If God's Existence were proven, would there still be faith?

[Gio Di Russo]

On another apologetics site where atheists are allowed, we were discussing whether or not a particular argument proved the existence of God (the argument doesn't matter now). One of the atheists stated that if God's existence were proven, there would be no faith, which in his, and my, opinion was necessary for religion, so either way religion is wrong. Is this correct? If God's existence were proven, would it destroy faith?

[Dan Stewart]

God's existence has never been a matter of faith in the first place (unless one needs "faith" to know air exists.) Rather faith in God is like faith in a friend: one trusts God to do the things He says He'll do.

[Cletus Nze]

Bulbear4444 wrote: On another apologetics site where atheists are allowed, we were discussing whether or not a particular argument proved the existence of God (the argument doesn't matter now). One of the atheists stated that if God's existence were proven, there would be no faith, which in his, and my, opinion was necessary for religion, so either way religion is wrong. Is this correct? If God's existence were proven, would it destroy faith?

Very much, if not ALL,  of atheistic "thinking" is simply the result of a poor command of the language. Here is the correct meaning of the word "faith" - from Webster's:

Definition of FAITH

1a   : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1)   : fidelity to one's promises (2)   : sincerity of intentions

2a (1)   : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2)   : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1)   : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2)   : complete trust

3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially   : a system of religious beliefs

You're limiting the meaning of this word to just BLIND faith! WHY?

[Ian Smithers]

I think one issue I see with an actual proof, like, God in a test-tube sort of proof, is that it removes free-will.  I think C.S. Lewis once said, "You cannot choose to lie-down, when it's become impossible to stand up." meaning there is no merit in choosing belief in something that is undeniable.

[Cletus Nze]

Digitalos wrote: I think one issue I see with an actual proof, like, God in a test-tube sort of proof, is that it removes free-will.  I think C.S. Lewis once said, "You cannot choose to lie-down, when it's become impossible to stand up." meaning there is no merit in choosing belief in something that is undeniable.

Proof - logical proof - CANNOT be attempted with ANY hope of success unless one has a PRECISE idea of what one is trying to prove. Atheists have no clear idea what THEY MEAN by the Word, "God", as THEY THEMSELVES will confirm! Yet, absurdly, they claim they KNOW FOR CERTAIN that God could not possibly exist! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!

Here is the actual definition of the Word "God" - as distinct from "god" - from Webster's:

Definition of GOD

1capitalized    : the supreme or ultimate reality....etc.

So, effectively, their denial of the Existence of God amounts to a denial that there is ANY existence AT ALL - since Subsequent Reality, which embraces ALL ELSE outside of Supreme or Ultimate Reality, God, is IMPOSSIBLE unless Supreme or Ultimate Reality PRECEDES and SUPPORTS it in existence! Everywhere Atheism is revealed to be nothing but sheer absurdity!

[Chris Gottilla]

This is a good question, I think.  Like it was mentioned before, faith in the bible is not really people saying "I really don't know if there's a God, but I'll believe it anyway"; it has to do with faithfulness, like the way in which you'd be faithful to a wife.  Just because you think (or know) God exists does not mean that you are faithful or have a saving relationship with him. As James (the brother of Jesus) wrote, "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder."

[Jacob Bukaty]

You all are committing the fallacy of equivocation.  The word belief is thrown around freely and used to mean very different things.  I might have faith in the my friend's good word but I could very well be wrong in my conclusions.  My hope, or faith, in the honesty of my friend could turn out to be misplaced.  Faith in the existence of being is a truth claim about reality.  It is either true or untrue or unknown.  Without proof of god one can only be intellectually honest by reaching the conclusions of uncertainty.  Dickering around with the definition of faith does not change this fact.  Faith in god is simply hope that god exists.
If the existence of god was proven then it would be the science of god.  The conclusion that an idea is proven when that idea is not proven is delusion.

[Donald Shomody]

Faith will always be the issue even if God has been proven by argument or not. You can believe in God intellectually but not trust in Him, i.e. you can simply doubt that God will hold you up in times of trouble. Or you don't want God telling you what to do. This is what the Bible calls sin. People sin in God’s face all the time. They believe in Him they just don’t care what God wants.

God visually and physically proved Himself time and again through miracle after miracle to Israel, but they always found a way to doubt or go astray after other gods. They didn't need arguments to prove God...they had experience first hand. Experience and Knowledge does not equal faith and trust.

[blank]

mwalimu wrote:

On another apologetics site where atheists are allowed, we were discussing whether or not a particular argument proved the existence of God (the argument doesn't matter now). One of the atheists stated that if God's existence were proven, there would be no faith, which in his, and my, opinion was necessary for religion, so either way religion is wrong. Is this correct? If God's existence were proven, would it destroy faith?

Very much, if not ALL,  of atheistic "thinking" is simply the result of a poor command of the language. Here is the correct meaning of the word "faith" - from Webster's:

Definition of FAITH

1a   : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1)   : fidelity to one's promises (2)   : sincerity of intentions

2a (1)   : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2)   : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1)   : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2)   : complete trust

3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially   : a system of religious beliefs

You're limiting the meaning of this word to just BLIND faith! WHY?

That is generally done to avoid the fallacy of ambiguity. As you can see, blind faith (2b1 in the definitions above) is quite different from faith (1a).

[Saspian]

mwalimu wrote:

I think one issue I see with an actual proof, like, God in a test-tube sort of proof, is that it removes free-will.  I think C.S. Lewis once said, "You cannot choose to lie-down, when it's become impossible to stand up." meaning there is no merit in choosing belief in something that is undeniable.

Proof - logical proof - CANNOT be attempted with ANY hope of success unless one has a PRECISE idea of what one is trying to prove. Atheists have no clear idea what THEY MEAN by the Word, "God", as THEY THEMSELVES will confirm! Yet, absurdly, they claim they KNOW FOR CERTAIN that God could not possibly exist! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!

Here is the actual definition of the Word "God" - as distinct from "god" - from Webster's:

Definition of GOD

1capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality....etc.

So, effectively, their denial of the Existence of God amounts to a denial that there is ANY existence AT ALL - since Subsequent Reality, which embraces ALL ELSE outside of Supreme or Ultimate Reality, God, is IMPOSSIBLE unless Supreme or Ultimate Reality PRECEDES and SUPPORTS it in existence! Everywhere Atheism is revealed to be nothing but sheer absurdity!

Some atheists may use the word "belief" as a synoymn for "I'm absolutely sure" not all.
I see the key to belief in any religion, as purely a faith thing as  KNOWING,to me, would reduce spirituality to a logical/scientific, Dawkinsian status.
I see faith as differing substantially from scientific probabilities, often called 'facts'....

[paul cox]

Considering deities created around the world all tend to follow a similar trend and those those who believe in them almost exclusively claim theirs is the only one logic says they are all wrong and its inherent  in mankind to create and believe in such beings especially when mankind lived in ignorance of the nature of the natural world etc.

Now we have answers to the natural world primitive superstitions are on the wane and for the most part it is only those who are indoctrinated at a impressionable age who have a fanatical belief in dogma or the absurd scriptures these superstitions have.

Others may still believe in a ultimate cause for the universe but no rational can be presented that shows it is the god of the bible or the quran or any other primitive superstitious text.

[Blake1960]

Theone wrote: Considering deities created around the world all tend to follow a similar trend and those those who believe in them almost exclusively claim theirs is the only one logic says they are all wrong and its inherent  in mankind to create and believe in such beings especially when mankind lived in ignorance of the nature of the natural world etc.

Now we have answers to the natural world primitive superstitions are on the wane and for the most part it is only those who are indoctrinated at a impressionable age who have a fanatical belief in dogma or the absurd scriptures these superstitions have.

Others may still believe in a ultimate cause for the universe but no rational can be presented that shows it is the god of the bible or the quran or any other primitive superstitious text.

   

   If truth is what you seek, then honesty must govern your mind and your heart.  

   

   Anything less leads to delusion.

[troyjs]

I can 'prove' that my mind exists, and I have faith in it's capacity to prove it's own existence.

We atleast have faith in our own capacities, even in trying to justify our own capacities. Faith then, is prior to, and necessary for, proof.

In Augustinian terms, 'faith seeking understanding'.

In Anselm's words, 'We believe in order to understand'.

Jesus had faith in the Father, even though He knew that the Father would provide for all His needs. Faith in God, contrary to atheistic opinion, does not mean unproved theism.  Faith encompasses more than the belief that God exists. Faith, in theological terms, is the union between Christ and someone who has peace with God, ie., someone upon whom there is no wrath due to sin.

kind regards

[AnimatedDirt]

On another apologetics site where atheists are allowed, we were discussing whether or not a particular argument proved the existence of God (the argument doesn't matter now). One of the atheists stated that if God's existence were proven, there would be no faith, which in his, and my, opinion was necessary for religion, so either way religion is wrong. Is this correct? If God's existence were proven, would it destroy faith?

Faith in God would still exist.  Take for instance the statement of a few atheists I've encountered, which goes something like;

"If the Christian God were proven to exist, I still would not put any faith in that God as I would not want that sort of God!"

So even in the mind of the angry atheist, faith would still exist as it is a matter of salvation and not a matter of existence.

[jayceeii]

On another apologetics site where atheists are allowed, we were discussing whether or not a particular argument proved the existence of God (the argument doesn't matter now). One of the atheists stated that if God's existence were proven, there would be no faith, which in his, and my, opinion was necessary for religion, so either way religion is wrong. Is this correct? If God's existence were proven, would it destroy faith?

There are proofs of God’s existence, but they have been denied to humanity, often because the terms are impossible for most to understand. If God is proved, the soul is still not redeemed. Instead it’s just a novelty on the surface, like learning grass grows upward. The theologians trying to prove God’s existence are only trying to prove a particular view about the Deity, as they imagine God’s benefits will be handed out for a song (or hymn). They are trying to guard their selfish treasure, thinking God values everything they value.

I find no faith on the Earth. The faith religionists have is in their private idea about God. It’s actually a reflection of the warning against idols that was given in Western religions. Men seek the imago-Lord, whose properties generally include expected justification of each against his neighbor. The actual God opposes mankind deeply on almost every front, as the prophets used to declare but which men have not understood meant them.

Finding someone deeply opposed to selfish desire, humans enter the most extreme wrath of which they are capable. This is the source of the persecution of the saints, including Jesus, and it is the reason humanity needed to remain unguided during early history. Partly it is because men need to be able to move in their natural ways, and trying to follow God’s pattern strips away any joy they could feel from living. This means that even as preachers say their congregations should be prepared to welcome Jesus any moment, if Jesus tried it He’d be killed quickly, their expectations of God wholly unreal.

It’s funny but what Jesus said is true, those who believe in Him are saved. It’s just that humans are not forming a correct idea about Jesus—even remotely. You have to think authentically about Jesus, before you can be said to believe in Him or to have faith in Him. Christians say they have faith in Jesus, but they are thinking about something completely different from Jesus, and are extremely hostile to all Jesus’ higher purposes.