Originally posted by josephw
On the other hand, having faith in the existence of God is grounded on evidence.
If having faith in the non-existence of God is based on having no evidence for the non-existence of God, then wouldn't that be a false faith since that faith has no basis grounded on evidence?
Since there is no evidence for the non-existence of God, then having faith that there is no God is a false faith.
On the other hand, having faith in the existenc ...[text shortened]... refore it is a true faith, reguardless of whether or not one agrees that the evidence is valid.
Really? You just started another thread** not long ago where you told me and I quote "The knowledge of God is self evident" (where by "knowledge of God" you were talking about knowing the proposition that God exists). Now, maybe you are not even familiar with your own terminology, but self-evidence is enjoyed by propositions whose truth follows obviously just from their being understood in and of themselves. In other words, just to understand a self-evident proposition is also to understand its truth. So, self-evident propositions are (justifiably) taken to be true under no supporting evidence
. That's basically what makes them "self evident".
So why do you need underlying evidence to make yours a "true" faith? Why would you need to claim underlying evidence for your theistic belief if the knowledge of God is self-evident to begin with?
Try being consistent for once, would you? In one thread you're telling me that you don't need to offer me any supporting evidence or argument for God because it is simply self-evident that He exists. In the next thread, however, all of a sudden underlying evidence is integral to your "true" faith.