Biblical Faith is trust by evidence seen

My argument, with sources, for my definition of ‘faith’ and tear down atheists strawman of “faith means believing without evidence”.

“People who believe in God don’t need proof of his existence, and they certainly don’t want evidence to the contrary. They are happy with their belief. They even say things like “it’s true to me” and “it’s faith.” - Ricky Gervais

I am just using Ricky as an example. Ricky, and many atheists, do not know what biblical faith is because he just does not care to know.


Biblically, faith means trust. It’s a trust by evidence seen. God asks that we prove things. To reason. To get knowledge. To study. God has nothing to hide. We develop trust from what is seen, and that which is not seen yet is trusted also because of the trust built up from what is seen. It’s much like a human relationship. We don’t trust much until a person has gained that trust from what is observed. The difference is though, God is not limited to human powers. He created us.

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.



Ricky, and others, can’t even explain the start, creation, and yet he acts so smugly.


My Main Point:

Real science says nothing does nothing. *Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know.

We know the 1LT says there’s a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means.

The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max.

This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.

We can’t even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.

yawn I’ve never seen this “evidence”. Have you some examples?

Also, what’s the policy here for preaching? This question is not for you, Rachel.

Are you talking about evidence for my definition of faith or God?

Either way I gave you evidence for both. There’s the laws of conservation of energy and entropy where usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max.

Granted I could have specified at the begininng instead of going straight to my argument.
Anyways, this is not preaching it is an argument for faith or rather Biblical faith so I can show you that atheists cannot go to the whole “blind faith means without evidence” tripe and avoid that silly strawman… not uless you can get around my definition above but I don’t think anyone here can.

1 Like

How the hell does that law get you to god? Please explain that to us. The rest of your argument is barely an argument, it’s more like a… sermon on why we should trust god. We don’t trust god, that’s the point. We don’t trust his book or the people who claim to tell us about him from that book.

There’s no good evidence for god, none. Present some. Prove us wrong.

1 Like

No. Rachel. Your claim that a god (not even your god of choice) is necessary in that scenario is an unevidenced assertion on your part. If you must read, and get your limited knowledge from debunked apologist websites at least try and understand the science part.

I agree, once you accept that blue, universe farting bunny rabbits exist anything is possible.

Again, your pre-supposition would be laughable if you weren’t quite so convinced it made sense. It doesn’t.


Hi @RachHoll… welcome!

First off - that is an assumption on your part. No one know Ricky’s motives or experiences (refering to your statement that “he just does not care to know”)

Not really. You can see, touch, communicate, laugh with, etc with fellow physical humans. The people that interact with “unseen humans” are usually given medicines to help them with their brain disorder.

Nope. The bible defines faith Hebrews 11:1 “Now faith (pi’stis) is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”

Assurance of hope. Convinced of things invisible… NOT demonstrable or measurable.

Described by HUMANS. Rules written by humans. Contradicting one another (humans). Changes to morality by humans.

God hasn’t even been demonstrated to exist let alone have “qualities”.

Hmmmm :thinking:. You called poor Ricky “smug”. Lol. Can you explain where “god” came from? The start?

OK. Sorta kills “creation”. We know energy changes form and interacts and transforms dependent on chemical “reactions”, mass, temperature, etc (variety of conditions).

OK. So why believe in a Creator? Obviously we are here via natural means.

I read your one liner on entropy and the “winding down” of universe… ok.

So we are living in a time and space where the various conditions allow for the evolution of “things” as observed. Yah. One day it won’t be so - just like it wasn’t so a long “time” ago. Lol. I’m enjoying my moment in the sun.

So cute :relaxed:.

NOT true. Humans describe what we observe and communicate to one another. This knowledge evolves and builds, etc.

Ther is no demonstrable evidence for a “lawgiver”.

Back in the day - Zeus was credited with lightening. Oops :grimacing:
Oh and rainbows :rainbow: (light refraction) didn’t exist before the flood?


This thread and the way this newest member worded the opening is far from preachy. Pretty legit IMO and quite frankly pretty well thought out given the information that this person has limited themselves to.

1 Like

@RachHoll Which is the basis for atheism. They trust that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, because it is observed time and again. The same thing with the 4 seasons of the year. It is not faith - it is knowing. I know I am alive, because I am making this post. It is knowing, NOT faith.

Atheists don’t define words, the definitions are based on common usage, which is contained in dictionaries.

Whenever a theist leads by misrepresenting atheists, that’s not a very promising sign in my experience.

Faith has a primary and secondary definition.


  1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

  2. Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

Note the emboldened part of the secondary definition.

Not according to the dictionary, again a very bad sign in my experience when a theist starts by misrepresenting a simple word definition. However this is very simple…

Please demonstrate some objective evidence for any deity.

If all you have is the fallacious god of the gaps first cause polemic used in your OP, then that’s not evidence, it’s riddled with unevidenced assumptions, and uses a known common logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam. It is therefore illogical by definition.

No it doesn’t, you’re just leaping an unevidenced assumption based on an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

Firstly I only accept claims when they can be supported by sufficient objective evidence, and you’ve offered not for anything supernatural. Secondly it is an objective fact the universe exists, and it is an objective fact that natural phenomena exist. There is no objective evidence that anything supernatural is even possible. So it’s utterly specious for you to claim an unevidenced deity from an archaic superstition, using inexplicable magic, justifies ruling out an as yet unknown natural cause.

Especially since that archaic superstition has a creation myth that is entirely at odds with known scientific facts such as evolution, established with a weight of objective evidence that is beyond any reasonable or rational argument.

That’s utter rubbish sorry. Nothing science currentky understands about the universe requires a deity or anything supernatural.

That’s just a serious tautology. Scientific laws are human creations. The assumptive leap to a deity at the end is just hilarious.

You Gould have searched any one of dozens of threads or hundreds of posts debunking this type of irrational first cause polemic.

I’ll ask the same question I always ask, and which tellingly no theist has ever answered…

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity or deities?

1 Like

@RachHoll And yet, religion - be it Christianity or Hinduism, asks their followers to blindly believe thigs without testing their veracity, which goes against the wise advice of the Buddha himself:

“Only believe what you yourself test and judge to be true”.

@Fireball Normally, it is being thoroughly outgunned and embarrassed by the members here. Or, in the case of @Cognostic, being literally shredded to pieces. Don’t EVER mess with Cog!

1 Like

@RachHoll Really? Because, with all due respect, I did not see any evidence presented. Hmm…….

That doesn’t evidence a deity? All I saw was you assert it.

It’s theists who’ve asserted blind faith is a valid basis for belief for millennia, not atheists. Atheists merely react to that claim when it’s made. As I demonstrated above, the secondary (dictionary) definition of faith shows that this has nothing to do with atheists, why would it.

Then I suggest you Google the definition of faith, as your assertions are wrong. As I’ve explained.

1 Like

Welcome to Atheist Republic RachHoll, I hope you find this place fun and a learning experience.

Your initial post dealt with three topics. Ricky Gervais, faith, and the laws of conservation of energy. Let us please ignore Ricky, what that smug comedian says or thinks has nothing to do with proving a god, it only proves he’s a smug jerk.

As far as “faith”, I must respectfully disagree, faith is not constructed on evidence.

Now the meat of the matter, the topic of the laws of conservation of energy. I agree, it can not be created nor destroyed. But there are examples where a very low state of energy was transformed into higher forms of energy. One example is the formation and life of any sun. Hydrogen and helium atoms are drifting through space, almost undetectable because it is all in a low state of energy, they form a cloud, that cloud clumps, and as they clump tighter, eventually a star initiates the nuclear process and it is generating high forms of energy.

But you are assuming this universe was “created”. We know your position, that this energy originated from your god. The scientific world has a different explanation. Based on the currently accepted scientific model, this known universe expanded from a small point with almost zero dimensions and with insanely high levels of energy and heat. What came before that instant, the Planck time? We do not know.

But physicists do not insist that this universe was “created”. At this moment many in the scientific world are diligently examining and experimenting in an attempt to resolve what happened before that instant of Planck time.

There are a few tentative models, such as the Brane cosmology, or Hawkings model. But none of them assume anything was created.

@RachHoll in order for your proposition to have traction, you must prove that this known universe was “created”.

Really? Is your statement proportional to the level of respect of the OP? This is a sincere and polite thesis, and you respond with adolescent “I have an erection”?

1 Like

@David_Killens Respect for the Op? Makes claims without evidence. Where have I seen this before?

A giant wall of text, trying to convince us to believe in some creator God, which, itself, is problematic. I have recently come to the conclusion that the whole notion of some sort of Creator, Maker or First Cause of the universe makes no sense at all. And yet, Rachel comes on here to try to convince us to believe in some Creator God, and does a poor job at that. Theists do not understand the simple, yet profound notion of “live and let live”, when it comes to those who are different from them.

Respect to the Op? I am done with theists and whatever God or Gods they worship, which they use to justify all the stuff in the world, that causes needless pain, unhappiness and suffering.

1 Like


No less a person than Jesus is reported as admonishes his believers to believers to believe blindly, in the doubting Thomas incident:

John :29 " Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

You’ve made some extraordinary claims. Please provide a few examples for your empirical evidence of the existence of god(s). Are you gonna be famous! The first person in recorded history to provide such evidence!

Ricky Gervais is right. You are wrong.


Definition of faith

(Entry 1 of 2)

1a**:** allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTYlost faith in the company’s president

b(1): fidelity to one’s promises

(2): sincerity of intentionsacted in good faith

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 proofclinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return

(2): complete trust

3**:** something that is believed especially with strong convictionespecially : a system of religious beliefsthe Protestant faith

on faith

: without questiontook everything he said on faith



\ ˈfāth \

faithed; faithing; faiths

Definition of faith (Entry 2 of 2)

transitive verb



Synonyms & Antonyms

1 Like

Yeah, God created The Start. How could The Start start unless started by a starter? The Start-starter. Which of course was created (started) by a prime starter, the Start-starter’s Starter. And behind this was the even primer prime starter, the Start-starter’s Start-starter. And then the Starter of the Start-starter’s Start-starter’s start. And now I’m confusing myself to hell, so I’d better go to bed.


I may not respect the argument, but the OP has displayed a polite and respectful attempt to explain their proposition.

1 Like

Really? The cheek. Lmao.

I don’t like Ricky at all. His sardonic wit can be quite cruel.

Hate The Office. In fact I can’t think of any comedic grotesques I like.

PS The teleological argument/ first cause/ intelligent design/ irreducible complexity. Really? That argument was old and invalid when used by Thomas Aquinas as one of his five arguments for the existence of god, in the 13th century.