carrdero said:
Nothing requires faith when it comes to believing. You either believe it or you do not. You either PROOVE a belief to a TRUTH or an UNTRUTH or you put in your pocket until you have more time to analyze it later. Why would you put faith in a belief? Faith is the beginning of abusing your beliefs which may lead to believing blindly. That is no way to competently/successfully arrive to your TRUTHs.
C.S. Lewis says that that kind of faith is the faith required of those already embarked in the service of God. For those who yet question His existence you need not KNOW without proof; but a life of faithfulness will provide one with all the proof needed.
Scriven argues that you must be able to prove conclusively with no margin for error that God exists in order to have faith. He argues that this proof does not exist, and therefore faith is for the deranged and stupid.
Pascal makes a wager. If God exists and you do not believe in Him your non-belief has gained you little (a short life free from rules) but costs you much (eternity). If you believe, you risk little (a short life free from rules) but you gain much (eternity). The smart money would always go on God existing, as the pros far outweigh the cons in each scenario.
James feels this is an insufficient basis for faith (as do I) and argues that only a fool would act contrary to all the evidence in the world just to satisfy the terms of his little wager, but further argues for faith in God using our passional natures agaisnt our critical sides to make his rather convincing argument.
I meet people every day who have never found proof that God does not exist. Their juvenile faith has carried them to adulthood where they find the proof that faith affords those who want it. Others arrive at faith through deductive reasoning and logic, but the infinite cannot possibly be encapsulated in our finite understanding, and logic fails to transcend (and therefore prove or disprove) the divine. It is folly to even believe that we can define God if we don't even believe in Him. Without definition we cannot reach a conclusion. I personally did not believe. I was of the pyrrhonist category that demanded (with self-righteous indignation) irrefutable proof, and that proof was afforded me tenfold. I cannot argue with the evidence that was made available to me, and since giving up that skepticism I find I cannot find it again as the proof for the existence of the Lord far overshadows any doubt that could possibly be thrown across it. If you don't think the sky is blue no one on or off this earth will ever convince you otherwise. That's human nature and it is utterly ludicrous to continue to demand proof for something you don't want to believe. Nor will God decide your skepticism has earned you the right to be among the few blessed enough to receive divine intervention in their search for truth.