Why do you believe God exists and why?

[Ophiolite]

I'll try this one more time, and then we're done. Which statement(s) (which are supported -- read what I wrote again) do you disagree with and why?

I sense an unnecessary tension in your tone. Please address my comments objectively.

The cause of the universe must be itself uncaused because an infinite series of causes is impossible.

This is a completely unsupported and demonstrably false statement.

• There is no meaningful evidence that the universe had a beginning. (The misunderstanding held by some fundamentalists that the Big Bang was "something out of nothing" can be discounted.)
  
• There is no meaningful evidence that the universe will have an end and so a succession of infinite causes will continue, going forward.

Even if this demonstration is disregarded your quoted expert has offered absolutely nothing to justify the assertion.

When we've dealt with this we can move on to the next point.

 

[Reasonable Christian]

Thank you for finally stating a position. There is in fact plenty of evidence that the universe as we know it had a beginning at the Big Bang. Moreover, attempts to show that it came from nothing have failed. For example, Lawrence Krauss's "A Universe from Nothing" posits subatomic particles that randomly popped in and out of existence in a quantum vacuum from which the Big Bang originated. Subatomic particles, the quantum vacuum, and the physical laws that (supposedly) resulted in the Big Bang from the quantum vacuum and those particles are not "nothing." They are obviously something. By definition, "nothing," as in "not anything," has no particles, qualities, or anything else of any sort.

In any event, I see little value in debating the meanings of words. if you believe the material universe didn't have a beginning (and thus is past eternal), which I find to be logically and philosophically impossible in part because of the logical problems with an infinite regress of past naturalistic causes and effects (not future causes and effects, which are irrelevant to this discussion), then I guess we're at an impasse. I wish you well and hope your search for God continues. [Post subsequently edited for clarity.]

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Then what are you saying is the answer? And I'm not "jumping to God" as the answer; I'm saying that, based on what we know, God is the BEST – although not the only possible – explanation of the universe. (The logical problems with infinite regress have to do with an infinite regress of mechanistic, naturalistic causes and effects, not a supernatural being.)

More to the point, if you think there's better explanation for the universe, what is it? Take a position and defend it instead of just trying to poke holes in someone else's, which I've noticed is what you tend to do in this forum. I've provided reasons for my explanation of the universe. If you continue to refuse to provide reasons for yours, I see little point in continuing this conversation.[/quote]Going with the best answer in not good reasoning. We should believe something when we have sufficient evidence to do so. The best answer is subjective unless supported by good evidence.

My answer is I don't know why the universe is here. Why do I need to have a position or a belief on tis subject? When there is sufficient reasons to believe a cause of the universe I will believe it. Until then I don't know. I think that should be your answer as well. You admitted that there could be another cause that you don't know about so why believe god did it?

Again, I'm concluding A because I think A is true, not because I can't think of another reason it could not be A. You always claim, without evidence, that there's a better unknown explanation for something. For example, how do you know the sky is blue because molecules in the air scatter blue light from the sun more than other colors? Maybe there's some other reason we don't know about. Do you see how that's a recipe for not believing anything? We reason to the best explanation based on the evidence we have. So, if you have thought of a better reason for the universe than God, based on the evidence we have, state your case.

We have sufficient evidence to believe why we perceive the sky as blue. That is not the best evidence it is sufficient evidence to believe it looks blue. So my objection is that IF the reason you believe something is because you cannot think of another reason then that is fallacious. If you have good reason then you should believe it. If you have good evidence for A then you should believe it. I don't have sufficient evidence to believe a god created the universe so my position remains I don't know. That is a rational and honest position.

I agree that we should have good evidence for something before we believe it. If we have good evidence for something, then by definition we get that something past the 50% probability mark – i.e. it's more probable than not. That's what good evidence is. Obviously something we think is less than 50% probable could still be true, but we tend not to believe those things – indeed, we tend to believe the opposite – because that's the most practical and logical thing to do in most situations. But you know all this, so I really fail to see your point here.

Here is my objection. When we talk about what is more likely than not we are only talking about what we think is more likely from the reasons we know about and assumes we know all the possible reasons. More likely than not from the causes we can think of is different than actual good evidence that supports a reason to be true. So what convinced you that God is the reason the universe exists?

 

[Reasonable Christian]

Going with the best answer in not good reasoning. We should believe something when we have sufficient evidence to do so. The best answer is subjective unless supported by good evidence.

My answer is I don't know why the universe is here. Why do I need to have a position or a belief on tis subject? When there is sufficient reasons to believe a cause of the universe I will believe it. Until then I don't know. I think that should be your answer as well. You admitted that there could be another cause that you don't know about so why believe god did it?

There are three basic types of reasoning: inductive, abductive, and deductive. Reasoning to the best explanation (abductive reasoning) is reasoning to the answer with the best evidence based on what we know. We do that all the time, every day. In particular, this type of reasoning is the only one suitable for topics in metaphysics and philosophy that can't be proved one way or the other inductively or deductively. In my view, the best evidence points to God's existence. If you don't know what it points to and/or believe it can't be known, then we have a fundamental disagreement that I don't think we're going to resolve with further discussion.

 

[Ophiolite]

There is in fact plenty of evidence that the universe had a beginning at some point at or prior to the Big Bang, and attempts to show otherwise have failed.

If there is plenty of such evidence you will have no trouble offering an example. You claim you are about to do so next:

For example, Lawrence Krauss's "A Universe from Nothing" posits subatomic particles that randomly popped in and out of existence in a quantum vacuum from which the Big Bang originated. Subatomic particles, the quantum vacuum, and the physical laws that (supposedly) resulted in the Big Bang from the quantum vacuum and those particles are not "nothing." They are obviously something. By definition, "nothing," as in "not anything," has no particles, qualities, or anything else of any sort.

I am bemused by what you are trying to show here. As you correctly note the quantum vacuum is not nothing, therefore something existed prior to current configuration of the universe. That is consistent with something, namely the universe, always having existed, which is the opposite of what you claim.

So, you continue to make assertions and offer only personal incredulity in support. Please note that stating something "to be logically and philosophically impossible" does not make it so and without supporting arguments it is simply an empty opinion.

However, on one thing we appear to be in agreement. Since you persist in offering opinions as if they were evidence or arguments, presumably because you are unwilling, or unable to present actual arguments or evidence, then there is little point in debating the matter further.

 

[Reasonable Christian]

If there is plenty of such evidence you will have no trouble offering an example. You claim you are about to do so next:
I am bemused by what you are trying to show here. As you correctly note the quantum vacuum is not nothing, therefore something existed prior to current configuration of the universe. That is consistent with something, namely the universe, always having existed, which is the opposite of what you claim.

So, you continue to make assertions and offer only personal incredulity in support. Please note that stating something "to be logically and philosophically impossible" does not make it so and without supporting arguments it is simply an empty opinion.

However, on one thing we appear to be in agreement. Since you persist in offering opinions as if they were evidence or arguments, presumably because you are unwilling, or unable to present actual arguments or evidence, then there is little point in debating the matter further.

I should have said there are good philosophical arguments to be made that (1) the universe had a beginning and (2) you can't get something from nothing, as Krauss unsuccessfully has tried to show. So my apologies for not being 100% clear. I would also point out that even if something existed "before" the Big Bang, that is in no way "consistent with the universe having always existed." The universe as we know it still came into existence at the Big Bang, and any quantum precursor to the universe – which, in any event, is mere speculation at best – doesn't change this fact. And if you're alleging that the universe always existed in some form, you (1) haven't offered any evidence for this proposition, and (2) run into the logical problems I've mentioned with infinite regresses, which you refuse to acknowledge, let alone address.

Moving on, declaring something (like an infinite regress of causes and effects) to be logically or philosophically possible doesn't make it so, either. At some point in metaphysical discussions, it comes down to opinions. I have stated mine and you have stated yours (without evidence or much of an argument, I would note; you have made several statements with no support whatsoever). Stones and glass houses and all that, my friend. I'm sure you will get in the last word, and you're welcome to it. I've said my piece.

 

[Ophiolite]

And declaring something (like an infinite regress of causes and effects) to be logically or philosophically possible doesn't make it so, either. At some point in metaphysical discussions, it comes down to opinions. I have stated mine and you have stated yours (without evidence or much of an argument, I would note; you have made several statements with no support whatsoever). Stones and glass houses and all that, my friend. I'm sure you will get in the last word, and you're welcome to it. I've said my piece.

I've clearly not made my position insufficiently clear. I do not have a position. You've made assertions. I have simply pointed out how weak they are. If you took the other side of the argument I would likely be pointing out just how weak your arguments there were. We don't know, therefore to take any position is just being . . .pointless, silly, arrogant, inept, ill considered. Whatever.

 

[Reasonable Christian]

I've clearly not made my position insufficiently clear. I do not have a position. You've made assertions. I have simply pointed out how weak they are. If you took the other side of the argument I would likely be pointing out just how weak your arguments there were. We don't know, therefore to take any position is just being . . .pointless, silly, arrogant, inept, ill considered. Whatever.

Ah, the "I don't have a position to defend, so I'm just going to take shots at yours because that's a whole lot easier" approach. Atheists and agnostics do this all the time, and honestly it gets so tiresome. I have offered my positions and some of the reasons for my positions, and you have refused to engage with them in any meaningful way (by, for example, disputing my specific reasons for asserting that an infinite regress of causes and effects is impossible, or even acknowledging the established scientific fact that the universe in its current form began to exist at the Big Bang, despite the quantum vacuum that may have existed "before"). Now you explicitly refuse to offer your own positions on the things we've been discussing, claiming that you have none. That is arguing in bad faith, and it's why you are the first and only person on my ignore list.

 

[Ophiolite]

Ah, the "I don't have a position to defend, so I'm just going to take shots at yours because that's a whole lot easier" approach. Atheists and agnostics do this all the time, and honestly it gets so tiresome. Whatever, man.

I think there is merit in challenging weak arguments.* I welcome having my posts subject to intense and rigorous scrutiny. It is a powerful way of learning. I'm sorry you don't share that view.

*On reflection I think in many instances it is discourteous and selfish not to do so. I'll try to keep in mind that you would prefer that I discourteously refuse to help you advance.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

There are three basic types of reasoning: inductive, abductive, and deductive. Reasoning to the best explanation (abductive reasoning) is reasoning to the answer with the best evidence based on what we know. We do that all the time, every day. In particular, this type of reasoning is the only one suitable for topics in metaphysics and philosophy that can't be proved one way or the other inductively or deductively. In my view, the best evidence points to God's existence. If you don't know what it points to and/or believe it can't be known, then we have a fundamental disagreement that I don't think we're going to resolve with further discussion.

I do not believe the cause of our existence cannot be known. My position is I don't know what the cause is and possibly cannot be known.

 

[Reasonable Christian]

I do not believe the cause of our existence cannot be known. My position is I don't know what the cause is and possibly cannot be known.

Fair enough. At least we understand each other, which will help with future discussions.

 

[childeye 2]

That is even less enlightening than the text I have provisionally dismissed. This section of the forum provides an opportunity for Christians to offer arguments for their religion. You and jk6661 are not doing an inspiring job of that so far. I'm ready to entertain logical and evidence based arguments. I haven't seen in any yet. I wait with interest.

The op is asking, Why do you believe God exists?
The term 'exists' changes meaning when referring to that which we see/envision as Eternal, and that which we see as a Person.
We cannot prove that that which is Eternal exists as such because it is impossible by definition.
We are Christians and therefore we believe that the Christ is the Personification of God sent by God.
In this way the term God is a Person.
We know the man Jesus existed/exists.
We know that When God is seen as a Person the term God becomes axiomatic since we cannot believe God is a Person without first believing He exists.

We believe there is a Truth that exists, separate and apart from mankind's ability to declare it, in the sense that we first must learn it before we can declare it as Truth.
We know it exists even because we learn it, but we cannot know if it ends when humanity ends. Since we learn of it, we cannot presume it does not exist if people were no longer to exist.
Truth therefore transcends all of humanity yet it is the same Truth for everyone despite the different ways we perceive it and articulate it and the differing levels of knowledge/ignorance that pertains to it.

We believe that since Christ was prophesied to come that we may see the Person of God, God therefore
means the Creator of time and subsequently the Power that brought forth all things within time for the purpose of His being known.
We believe that He therefore exists Eternal as opposed to temporal which the term 'time' implies.
God is therefore synonymous with 'Truth' since He Created it and even is the ultimate Truth to know.

To know Christ is to know Love and to know Love is to know God. God is Love.
Hence God is worshipped not as He Who created us, which is kind of like a self worship.
God is worshipped as that Spirit of empathy/Love which is the Good in mankind and which is the common Truth that exists which we all will eventually come to learn.

 

[Ophiolite]

Thank you. That is a comprehensive and clear reply. However, you will not be surprised to learn that I find it unconvincing. As is often the case it seems to come down to your (in the general sense) willingness to accept certain things as facts on the basis of faith. The exact point that faith must act may vary between individuals, but it has to enter the logic chain somewhere.

But for those of us who are evidence dependent creatures it is not something we can work with. And so I am left with the objection I raised at the outset "All I see in this @JK6661 are a series of generally unsupported statements with no meaningful connection between them." For you it seems the support comes from your faith, which also provides the meaningful connections. Take away the faith and there is nothing other than the sincerely held view that you believe.

 

[bling]

That is even less enlightening than the text I have provisionally dismissed. This section of the forum provides an opportunity for Christians to offer arguments for their religion. You and jk6661 are not doing an inspiring job of that so far. I'm ready to entertain logical and evidence based arguments. I haven't seen in any yet. I wait with interest.

read my post 49

 

[bling]

You misunderstand. I am not saying an infinite regress is the answer. I am saying jumping to a god is the answer to the problem of infinite regress is not sound reasoning. Also, if an infinite regress is impossible then an infinite god is impossible as well.



No it is how sound reasoning works. I cannot conclude A because I cannot think of another reason it could not be A. How do you know there is no other reason that you don't know about?



Ok, I missed the more probable than not. My mistake. How do you determine what is more likely than not? With this, you will not believe true things just because they are not likely. We should have good evidence for something before we believe it. Not just if it more likely than not. That is not a reliable method to determine truth. There are true things that we think are less likely than not to be true.

Read my post 49

 

[Reasonable Christian]

When there is sufficient reasons to believe a cause of the universe I will believe it. Until then I don't know. I think that should be your answer as well. You admitted that there could be another cause that you don't know about so why believe god did it?

It appears you basically are saying that unless the ONLY possible explanation of the universe is God, we are not justified in deciding that God is the explanation. The problem is that there is more than one possible explanation for literally anything one can name, in any field of inquiry. If you don't believe me, name an effect – any effect – and I will provide you with more than one possible explanation, and I also will point out that there could be another explanation that you don't know about. My doing that does not, and should not, prevent you from deciding, based on the available evidence, what you think is the most likely explanation for whatever we're talking about. In summary, unless I'm mistaken on your view, you are applying a standard of proof to the God question that neither you nor anyone else applies to anything else (i.e. unless God is the only possible explanation, we should just throw our hands in the air and say "I don't know").

 

[muichimotsu]

I have provided some of the reasons why I believe that an agent caused the universe. What are your reasons for believing that the universe is just a brute fact? In any event, what we are both doing is engaging in abductive reasoning, i.e. reasoning to what we consider the best explanation based what what we know. We obviously disagree on the best explanation for the universe. We could go around and around on this, but I see little point. Atheists/agnostics tend to conveniently presuppose their position as the default unless theists can prove their position to the atheist's/agnostic's satisfaction. The atheist/agnostic then continually moves the goal posts so that never happens. That's not going to work with me.

Because we have no good reason to believe, and your reasons don't fit into good reason, because they're assuming things always work the way we think in terms of observations of other situations where a mind may be necessary (a painting, a builder, etc).

The burden is on theists, because they're multiplying entities beyond necessity and violating Occam's razor. Where is the evidence for your creator? Otherwise the prudent and pragmatic conclusion is the universe doesn't work based on anthropocentric presuppositions that theism is basically founded on: that there must be some exceptional entity that, conveniently, resembles humans and not something wholly other in its cognition.

Seems to me the goalpost shifting and special pleading to boot is done by theists who constantly demand God not be subject to the same standards we'd apply to anything else by claiming it's immaterial, necessary or otherwise conveniently beyond investigation or falsification, yet also by their own admission, was involved in the material world in being able to create it (because otherwise, it cannot be said to exist in any meaningful sense if it was outside time and space rather than outside present time and space).

So there would logically be forensic evidence of some form or fashion to reach the conclusion that an intelligent agent was involved rather than it just "appearing" that way with specious inferences about "fine tuning" that aren't used in the way they think when scientists claimed it or are grossly misunderstood by philosophers who fancy themselves scientists.

If you're not going to honestly apply the principle you would use to investigate anything else without sufficiently justifying why this one thing is outside of that rational investigation or need for falsification, then you would need to just admit that there's a confirmation bias in play towards this teleological thinking, something you seem to just gloss over, along with its contrast of teleonomy. Or do you not think there's a difference?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

It appears you basically are saying that unless the ONLY possible explanation of the universe is God, we are not justified in deciding that God is the explanation. The problem is that there is more than one possible explanation for literally anything one can name, in any field of inquiry. If you don't believe me, name an effect – any effect – and I will provide you with more than one possible explanation, and I also will point out that there could be another explanation that you don't know about. My doing that does not, and should not, prevent you from deciding, based on the available evidence, what you think is the most likely explanation for whatever we're talking about. In summary, unless I'm mistaken on your view, you are applying a standard of proof to the God question that neither you nor anyone else applies to anything else (i.e. unless God is the only possible explanation, we should just throw our hands in the air and say "I don't know").

This is not what I am saying. I will try to be more clear. If we have good evidence to support a claim is true we will believe it is true. Any other possible solutions to that claim can be discarded because we already have good evidence to support the claim. However, if we don't have good evidence to believe the claim is true we should not believe it is true until we get the good evidence. We should not believe the best evidence we have becasue we cannot rule out other possibilities. The best evidence cannot be verified to be true until we have good evidence to support the that it is true.

There are many possible solutions to what the shape of the earth is. We can discard them all unless it is a spherical shape because we have good evidence that it is spherical and not any other shape. At one point the best evidence we had was that it was flat.

So when it comes to what is the cause of the universe existing, we cannot use the best evidence for a belief. We do not have good evidence to support that it is a God that created everything because we have no way of ruling out other possibilities that we do not know of yet. If we have good evidence for a God that created everything then we can rule out any other possibility. Do you have that evidence?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I start with the idea “something” has always existed, because something does not come from nothing unless you redefine nothing as being something, which still means something only comes from something.

How have you determined that something cannot come from nothing?

This “something” might only be energy (a near infinite amount of energy to take care of entropy), since matter has been shown to come from energy that leaves space and time, but we have today intelligence, so intelligence would have to come from energy also. (It could be energy and space, but some believe space is an illusion).

Why? Energy was used in the evolutionary process that created intelligence, but I would not say it came from energy.

We can imagine or see to some degree intelligence coming from intelligence with smarter and smarter computers. There is no system, keeping intelligent from becoming super intelligence, on the other end, how could intelligence just come from pure energy?

This is a strawman. Intelligence did not come from energy, It came from the evolutionary process that used energy.

We might also imagine even our own intelligence coming from super intelligence and energy, so would we be the first intelligence made from just energy or was there a super intelligence before us which made us?

The likelihood of us being the first intelligence and not the result of a previous superintelligence is very unlikely, given infinity.

If energy alone could make intelligence than with an infinite amount of time before man comes into the picture, there would most likely be intelligence and even super intelligence, but that also means we would be most likely the result of a previous super intelligence (God).

I really do not see why it takes more “faith” to trust in the eternal existence of energy without God versus energy with God, especially seeing why humans are here and what God would have to be like.

This is all assertion. Where is your evidence to support these claims? I don't believe energy alone made intelligence. That needs to be supported by evidence.

God, who has been around “forever”, would not be working toward something, but would be at the epidemy of how far he can go. God would be perfect “Love” (totally unselfish) or be totally bad, but whatever God would be He would also have humans perceive that as being something to admire (worship) since he would want them to recognize Him as God and not worship something else.

Why is this have to be true. There can be a god that created everything and abandoned the creation.

God being totally unselfish would be trying to gift those He created with the greatest gifts possible, which would include becoming like Himself in that these beings would have His Love.

You just jumped to God being totally unselfish. How did you determine that?

There is really nothing you (a created being) can “do” to help the Creator, but you can allow of your own free will God to help you, which is God’s desire since God is a huge giver of gifts.

Man’s objective is found in the God given Mission statement of: Loving God (and secondly Loving others) with all your heart, soul, mind and energy. In order to fulfill that mission man must first obtain Godly type Love which will make man like God Himself in that man will Love like God Loves. Would becoming like God Himself not be the greatest gift we could get?

The objective is not to never ever sin, but to obtain this Godly type Love is the first of man’s objective.

There are just something even an all-powerful Creator cannot do (there are things impossible to do), the big inability for us is to be created with instinctive (programmed) Godly type Love, since Godly type Love is not instinctive. Godly type love has to be the result of a free will decision by the being, to make it the person’s Love apart from God. In other words: If the Love was in a human from the human’s creation it would be a robotic type love and not a Godly type Love. Also if God “forces” this Love on a person (Kind a like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun) it would not be “loving” on God’s part and the love forced on the person would not be Godly type love. This Love has to be the result of a free will moral choice with real likely alternatives (for humans those alternatives include the perceived pleasures of sin for a season.)


This Love is way beyond anything humans could develop, obtain, learn, earn, pay back or ever deserve, so it must be the result of a gift that is accepted or rejected (a free will choice).

This “Love” is much more than just an emotional feeling; it is God Himself (God is Love). If you see this Love you see God.

All mature adults do stuff that hurts others (this is called sin) these transgressions weigh on them burden them to the point the individual seeks relief (at least early on before they allow their hearts to be hardened). Lots of “alternatives” can be tried for relief, but the only true relief comes from God with forgiveness (this forgiveness is pure charity [grace/mercy/Love]). The correct humble acceptance of this Forgiveness (Charity) automatically will result in Love (we are taught by Jesus (Luke 7: 36-50) and our own experience “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…”). Sin is thus made hugely significant, so there will be an unbelievable huge debt to be forgiven of and thus result in an unbelievable huge “Love” (Godly type Love).

In order to be forgiven of sin you must first sin, so sin is necessary but not desired.

This messed up world is actually the very best place for willing mature adult individuals to see, receive, give, experience, accept and know Godly type Love. All these tragedies provide opportunities for Love, but that does not mean we go around causing opportunities, since we are to be ceasing these opportunities (there are plenty of opportunities) to show/experience Love.

This is all assertion.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[childeye 2]

Thank you. That is a comprehensive and clear reply. However, you will not be surprised to learn that I find it unconvincing. As is often the case it seems to come down to your (in the general sense) willingness to accept certain things as facts on the basis of faith. The exact point that faith must act may vary between individuals, but it has to enter the logic chain somewhere.

But for those of us who are evidence dependent creatures it is not something we can work with. And so I am left with the objection I raised at the outset "All I see in this @JK6661 are a series of generally unsupported statements with no meaningful connection between them." For you it seems the support comes from your faith, which also provides the meaningful connections. Take away the faith and there is nothing other than the sincerely held view that you believe.

Faith comes by hearing the Gospel, which means understanding the Gospel in a spiritual introspect.

Fundamentally The Gospel Truth presents that either I believe that Love/empathy is an attribute of the Creator manifesting in the creature, or an attribute of the creature apart from any self aware Creator. Which is why I must perceive that to understand God as a Spirit in me, there is nothing in the moral/immoral purview that can be thought or said that did not in some degree affirm Him in the positive or the negative as in moving towards Him or away from Him. The determination I make will define all the moral terms I reason upon and the conclusions and demeanor that will result when I deliberate on them. An important thing to note is that in either case, Love/empathy is a positive valued as the highest virtue, but only in the worship of self does it become vain and corruptible. Moreover, the self sacrificial Love I see in the Christ is an extreme display of endurance and perseverance unto death all for the sake of forgiveness, according to the Gospel. It is pure and moving towards wanting to believe/trust in purity, and not corruption. Which is why the only suitable avenue for unbelief to take, is to either count Jesus crazy, or to deny the story ever happened as told all together.

Negatives usurp from positives. Positives do not usurp from negatives. Truth is a constant. Something is greater than nothing. In other words, Truth precedes a lie in existence hence a lie corrupts what is good, such as wanting to believe in something pure. Sure, I know there's a voice/thought inside of me that says, You don't know if the Gospel account is even real. It's a response to the Gospel that looks true enough when appealing to honesty, but in practical application is no different than, I don't know it's not real. What matters is whether I view the Love I see on the cross as coming from somewhere higher than ourselves, and the doubt only serves to not make that distinction. Since the doubt serves to dismiss out of hand rather than leans towards seeking to understand what is being presented, it is illogical. Therefore the voice or thought is sowing a doubt based on a negative prejudice not logic or evidence. The doubt is using the sentiment of 'lack of evidence' (occasion of ignorance), to avoid evaluating what is self evident in The Gospel including the atheism presented therein.

Respectfully, the application of faith in your commentary is inaccurate in the sense that it seems that it's my faith that establishes certain facts other than my faithfulness. It's actually the certain facts and logic that support the reasoning for faith so that I may be faithful (become filled with faith).

Consider the analogy of needing three points to navigate the seas. We need to know where we're coming from and where we're going to, and one constant relative to both which we can trust in. So it's inescapable that when I reason upon the Spiritual knowledge of God I am also discerning atheism in the process, whereas atheism could not make that same claim being disabled in it's carnal terminology of psycholinguistics. Wherefore I can tell you assuredly that the term 'faith' in Christianity can only be pointed at God when seeing Christ as a trustworthy person, which is why faith must be pointed at an established positive that is reliably constant and pure wherein we will not be diminished in our hope thereof. When pointed towards the negative it is unbelief/distrust, and when pointed at something that does not exist or is myth, it is actually superstition having nothing to do with faith at all.