You may view it as a misuse, but it’s the common definition of “faith” in a religious context. In my experience, anytime a theist is questioned about evidence for his belief, he’ll always be backed up into the position “you just have to have faith” - meaning you have to believe without evidence.
The other definition of “faith,” as in trust of a person you know, is very different and doesn’t really apply to religious belief.
Thats’ fine , but I’m talking about the presumption that it wants me to believe it exists. It has no right to demand that I believe it exists without TELLING me that it exists. Even if it does exist, any worship or affection it might want would still have to be earned separately, and it would have a LOT of explaining to do.
It’s not my assumption. It’s what I’m constantly told by proselytizing theists. I’m just taking religious doctrines at face value. If God doesn’t want me to believe he exists, then nothing I’m saying matters. If he does want me to believe he exists then he nees to prove it.
But God is supposed to be all good. If God is a douchebag, then he’s not really God. He’s something else.
This makes no sense at all. Why should I care about his goal if I don’t know he exists?
You misunderstand. The issue is that we have no use for “faith” under any circumstance. We’re saying that it’s asinine for God to demand faith at all. I don’t have any faith in faith. I want to KNOW, not “have faith.”
Agnosticism is a statement abut logic. It is about whether you think there is enough evidence to draw a conclusion.
Atheism is a statement about belief. It is about what you believe regardless of the evidence.
I am both agnostic (because I don’t think there is enough evidence to settle the matter one way or another) and atheist (because I don’t believe in the existence of God/Gods.) One could also be an agnostic theist.
My only argument is that you can’t judge a theoretical god based on a human context. A perfect being with perfect intelligence and wisdom and unknown goals is simply not something we can say “should behave this or that way”.
No, that’s ridiculous. It’s entirely possible god wants something from DtC without ever showing it’s cards.
Is that not a distinct possibility in the set of possibilities?
No, I’m not missing the point at all.
My point is simple: It is not possible to infer the proper actions of a perfect being with perfect intelligence, wisdom and unknown goals.
I simply think it doesn’t make sense to argue logically one way or the other about gods behavior, it doesn’t make sense. It can’t be part of your proof for non-existence or existence because we have no clue what that perfect being might or might not do. It’s simply not logical.
Why? What difference does it make?
Doesn’t this contradict most religious assumptions? Wouldn’t this scenario require that virtually all revealed religious paradigms be wrong?
It does not necessarily follow that the existence of God means that he has to dish out punishment and reward. If God really wants people to be good for its own sake, then the best thing to do would be to make it directly known that he will NOT give out any punishment or reward. Make it impossible to be good with any expectation of reward.
Jesus did many miracles, and in terms of turning people to God it didn’t seem to really make too much difference, I believe he expressed disappointment or even frustration to that as a possible interpretation of the gospels.
He also states:
Luke 16:31
"He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’
Which is a pretty big sign, but if they are unwilling to listen to the word they will not accept it.
Sure we can. If we are asked to assume it possesses a certain set of attributes, we can assertain whether those attributes are logically compatible with the observable universe. “Mysterious Ways” is a cop out.
And not for nothing, but doesn’t Abrahamic reloigion say that we’re supposed to judge God? We’re supposed to love it, right? We’re supposed to think it’s good, and awesome and perfect, right? Are those not judgements?
If it wants me to believe it exists, it has to prove it.
Cite?
“Common usage” doesn’t make something correct. That’s the common view among people who are not believers, theists, who discuss the question. But, like a group of Republicans in 2004 discussing Iraqi WMDs, what they may think does not necessarily comport with what the facts are.
My faith is in Someone whom I know – and only secondarily a summary of alleged truths about Him and His relationship to humans. This thread is about why, if He exists, He doesn’t give objective evidence of Himself, and my answer was in relation to that topic question.
Oh, come now! You want a list of citations from the four Gospels? You may not buy into the historical validity of those accounts, any more than the Timaeus and Kritias prove the objective existence of Atlantis, but they’re legitimate cites to be adduced in support of a statement.
They can be adduced in support of a personal belief, not as objective, factual data in a debate over the very question of whether we have evidence for God.
Rubbish. The concept of ‘God’ connotes an omni-entity that is above all things, period, including the human construct known as ‘vanity’. To want to “make Himself known” suggest a desire to be recognised, acknowledged, in turn praised, worshiped… et cetera.
This is narcissism. This directly contradicts the idea of ‘God’.
The quintessence of the concept of ‘God’ is an entity that transcends all that we as sentient human beings know and understand and that which we do not. Stipulating what He “would” or wouldn’t [do] flies in the face of the very notion of what ‘God’ is supposed to be/represent. Hence, for example, the contradictory ridiculousness of martyrdom – the supposition that HE wants us to die for him!
Thus, ‘God’ (if there is such a ‘thing’ :rolleyes:) by it’s very nature cannot be known or understood, let alone be bound by human constructs. As such, the pursuit in trying to grasp what God wants or what He wants from us, or whether ‘wanting’ even comes into the equation, is self-stultifying.
-Apathetic Agnostic. ~_~
So you are suggesting that God wants something from DtC, yet knows that unless he shows his cards that he will never get what he wants from DtC?
This is supposed to be an omniscient/omnipotent god, correct?
If so, please define what you mean by ‘want’.
I’m an atheist, but I disagree with this. This part of religious faith is completely understandable to me: it’s the very *point *of faith.
Otherwise, you’re kind of insisting that your god should be emcompassable by your human mind. Frankly, if I *were *likely to worship a god, I’d rather worship one that’s beyond my understanding.
The watchmaker god is nothing more than a remote possibility that really doesn’t explain anything. It certainly doesn’t make any practical difference to belief or disbelief in one. On the other hand, the typically promoted god is some entity that has a direct influence in the world, and in one way or the other cares how people behave. It’s pretty obvious to me that it’s beneficial to know if such an entity exists, and it seems also pretty likely that such a god would make itself known in a fairly straightforward manner.
I’m quite sure that such a god does not exist, given the lack of evidence.
Responding only to the original question.
The argument assumes that what God wants is for me to have the same apprehension of his being that I have of magnetic fields,or distant astronomical bodies. It fails logically, on so many points that it is beneath criticism.
If, on the other hand what God wants is for me go experience love of the holy spirit of the person of the universe, then proof is an impediment. Evidence is not all physical, not all logical, not all reproducible. Science is a tool for understanding that which manifests in the physical world.
If you need proof, you do not seek faith. If you find proof, you do not need faith. I don’t have faith in a God who would make Himself unavailable to me in spirit to get better press.
Tris