Proving God's Existence Undermines Faith

This thought occurred to me recently, and its a new subject matter for me, so please be patient.On the attempt of creationists (and some IDers) to discredit evolution and prove the existence of God:As far as I know, the existence of God is based on faith. Faith being that you believe in what you can't see or prove, e.g. blind trust.It would seem to me that those trying to prove God's existence have a weakness in faith. The reasoning here is: if they have to have proof that God exists in order to believe in Him, or in order to stregthen their belief in Him, they are undermining the concept of faith.As physical proof or evidence (the type science is concerned with and the creationists use to prove His existence) does not require faith, and if one must have this proof for one's faith, then does this not undermine their faith?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

To quote Douglas Adams (someone's got to do it):

this (and the quote below by cthulu) are based on erroneous understandings of faith and god. faith is not neccessarily required to be baseless, unfounded, ridiculous blind addiction (though it is for some people). faith (at least in the christian world i experienced) is the personal understanding that god will care for you. for those with faith, the existence of god isn't even part of the question.but that's really immaterial to the topic. the bible never says anywhere that faith and belief must exist in the absence of proof. in the middle bits of genesis, god is a very physical and real being. he wrestles with jacob. he walks with people. he's real. he's corporeal. i don't really understand why that changed or who god was then. in the new testament, jesus is very real and demonstrates his very godly powers on several occasions. he only says blessed are those who believe and have not seen, not 'if you see me you'll go to hell because you have to believe without seeing me.'abe:
but it is silly for people to try to prove that god exists. that's his place.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 05-09-2006 07:34 PM

then why are creationists (and IDers) trying so hard to prove God's existence? Are they seeking evidence to shore up their beliefs? Are they trying to convince us non-believers?
it just seems to me that they shouldn't worry about trying to prove God is real and trying to strike down evolution (which doesn't say anything about God's existence--no proof, or disproof) if they believe and their faith is strong.In your style of faith--that God will care for you, does it not still require an element of blind trust. The trust being in that you believe that He exists. If he doesn't, then how can he care for you? --again, why do they try to prove His existence then?In the end, it would seem to be a lack of faith on their part.
IOW, their search for evidence is undermining faith.I do realize that that last part changes my OP ever so slightly because a new definition of faith is being used--the one proposed by brennakimi

if he doesn't exist, it doesn't matter. at least not to me. i know i'm taken care of. if it's not god, then something else. if it's not something else, then it's me. the same question i ask myself. the only answer i've come up with is that they're either idiots, or they don't really believe. they're more trying to prove it to themselves than to us. because if they can't prove it to use, then it might not be real. if it's not real, then their whole world falls apart because they are too weak minded to survive without daddy.i suppose the difference is that my daddy died. so it's okay if my abba dies, too. my daddy still loves me even though he's dead. so even if he's dead, my abba will love me.

That's a very good point. If our earthly fathers do their jobs, we should eventually grow up enough to not be dependent on them. Similarly, our heavenly Father would want us to grow up and figure things out for ourselves - not go running to Daddy for everything.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

quote:

---

If our earthly fathers do their jobs, we should eventually grow up enough to not be dependent on them. Similarly, our heavenly Father would want us to grow up and figure things out for ourselves - not go running to Daddy for everything.

---

That is the example of nature, that offspring become independent. I haven't heard of an example in nature where the offspring stays dependent on the parents once they are adults (except humans of course).But then I don't know all creatures.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Hi Kuresu,The idea you had is a good one in the sense that an overall objective of those of faith is to 'prove' God exists. Of course this cannot be done in a "there he is Look!" kind of way - no more than one can look at a dog and say "there is evolution - Look!".What a person of faith (and they aren't necessarily all creationists) is doing is the same in essence as what a naturalist (or person of a Godless religion) does - which is to present evidence (scientific, logic, reason, appeal to 'heart' etc) so as to point out to another what they believe can be inferred from the evidence.Your idea might be considered to be slightly mis-directed however. The aim of some people is not to 'prove' God in order that they themselves can believe in him. Instead they already know God (exists) and are attempting to show others (by 'proving') that he exists - so that they too can know him.The word 'faith' is sometimes misconstrued to mean "blind acceptance that something is, despite lack of conclusive proof that that is the case" There are all kinds of 'blind faith': from the reasonable, to the sublime, to the ridiculous. An example of reasonable blind faith would be faith in the Sun that it will rise tomorrow. That it has done so a zillion times and never yet failed us (or rather fewer times according to the creationist viewpoint) is no sure guarantee that it will tomorrow. We have evidence that it will - but no conclusive proof.Faith in God on the other hand, is not necessarily blind. If someone comes to know that God exists then that is because God has revealed himself to them. You could picture Faith in these circumstances, as a highway down which God sends knowledge about himself to a person. As elsewhere in life, once the initial ("I exist") information comes down the highway, then a person knows he exists and that cannot be reversed. You cannot know something - then un-know it afterall!Ongoing faith simply means that further knowledge about God: his nature, his purpose, his desire etc., travels down the highway to the person. The person first comes to know God - then gets to know him better. Just like with the development of any personal relationship.Read around the messages of some people of faith and you'll see what I mean. Gods existance is taken as a priori and the arguments are aimed simply at trying to let others see that. It is one instruction that he gives such people of faith - that they tell others about him. Why does he chose for it to be that way? I don't know - you'd have to ask him yourself. Its not that the argument in itself can cause a person to know God - the only way they can is if he reveals himself to them too. But the argument globally, contains a mechanism whereby this occurance may be enabled. Its called the Gospel.IanThis message has been edited by iano, 10-May-2006 02:48 PM

I would think the ideal would be to do away with "faith" altogether, either on one side or the other."Faith" makes no sense to me unless we mean by it a belief that, though uncertain, is probable.

20/20 Faith - the epilogue 1:People, unless seriously misguided or deluded (a different thing altogether) would not allow themselves to be thrown to lions simply for refusing to deny Christ. A probable would wilt faced with that.Neither would they (for the same reasons: "I won't deny him") be prepared this day to allow themselves to be locked in sea containers in Eritrea in the baking heat simply on the basis of a probable.We see Peter and others standing up in public within weeks of the crucifixion of Christ in the very city in which resided the powers which carried out that act. And proclaiming his supposedly dead master to be alive. We see a band of ill-educated frightened individuals transformed into brave, outright evangelists. Probable? Probably not.These things require explanation alright. But probable isn't it. No matter how probable the probable. Plain logic tells you that something more powerful drove them on than this. Blind Faith cannot do it.20/20 Faith - the epilogue 2If you take the picture of faith as a highway which I described above and develop it a little. One of the goods that travels down the highway to a believer is fuel which allows us to trust God in all things blindly (without concrete evidence - the blind faith Kuresu talks of). He touches us, assures us of his presence and interest in our lives (not his existance - for that has been established) and so, like reassured children we are confident to go back out and deal with the world, knowing that he hasn't forgotten us. Blind fate in him generally because he has let us see more of him particularily.Faith - between prologue and epilogue:Then there is the so called "act of faith" at which point a person "commits their life to Christ". Hackneyed phrases I know but not even here is the faith blind. Whilst a person at the point of conversion does not know God exists - they have been brought to a place where it is possible for them to make a leap. The following mixed metaphor picture may help (but please don't stretch it - it'll rip easily):A blind child stands at the edge of a pool with their father standing in the pool a few feet away holding his arms out and calling "Jump - I'll catch you!" They cannot see him but they have (God has instilled) other senses which makes it possible for them to suspect that what beckons is safe.Now imagine a frighening/woprrying/distressing/tortured sound approaching the child from behind. A sound indicating something which the child desires to flee from. And imagine the distance between the child and the calling voice increasing infinitely and the contents of the pool changed so as to contain the same substance as that which approaches it from behind. Yet the child can still here "Jump - I'll catch you".The child can either jump or not. If it does, it will not be due to blind faith, nor probability. But because of a promise. And enabled faith in that promise. Enabled so as to make it a choice. A free-willed choice.This message has been edited by iano, 10-May-2006 11:25 AM

I'm going to make the provocative suggestion that faith should be considered false certainty.To add to your examples we have Protestants martyred by Catholics, because of their faith and Catholics martyred by Protestants for their faith.*At the very least these contradictory examples indicate that faith can be false certainty, since even though both groups are certain to the point of enduring death, they cannot both be correct.(* And even Christians attacked by both sides such as Michael Servetus)

A Christian is a person who has made the leap of faith. They can be protestants, catholics, muslims or nothing at all. That they, some or all, interpret the Bible in different ways has nothing to do with the leap they have made. They may persist for example in the thinking that suggests that their works (for example) will lead to their salvation. But the fact that they do not yet know they have landed in safety affects not a jot the fact that they have.Remember, a Christian will still sin. They may even murder. If Christians, their doctrine and their sin has nothing to do with their salvation. If they have leapt then God will have caught themFor he does not break his promises.

it says (in the psalms i believe) that god is like a mother (yes, there's just as much feminine symbolism in the old testament) who raised us on herself. but we must learn to move from the milk to the meat. this means we must learn to walk and move on our own. to get our own food. to grow a deeper, meatier understanding of god. the gospel is great, but it's milk.

Deleted. Wrong recipient.This message has been edited by RickJB, 05-10-2006 08:32 AM