Maurice, you can say I (or anyone else) knows or does not know if God exists, but you wouldn't say (would you?) that someone who believes God exists does not have faith (defined as: the substance of things not seen).
I read an example recently of proving a negative. A mathematician said it is easier to prove a positive, such as that there is a chocolate cake orbiting Jupiter, than to prove a negative, such as that there are no chocolate cakes orbiting Jupiter. It would be almost impossible to prove there are no chocolate cakes orbiting Jupiter. So it seems that since to prove there is no God would be a vastly more difficult task, one should state that he believes there is no God. Wouldn't that be the most logically acceptable statement in the absence of proof that there is no God?
As for me thinking you are an "I don't know" - - we all know so little about what there is to know ... that we all are "I don't knows." It is certainly nothing to be ashamed of (nor to brag about) - it is just a fact. Being "I don't knows" does give us the status of being seekers of knowledge and students of the truth, which sounds better.
It is good to talk with someone such as you who is open to examining his beliefs and not afraid to exercise his mind.
In Murray's book (Madeline Murray O'Hara's son) he told of an incident in which his mother, during a thunderstorm, went outside and shook her fist and cursed God, daring him to strike her dead with lightning. (I can't help laughing, though it really isn't funny..) Afterwards, she came back into the house, soaked from the rain, and announced that she had just proven that there is no God, because he hadn't struck her with lightning.
She did prove that God didn't strike her with lightning... I find it amazing that she is now a lawyer (if I'm not mistaken) with logic like that. But who said lawyers have to be logical?
John |
