Proof of Gods existance will eliminate the need of faith and hence one of the fundamental principles of christainity would be no longer existant.
there is no proof or disproof to gods existance.
You cannot say that aliens dont exist beacause there is no proof nor can u say that they do
hence on this logic i stand by my belief that God is real and if u decide that he isnt it is your choice or theory
hence an agument/debate on whether god exists or doesnt if entirely pointless as there is no factual evidence pointing either way
Ok then, lets assume that you're right, and that there is no way to prove that god does or does not exist (which is probably a correct premise, but the following does not rely on it being so). If this is true then that doesn't mean we should all just get up and go home, there are other questions that can be asked. The obvious one is:
What should we believe given there is no prospect of a sound proof or disproof of gods existence?
I don't think we should completely throw critical thinking out the window simply because we can't know for certain.
The question is, what should we do with the limited resources we have to reason about Gods existence. How should we play with the mediocre cards we have been dealt when it comes to this kind of metaphysical knowledge? Now of course if you are interested in the truth then your aim would be to come to a conclusion that is true. It should be noted however that not everyone is interested in (only) the truth. For many, happiness, satisfaction, ect are more important than the truth. And the prospect of a loving God watching over them and eternal life ect makes a lot of people very happy.
Back to reality, if we assume that we ARE interested in the truth, then the question " What should we believe given there is no prospect of a sound proof or disproof of gods existence? " takes on a more well defined meaning, and we can go about reasoning about this question.
It should go without saying that the conclusion we would come to is limited, as it has been assumed that no proof either way exists. Some kind of idea of how and why it is limited would be another desirable thing to figure out in the process. I'm not going to attempt to answer this question, I will leave the following somewhat relevant quote from Bertrand Russell as food for thought and a possible starting point:
"Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion.
I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.
On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.
None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.
Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line."
