. I'm as much a Christian as God ever birthed.

I was just saying that those who denigrate Christians for living by faith are in fact themselves also living by faith. Somehow it smacks of hypocrisy.

You are absolutely correct.

 

[Maximus]

For you perhaps.
But then there are those who need more than "God Did It"....

Well first you have to define what you mean by God. Then you must present an argument (which you can't) that can explain it better. If you invoke cosmology then you fail (because you do not understand the question).