Are you saying that because we have faith in God, his existance can't be proven? All this talk about logic, and you make a statement like that?
Thanks for the question Flappie. No thats not it.
I was questioning the rational underlying Adanac's exhaustively analytical comment. A concept in both mainstream theology (and some CDs depending on who you talk to ) is that although someone may feel they have profound evidence of a deity - that ultimately absoloute proof is not available to humans.
A rational explanation of this situation is that a deity has specificaly chosen not to provide absolute proof - to allow the follower to demonstrate faith - as an act of service or trust. This is called Fideism
So my point related to the interplay between 'proof' and 'faith' and wasn't a direct comment on the existance of a deity. As an aside the philosophical consequences of an unintentional proof of divine existance, on divine existance has been commented on elsewhere ...
The people in Hebrews 11 generally appear to have had no reason to doubt the existence of God (quite the reverse), rather the test of their faith was to to do God's will with trust in the faithfulness of God.
Thanks - you feel that the author is discussing solely their faith in God's faithfullness rather than God's existance. Isn't one reason (particularly for modern Christians) to doubt Gods faithfulness - to doubt his existance?
Many of the 'ancient faithful' he refers to had direct experience of divine intervention or conversations with angels - similarly these early Jewish Christians the author is addressing may have had first hand experiences of the power of the Holy Spirit.
I think it would be unfair to suggest that modern Christians have access to the same level of evidence as a first century apostle, however good you think the Teleological argument is.
Edited by pantrog, 24 June 2005 - 03:20 PM.