Bob *insert witty nic here*

Just let me preface by first saying that as an admitted newbie and an hack philosopher with very little formal education, <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> I may open a can of worms here which may well go beyond the realm of my understanding or control, but isn't that what makes this so fun?
So here is my question, through the answers to which I hope to be enlightened.

It seems to me that a lot of theists here try to prove through logic and reason existence of God or His will etc. This question is in refernce to the Christian God.
Now I was raised a Christian and I know that to question the existence of God is blasphemy, and that as well to try and define or understand God through anything other than faith could be viewed as equally blasphemous (is that a word? ). So if indeed you are trying to logically or through reason define or explain God aren't you in violation of the moral code the Bible and the Christian faith? And if you truly did believe in God then wouldn't you be morally opposed to proving his existence?
I of course may have commited many errors in my thoughts here, but I believe I am correct in that the Christian view is that the only way to know and understand God is through faith (although I do not have the Biblical references at hand, it's been a while since I was that familiar with the Bible).
I would enjoy reading what theists, atheists, christians and anyone else with more knoledge than myself would have to say.

Epitome

Hello Bob. I'm not really a newbie, but I usually reserve myself to lurking...

Bob: It seems to me that a lot of theists here try to prove through logic and reason existence of God or His will etc. This question is in refernce to the Christian God.

Some may be trying to prove that God exists, but the vast majority are answering the atheist and agnostic arguments that God does not exist.

And those that are arguing for God's existence, don't seem to be saying that the Christian God is the ONLY possibility rather that He is the best plausibility.

Some atheists would define Faith as that which GOES AGAINST reason and logic and thus would say Christians believe that which can be proven false.

However, Faith is believing in something that can neither be proven nor disproven. It is believing in something that makes sense to you based on your interpretation of the evidence and your reasoning. Some need only a testimony of a parent to believe in God, others require an experience and still others want to know the history and cannonization of the Bible before they'll believe that Jesus is not a fictional character.

Despite what many 'skeptics' here would lead you to believe, Christianity can be very rational and philosophical. In fact, the book of Romans is a very logical book explaining the need of salvation through reason.


Now I was raised a Christian and I know that to question the existence of God is blasphemy, and that as well to try and define or understand God through anything other than faith could be viewed as equally blasphemous

My understanding of blasphemy is not in questions but in statements about God which are untrue and insulting. Jesus was very open to people who asked sincere questions of him, as was Paul. The God of the Old Testiment also allowed his followers to ask him questions- and even ask him for signs!

In fact I would say that it is those who lack Faith would have a problem with asking questions...


if you truly did believe in God then wouldn't you be morally opposed to proving his existence?

I don't believe it's possible to prove beyond any skepticism that God exists, but I also don't believe it's morally wrong to try... just futile.

The best we can do, as I said above, is to show that belief in God is the most plausible...

Epitome

critical thinking made ez

If a person could prove the existance of the Xian God it would overthrough the entire Bible because it nulls the need for Faith which is a requirement of the xians belief. However, it doesn't apply to Theists in general.

I don't think xians are trying to prove the existance of God, just the possiblity of one. The rest would be blind faith as to which god is the real one. Much like an agnostic except the agnostic can't prove which one may be real if any.

Skeptix2

Bob,

I am, like yourself, a newbie to this board and a "hack philosopher". So this may be a good thread to lose my virginity on.

I agree with the previous posters that most theists usually try to prove only that the existence of god is not impossible.

It seems that attempting to prove god's existence through reason necessitates that you "question" his existence. I was raised in a fundamentalist christian setting in which, while questioning god's existence was a sign of weakness to be discouraged, it was not necessarily "blasphemous". Certainly trying to "define or understand" god through methods other than faith is not always blasphemous.

Faith is defined in my cheap little dictionary as "confident belief; trust". If I define my faith this way, then proving that god exists is likely to increase my faith in him.

So I don't think proving the existence of god would "overthrow the entire bible" as CTMEZ states. I don't think trying to prove his existence is blasphemous but I'm not sure it isn't some other type of sin.

Skeptix2

Makai

Bob-

You said:
"I of course may have commited many errors in my thoughts here, but I believe I am correct in that the Christian view is that the only way to know and understand God is through faith"

At least in my opinion, I see some problems with terminology here. The answer to this question depends a lot on what you mean specifically by the word 'faith'. I see two major ways of approaching the concept of faith, and I'll address each of them.

1) Faith in this case is a blind belief in a metaphysical system or religion...not necessary a belief that is contrary to fact, but one that is not based upon empirical or rational grounds.

If you mean faith in this sense, I would disagree with your conclusions. If anyone's belief is based solely on an arbitrary or heridity grounds, then there is no reason to surmise that the faith has any meaning. If someone believed based solely on this kind of faith, there is no particular reason to believe that a person would come to the conclusion of Xianism. They might end up worshipping Allah or Ganesh if the grounds are arbitary. I don't think the Bible requires this kind of faith...blind faith, when regarding the religion as a whole. Maybe some specific aspects, but not the entire system.

2) Faith when defined as a belief in something for which experience and evidence is inconclusive.

From this defination, I would agree with you. "Trust, but verify." I would think that any God would wish for his subjects to apply some standard of selection in regards to faith...because if they don't, then again, there is no reason to belief that they'll find the 'One True Faith'. As previous respondants mentioned, most theists do not try to prove that 'X' God is the 'Only possible and One True God', but simply try to show that their God is the most plausible. I feel that this kind of faith is far more in tune with Xianism (or most other religions). If you don't apply any standard of selection to religion, then religions are quite possibly doomed to the fate of 'Deity via Demographics'.

-Makai

[ December 30, 2001: Message edited by: Makai ]</p>

Bob *insert witty nic here*

Ah some excellent points by all.
I agree that I was probably in error in stating that questioning the existence of god was blasphemy, it is in statements such as "there is no god" I believe there is blasphemy.
As for the definition of faith in the dictionary that applies in this context:
faith
[I]n.[/I}
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

This is close to what Makai wrote as his definitions but also somewhat different.
I have not found a definition similar to this second one in any dictionary of reference.
I think the dictionary definition at top is the most clear and correct in this context.
It seems to me that perhaps the denomination of christianity to which I was exposed was somewhat different from what I am hearing here. I was taught that one needed to know God through faith. This was usally tuaght to refute scientific evidence of evolution or other knowledge contridictory to biblical "facts". An argument that I frequently heard was that scientists tried to explain the universe while as christians it was plainly evident that one could not explain the meaning or intentions of God's nature and one merely took it on faith in God's word, the Bible. Furthermore to seek the knowledge or question through scientific method that which God has created was to not have faith in Him or His word, and as a result you would not be living as a christian should.
This is a common thought in christian evangelical circles. I was watching a sermon on TV yesterday and the preacher said that "to know and understand God would be like the minnow understanding the sea that it swims in."
The basic idea seems to be that:

• One cannot know God or His will or His intentions, nor can one understand his creations unless it is through faith in Him and His word.
  To question or to seek evidence for such things is to not have faith.
  To not have faith is to not be a "good" christian, ie. it is sinful and one needs forgiveness for such shortcommings of faith.

Now as I said before I do not have the specific biblical references available to show (although I will try to find them, I know they exist) but this is what I was taught. I also realize that this may not be the belief all theists but more confined to the Christian belief in God.
As to the whole issue of showing the probability of the existence of God I have three questions

• Is it for the probability of the existence of a god or gods?
  Is it to show that a particular god is the most probable god out of all the other gods? In which case how do you measure one god against another?
  Or is it simply for the possibilty (or plausibility) of the existence of the particular god that one believes in?

The reason I started this topic was with my christian education it would seem to me that one would not be living the christian life if one were trying to prove the existence or probability of God. Trying to prove either would not be having faith by the definition I included above, as you would then be basing your beliefs on logic or evidence, either of his existence or plausibility of existence. Of course this would only mean that one would be a sinning against God by arguing for his existence, not that one would no longer believe in Him.

Bob

Makai

Bob-

The second definition of faith I wrote was a personal one, which isn't the same as the
dictionary definition. I've always felt that the first definition of faith is totally meaningless,
and that a better definition can be constructed. (Or maybe a different word).

If we assume faith in your statement to be equivalent to the dictionary definition, then we seem to be stuck in a dilemma. If we assume that people believe things based on arbitrary 'feelings', or cultural influence, then I cannot see how any religion could pretend to be in possession of any truths. Blind faith gives as much credence to Magical Green Elves as it does to Christ or Allah.

I don't think the statement is defensible from the dictionary definition of faith, because it gets you stuck. It would be simultaneously wrong to believe based on empirical or rational grounds, but at the same time, you're asked not to believe other religions, when you can draw no reasons as to why your religion is more valid.
You end up telling people to 'Have faith in us, but there are 35,000 others sects to have faith in, all of which are equally valid and faith-worthy.' Of course, this is rarely claimed.

If you're going to define faith as per the dictionary definition, then you're forced to either admit 'all religions are equal, and that no religion can be *right*', and/or ask people to believe you when it is explicitly clear that there is no reason, even faith-based, why one should believe.

-Makai

critical thinking made ez

"Eph 2:8
For by grace you have been saved through faith

Lu 7:50 Then He said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you. Go in peace.

Ro 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. "


Without Faith, no one could be saved, Man is justified only by Faith. Therefore, not being able to have Faith would over through the whole purpose of the Bible. If one has proof then one can not by definition have Faith.
faith
[I]n.[/I}
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

This brings up the problem I have been working on in another post here in EofG called "New Year's Resolution" in which I am attempting to prove that all Christians have a certain amount of proof for their claim of the belief/Faith in Christianity and God. And this amount of proof, although small, is all that is needed to negate their claim to belief by Faith.

Tercel

I suggest an amendment to that: "Belief that does not rest <strong>soley</strong> on logical proof or material evidence."

However there are many Christians who hold that "faith" means the same thing as "trust". (Which seems not unreasonable to me) Using this definition, having good evidence for God via rational argument obviously increases faith.

critical thinking made ez

Increases Faith?????

Let me get this straight, in your opinion, faith has a sliding scale attached to the meaning? I thought that Faith was binary, either you have faith or you don't. How can one have faith in God yet still not believe in God. Sorry, your definition fails the test. Can you defend your sliding scale definition of Faith any better than that? If not, we will have to ignore your input.

Trust can not have the same meaning as Faith. Trust can involve having proof whereas Faith is belief without proof. Sorry, these are opposite meanings and any Christian that has Trust in Jesus is by definition of Faith and the doctrine of Christianity, going to hell.