The link between man & god is FAITH.

In a class a professor asks one of his new students to stand and.....


Prof: So you believe in God?

Student: Absolutely, sir.

Prof : Is God good?

Student: Sure.

Prof: Is God all-powerful?

Student : Yes.

Prof: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him.
Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn't. How is this God good then? Hmm?

(Student is silent.)

Prof: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?

Student: Yes.

Prof: Is Satan good?

Student : No.

Prof: Where does Satan come from?

Student: From...God...

Prof: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?

Student: Yes.

Prof: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything. Correct?

Student: Yes.

Prof: So who created evil?

(Student does not answer.)

Prof: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don't they?

Student: Yes, sir.

Prof: So, who created them?

(Student has no answer.)

Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son...Have you ever seen God?

Student: No, sir.

Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your God?

Student: No, sir.

Prof: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God? Have you

ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?

Student: No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.

Prof: Yet you still believe in Him?

Student: Yes.

Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?

Student: Nothing. I only have my faith.

Prof: Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has.

Student: Professor, is there such a thing as heat?

Prof: Yes.

Student: And is there such a thing as cold?

Prof: Yes.

Student: No sir. There isn't.
(The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.)

Student : Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that.
There is no such thing as cold . Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of
heat . We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy . Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it .

(There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)

Student: What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?

Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?

Student : You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light....But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it were you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?

Prof: So what is the point you are making, young man?

Student: Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.

Prof: Flawed? Can you explain how?

Student: Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life

and then there is death, a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one.To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it.
Now tell me, Professor.Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?

Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.

Student: Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?

(The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument is going.)

Student: Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?

(The class is in uproar.)

Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain?
(The class breaks out into laughter.)

Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain,sir.
With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?

(The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face unfathomable.)

Prof: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.

Student: That is it sir... The link between man & god is FAITH . That is all that keeps things moving & alive.




The student above mentioned is A. P. J. Abdul Kalam , the former president of India .

WoW... that is a lovely story to mention..
infact i heard about it.. long time ago..
glad that u have shared it with us..

Coz all it wakes is a deep faith to start acting before its too late.

Good conversation, and thanks that you mentioned it.
I hate when some one try to be a philosofer like the prof. here. I hate philosophy it leads to no where.

Faith is an open secret, and it is shared by pure devotees of the Lord, around the world. Faith is very good; an almost unequalled source for writings about it is Mira Alfassa, one very sweet thing she said about it was to "...watch over one's faith as one watches over the birth of something infinitely precious, and protect it very carefully from everything that can impair it...." (full quote, http://ambainny.blogspot.com/2008/09...y-and-say.html)

i love that... thank you Sorceress :) Augustine used a similar argument based on duality for the good and evil argument.. he said evil doesn't actually exist, it is just the absnce of good, to a greater or lesser degree... everything is good, just some things are less good.. I don't necessarily agree with it but it is an interesting argument.. theodicy is an interesting area of philosphy and theology... one with no end to the argument in sight :D

but that's what makes it fun..

thanks for the link Nikolai... :)

It's interesting, Sorceress. :D

I find it difficult to deduce that the presence of evil is merely the absence of good. I doubt you could think of the worst attrocities that have ever occured, and then come up with the good-evil duality argument to propose that these attrocities were still good, but just less so than every other event.

Evolution is observed through several lines of evidence that entail common descent. Anatomical vestiges conforming to evolutionary lines of descent reached by other means, as well as atavisms, molecular vestigial characters, ontogenetical development of organisms, present biogeography, past biogeography, and yes; direct laboratory observation of morphological, genetic, and systemic change; as well as comparisons in anatomy, genetics, and geographical distribution, all have precise predictions made about them by evolution, and thus provide overwhelming evidence that evolution happened. (Disregarding the geographic positioning, layering, and chronology of several thousand intermediary fossils in brilliant detail, including human evolution)

This dialogue is a fallacious false dichotomy (e.g, proposing that one picks either evolution OR religion, but not both) (and by the way, ill give you thirty dollars if you can find for me even a single college biology professor who attempts to deface his students in front of the class in this way)

The misunderstanding of what is meant by empirical observation, and deduction by its means, is completely skewed. Take for example the argument that the professor has a brain. The brain isn't directly observed, yes, but there is overwhelmingly positive evidence in favor of its existence by several billion lines of empirical evidence. The conjecture of god has not even the slightest amount of empirical evidence in any form, with the exception of fascinating and sometimes directly contradictory, sketchy, and usually emotionally enduced theophanies or religious feelings of empowerment in large groups (both of which are proven to be more than capable of being secular phenomena).

It is odd to me how apologetics discussions of the validity of faith somehow privilege themselves in this case to place the burden of proof of a non-existence on atheists. When you ask them to consider the existence of leprechauns, the tooth fairy, unicorns, elves, Santa Clause, the Flying Spaghetti Monsters etc; they will be overwhelmingly in favor of the proposition that you first have to supply evidence in favor for their existence before I even think about fallaciously challenging them to "proove" that they don't exist.

After all, how absurd is it, with no positive evidence in it's favor, to demand proof for its NON-EXISTENCE? Every theist I know, including the ones on this board, when applying this to God, will demand the curious concept of proof of non-existence, and still believe in this entity without sufficient evidence. This is usually coupled with personal anecdotes and tame philosophical musings about abstract and elusive properties of this faith, which I used to be empowered by when I was a theist, but then came to realise that they were fancy ways of saying absolutely nothing.

Saying evil is lack of goodness like darkness is lack of light might be simplifying it- but so is comparing God to Flying Spaghetti Monster, tooth fairy, santa claus and all this.

An atheist does not believe in tooth fairy, so why would they fall back to belief in something they don't believe in? You think God exists, well prove to me all these others exist too! It doesn't make sense to me. God is different from those. And yet when I say that God is the Supreme Whole, or the Absolute Truth, or the source of all sources, or the Infinite, then I am accused of...er...playing games with language. The fact is that greatly intelligent men I admire, geniuses, have contributed so much to this question; and it's my own position which is partly influenced by theirs that I put forward in these debates. I am not in fact simply trying to play games with language when I tell what I think is true. In fact there are reasons that both sides become blind to anything else; why both sides think their side is the only one that is encompassing.

And Jilvin, I know you have experiences unknown to me- but if we say that we are always starting anew; then I must point out, if you begin anything with preconceived ideas like the conviction your opposition will do nothing but give fancy ways of saying nothing, then you are not like to take anything they say to have any value whatsoever. It was Nietzsche who said the surest or quickest way to corrupt a youth was to instruct him to value his own ideas above everyone else's.

Brothers and all, I agree with you on faith and all that you say. I also agree to what Sorceress said about faith. I also agree that God is All-Powerful. But tell me, if God is All-Powerful, can he make a triangle whose sum of three angles is greater than 180 degrees.

There is no such thing in this Universe as an All-Powerful being. It is a ridiculous notion.

The story is great and true. I was just arguing yesterday that if a cup of tea, containing sugar, you could not see the sugar in its solid form; white particles , you only know it is there when you drink the cup of tea. If you refuse to taste it because you cannot see it has sugar you will see the cup of tea bitter.

The point is you can only know the true meaning of GOOD when you incline to Allah, the more you go far from him, the more the meanings of evil, reveal to you, and the closer and the more attached, you cannot see but good, and interpret events that seem to be evil, into good, and know that they are good.

Evil, is nothing but a way, that makes us search for good, and find GOD.

It is fallacious to assert that I am erroneously valuing my ideas above everybody elses; I merely exhibit strength and backbone in my convictions through empiricism (in regards to evolution).

It seems that this topic is making a great example, about how the stereotypical (by stereotypical I mean the properties of governing the universe, and other such properties typical of being granted to deities) God is given an unwarranted privelege over all other mystical and supernatural beings in regards to it's plausibility. Just because you have made God a more complex entity than ridiculous notions of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Santa Clause, or the Easter Bunny does not make God one iota more probable than any of them.

It is interesting how you contend that I value my ideas over everybody else's as if I shut my ears to any opposing ideas, and that it is foolish to do so. With this point I agree with you and Nietzsche. The reason you assert this, however, is not clear from the content of my post. It arises because I have strength in my convictions as they are, but not without good reasons to believe so.

You assert that both sides may become close minded, which is true enough. I fully acknowledge that there are thick headed atheists who will never have anything to do with religion no matter what. The dialogue, however, is a completely ridiculous argument in favor of belief.

In order to defend myself personally, I feel it is my obligation to be fair and list what would be required of theists to convince me that their viewpoint is correct. These have been my views for several years, and have not changed, and I have not moved the goalpoasts on theists. I can confidently claim that these would convince alot of atheists:

1) Verified, specific prophecies that could not have been contrived.
The prophecy cannot be vague, unclear, or garbled, and must be detailed, specific, and unambiguous in prediction and wording. The prophecy cannot be trivial (for example, "it will rain this year"); the prophecy cannot be self-fulfilling (the Jewish people returning to their homeland in Israel to fulfill the prophecy); the prophecy cannot predict an event that already happened, and the writing of the prophecy must have compelling evidence to show that it predated the event of prediction, preferably by a large margin. If the prophecy is the lone success amongst thousands of failures, then the significance is decreased depending on the preciseness of the prophecy.

2) Scientific knowledge exhibited in Holy Books that could not have possibly been known.
A passage about atomic theory or (explicit and unambiguous) passages on heliocentric theory are not compelling as far as the Bible is concerned, as the Greeks came up with these ideas. A reference to the theory of evolution would be compelling, as well as formulations of Newtonian gravity. What would be conclusive and final for me to convert to that religion, however, would be something like Quantum Mechanics, General Relativity, or any other modern (or yet undiscovered) theory so anti-intuitive and complex, that the odds against guessing at it correctly are staggering.
3) Miraculous occurences brought on through prayer.
If a hospital did a double-blind study to determine if intercessory prayer helps the sick, and it was discovered that only the patients prayed for by members of a certain religion experienced a dramatic, statistically significant increase in recovery rate, and this result could be repeated and confirmed, I would convert.

I do have more conditions, but I will post them later. Later I will also give you, (now that I think about it, I will just start a new topic on these forums) things that will not convince me, as well as things that would compell me towards, but not convince me of, the religion.

Jilvin I didn't mean that you hold your view above others, I just meant to warn you if you completely discount others' views, then they have been discounted already so discussion is pointless.

I don't mean to try convert you. If those are your criteria, then you will be an atheist for the rest of this life. I believe we can see and know God, but we can't demand of Him an appearance.

If you lived in America and you wished to talk to the president, you could necessarily get him on the phone. If you called him on the phone, you would not reach him? Why? You do not have the necessary qualifications. This same is true of God, we must be qualified or pure to reach Him. Now again, I know this would not convince you, I'm merely giving another idea.


I do not know of any proof behind God except for, that to me, everything points to Him. My reason tells me it is a finite or limited reflection of perfect truth. My intelligence tells me there is in existence an Infinite. All of my experiences tell me the Infinite exists. Since I am finite and I exist thanks to the Lord, who is Infinite, that is the most important thing there is.

God is the source of all reality. He is the root of all existence. So if we move away from Him we move away from existence, and if we move towards Him, we go toward eternity, life, things like this.

The existence of Hell or Hellish planets is not proof of the non-existence of God. All follows the will of the Lord, but we are in the material universe, occasionally suffering, because of our own desire to enjoy separately from the Lord. We have the power to make earth a place of suffering or one of beauty and truth. But the earth is very tiny in comparison to the rest of the creation.

I hope this helps you some. I am not trying to be dogmatic or telling you only one creed or another. I'm simply trying to explain God is the source of reality-- to me, He is originally the Supreme Personality of Godhead; to others, He is Nirguna, brahmajyoti, impersonal Brahman, but both are not simply atheistic views.

Keep in mind, NikolaiI, that not all of my message (the part concerning my criterion for my conversion to theism, for example) is addressing you individually. I fully acknowledge that you were never trying to convert me (and apparently not trying to pose any cogent argument for theism at all)

My main assertions are addressed to the creator of this topic. (The dialogue made above is so bad, that it could easily be mistaken for a parody.) I should have added a note because, (due to my faults and forgetfullness) it does appear that the entire message is directed at you);and from fifth paragraph onward my message is addressed to a more general group (that is, anybody who may stumble upon this topic with interest)

I have little much else to quarrel with you about, since your arguments for existence are sketchy and completely subjective, and it seems you are one to use the argument of "oh, well, I just sort of believe in it, and there isn't anything you can do about it" sort of person. As well as utilizing the elimination for any concrete actions that this God might partake in.

You seem like a pretty resigned person as far as the position of others goes, but I do have to observe that you make a few powerful suppositions regarding the nature of God. Assertions such as: I am not worthy of demanding God's appearence, even if it is to the entire rest of the world; you have to be qualified to reach God; your intelligence tells you there is an Infinite; you exist because of the Lord; God is the source of all reality; moving away from God means moving away from existence;

So if you will forgive me (since you seem very reluctant to argue or offend) for observing that your breezy dismissal of these axioms as true requires explanation not just to me (if you wished to convince me of their truth), but it requires critical thought subjectively on your part; so unless there is something huge that I am missing, then do not even attempt to convince me that there is a completely elusive, undetectable creator that only reveals himself to his believer through completely subjective means.

In other words, concerning all your axioms, would you like to tell me how you know these things, or am I just completely incapable of understanding?

Just to eliminate curiosity, which religious philosophy or religion do you associate yourself with, if any?

EDIT: Also, do you have any instructions on how exactly to become "qualified"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jilvin

Keep in mind, NikolaiI, that not all of my message (the part concerning my criterion for my conversion to theism, for example) is addressing you individually. I fully acknowledge that you were never trying to convert me (and apparently not trying to pose any cogent argument for theism at all)

My main assertions are addressed to the creator of this topic. (The dialogue made above is so bad, that it could easily be mistaken for a parody.) I should have added a note because, (due to my faults and forgetfullness) it does appear that the entire message is directed at you);and from fifth paragraph onward my message is addressed to a more general group (that is, anybody who may stumble upon this topic with interest)

I have little much else to quarrel with you about, since your arguments for existence are sketchy and completely subjective, and it seems you are one to use the argument of "oh, well, I just sort of believe in it, and there isn't anything you can do about it" sort of person. As well as utilizing the elimination for any concrete actions that this God might partake in.

You seem like a pretty resigned person as far as the position of others goes, but I do have to observe that you make a few powerful suppositions regarding the nature of God. Assertions such as: I am not worthy of demanding God's appearence, even if it is to the entire rest of the world; you have to be qualified to reach God; your intelligence tells you there is an Infinite; you exist because of the Lord; God is the source of all reality; moving away from God means moving away from existence;

So if you will forgive me (since you seem very reluctant to argue or offend) for observing that your breezy dismissal of these axioms as true requires explanation not just to me (if you wished to convince me of their truth), but it requires critical thought subjectively on your part; so unless there is something huge that I am missing, then do not even attempt to convince me that there is a completely elusive, undetectable creator that only reveals himself to his believer through completely subjective means.

In other words, concerning all your axioms, would you like to tell me how you know these things, or am I just completely incapable of understanding?

Just to eliminate curiosity, which religious philosophy or religion do you associate yourself with, if any?

EDIT: Also, do you have any instructions on how exactly to become "qualified"?

---

Sure, I will answer you plainly, even if you seem to be a bit set against me already. At least I should thank you for responding.

I don't know why you would call me "resigned," I wouldn't call you anything like that I have only read 2-3 posts of yours.

I don't advocate thoughtlessness at all, nor "shutting down the mind," or anything like that. I am simply trying to encourage awareness that reality might have a source, and that that source is non-dual. Then that believing in that source is not some kind of coping mechanism, is not some kind of unintelligent, foolish- or worse- idea. That I fully believe in God as the creator, and for most of my life was completely convinced of the "if it's physical, then only will I accept anything about it" mentality.

We must think critically becuase there are so many people in this world who wish to cheat us, wish to use us for money, and so on, that without critical thinking we wouldn't have any idea for ourselves about them. I advocate being skeptical, stepping away from the forward momentum. I just disagree at what that momentum is. I believe it is a downward trend into forgetfulness, loss of position, and suffiering.

I don't wish to you to accept any axioms. My basic explanation of events would be that "I am a fininte within an infinite." I guess you consider that vague. For me it is the best simplification. It's mathematical and I don't actually see things in that language, but that's what I think really is. I think the truth of us, of all of us, is some cosmic, simple statement, that; "the living entities don't realize they are all part of a whole."

For me this idea that we are all part of a whole comes as a certain religious idea, that God is the Complete Whole, the Supersoul, and the absolute controlers. Living entities are the infinitesimal parts and parcels of God. We are like God qualitatively, but quantitatively we are much smaller. I think God actually has nothing to do, that all is being carried out automatically by his different energies. But yet God has certain activities, which if He didn't do would throw the whole universe into chaos- simply because everything follows what God does. I believe God lived on Earth, and I do not believe He is an incomplete personality. I believe there are those that know God, and that we ourselves can know God. There are many written accounts by and about preivous personalities. I find great importance in these.

This is what I believe, and I believe this because it comes through a different system of knowledge, which descends along a disciplic succession. So knowledge descends to us from higher authority, as opposed to us creating it from the bottom up.

You say what I say is sketchy and vague, but I don't feel it is so at all. But then I am the one who said it, so it makes sense to me.

I picked up an Ayn Rand book again today and read something like "Mystics, whose qualification was unintelligibility," and I lost some respect for Rand. I glanced through a little bit of it now, again, and realized there wasnt't anything that great about it.

I don't mean to be subjective. We as individuals know what we think is true; think is objective. But then we can have experiences in which this is challenged, when a new feeling comes along which we cannot deny is true; even if it invalidates previous conclusions. This is what revelation is; and this is part of why knowledge is held back from what it could potentially be. New information is rejected, and this simply causes the current view to become farther from reality; no matter what the view or what the information. This occurs because if we were right to begin with; if we did not need to change our view for it to be accurate; then the change will come in the future, and we will only have hardened our belief.

Lowering the restrictions of objective thought must be implemented if only a little. This is not to say that any and all subjectivity lead one toward truth, but that without any subjectivity one cannot progress at all. All one can do is be always learning, and if one stops learning, then one will never come closer to truth. It's not a question of rigidly not being subjective at all. It's rather a mix of subjective and objective. Some subjective must come in, because there must be some trust between sources for anything to be learned. We must accept some authority.


I realize I did not answer all of your questions fully. Please know I would, except that unfortunately I found I'd written a couple of paragraphs, and if I had gone back to your questions again it would have made the whole reply a longer. I don't wish for you to leave here thinking I'm simply a vague, shallow person. I have many objective thoughts about all of your points, and I will share them eventually.

Quote:

---

The link between man & god is FAITH

---

Well, and what is the link between woman & god?:p:)

I can't answer to the first question as I am not a man,

I don't have a definitive answer to the second one as if I look to the men spirit
on one side or the other side of the opinion I think they both are wright and wrong in the same time, each one describe an aspect of the truth.
Our (womens) education is done by a transmission of spoken&writing thoughts of men, mainly, it is a reality and my feelings have nothing to do with that as the past is the past, you can't change it and the present is not different than the past in his main aspects.

With all that is hard to find a feminine thought about the question,a slightly light about what wasn't yet express from centurys.

Well, a link, as I can understand the significance of the word, the very direct and non figuratif, exist only between two entities,
if one of them don't exist there are no link.

What I know for sure is that the age of univers we are not able to understand it, even scientists, they do have some ideas and certainly numbers but have no experience(not only lack of real experience) at all, no intelectual experience who can make them even slightly understand what is the significance of an infinit univers and energy (you will can say, people say, the univers is not infinite, comparing to what we know just right now we can simply say, we are even a dust comparing to the univers and who cares if the dust dissapear? the one who exist, and the one who exist give it a name for you or you give it a name for him? and which name will exist longer.)

I read all my life and I did find so much wisdom in all those books but this is an human wisdom which is nothing comparing to what exist before and after us.

We realy exist only in the amount that we are able to feet to the reality, what ever you call it.
Why words are so impotant to us? is what link us to the reality in a deep understanding, the man &woman can be wise, as much as possible can they be, still, they are just dust, and water.

I would like to know what conclusion you can have from my words:
I belive or not in God ? what do you think?:)

Faith is a bridge or map to God from the mundane.

I do not completely concur with this statement "The link between man and god is faith." If the statement is reconstructed as "The MAIN link" then I would support. The idea is that faith is not the only link between man and god. Jesus Himself can also be the link between man and God as God said Jesus is the gift He sends to allow us mankind be with God. It is following His commands and keeping away from evil that is also the link between man and god. Faith is the beginning of the formation of a link between us and God.

To be just obsessed with Jesus and to take him as the only God is to think that this earth is the center of the universe. This is an immature idea and one should read other scriptures dispassionately.

For the atheists, that is a not a wrong view as they do not believe in one true God.
However for Christians as we believe in one God and one God only, we do not need to gain knowledge of other religions.

Blaze you are so self-contradictory! If God is a sheer nothing then He is less than mundane existence! :)
But you should not deride Christ in the least. Christ was a perfect disciple of God, and he preached God-consciousness. He was faultless as a spiritual master, and freely distributed knowledge about God and love of God. My main point is that since Christ was completely faultless, you should never speak wrongly of him in the least; on the contrary, he should be recognized as a perfect spiritual master.

It should be understood that the spiritual master is both one and many. God appears through the spiritual master, just as he also appears in the devotee. It must be remembered that Christ said, "the Kingdom of God is within you."

So true. And it is interesting to think about why some people deprave Jesus when He was truly perfect as a man in every way. Being against Jesus Christ makes one instantly wrong and evil.

Jesus is indeed an epitome of love and humanity but Christianity goes against what Jesus fought for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

Jesus is indeed an epitome of love and humanity but Christianity goes against what Jesus fought for.

---

Care to elaborate?

Ironically, the professor has felt, smelt, touched, and sensed his own brain, making this flawed rubbish. Either way though, this thread is pointless, as it doesn't touch on any religious text, making it out of place on this forum.

If God is accounted, then religion is involved, therefore it is relevant to this thread so why do you think this thread is pointless?

Faith often distances man from God. For faiths create creeds and that furthers divisions.

Faith often distances man from God. For faiths create creeds and that furthers divisions.

I've seen that little story in the original post before. I actually wrote a parody of that flawed, illogical rubbish, but alas it has long since been deleted from my computer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

Faith often distances man from God. For faiths create creeds and that furthers divisions.

---

Sometimes. But no divisions exist in God.

Faith is an unsubstantiated subject, and something you can not back up through logical propositions, but yet it has never been reduced to the extent and degree even after centuries. We are as much faith holders as we were centuries ago, and even through scientific discoveries, ideas we still stick to it.
For it is the bridge that connects earth with heaven, the known with the unknown