I will not prove God exists

[fizixgeek]

Moderator Comment

fizixgeek,

I tend to agree that you need to provide some explanation of an "alternate method" along your line of thought.  Those responding to you have little to go on if you cannot provide some base line to think from.

Jetson

Provided oodles of text in this post. It tends to get buried underneath all the comments, but it's there.

[fizixgeek]

But, no one can show it to you. It's not that kind of epistemology.

This is a massive logical contradiction; its a means of knowing, that no one can show to you, that you can't convey to be known, and I can't know it unless I know it.  You've gone full circle in your insanity.

I'd like some support for this statement (fizixgeek's totally absurd postulate of internet omniscience):

Something that cannot be demonstrated to Omen on a public internet forum is not true.

[Omen]

Something that cannot be demonstrated to Omen on a public internet forum is not true.

Nice, we've moved on to personal attacks in place of arguing using logic.

[Omen]

Provided oodles ..

It was torn to shreds, you pretty much ignored all the criticisms by insisting you're not here to 'prove god', albeit very few of the criticisms have anything to do with proving god.  It is entirely unknown to anyone why you think that that is a rebuttal in any significant way.

[Omen]

I'd like some support for this statement

This is a massive logical contradiction; its a means of knowing, that no one can show to you, that you can't convey to be known, and I can't know it unless I know it.  You've gone full circle in your insanity.

The statement is a summary of your arguments simplified to their basic fallacies, in this case you're asserting that there is a way of knowing that can't be known through any other means then knowing it.  Its circular, its pleading, and you're using it dismiss people who don't believe your assertion at face value.  You do not address counter arguments, you offer no supportive arguments for your own assertions, can't be bothered to even clarify your claims to be coherent, and dismiss everyone as absolutely wrong and yourself right before you even begin.

[fizixgeek]

I think Ambassador Pony rephrased what I'm saying very well on another thread:

I noticed in another thread that you are interested in demonstrating the internal consistency of your belief system, axioms granted. And, that you have a "just try it out" offer.

That's exactly what I'm saying. You have to do the experiment yourself. There's no other way to know.

[Omen]

That's exactly what I'm saying.

None of your claims are consistent much less coherent, plus you refuse to address the logical contradictions pointed out to you.  There is nothing to test, no where to begin, no predictions to be made, and absolutely nothing to do with taking a testable hypothesis and arriving to an outcome.

You have to do the experiment yourself. There's no other way to know.

I can't, your qualifications for knowledge remove any possibility to know anything.

Like you said:

But, no one can show it to you. It's not that kind of epistemology.

Then it is conclusively not objective, not testable, and by definition not knowable.  Its not that 'kind' of epstemology, removes any semblance of 'knowing' that isn't interchangeable with make believe.  If I can't differentiate your claims from make believe, then I can't possibly know anything.

What you're doing is hiding your religious beliefs behind a facade of sophistry and obfuscation, trying to weasel out of the burden of proof for positive assertions and claims.  in order to do this, you've just plainly ignored people or repeated your initial claims to the criticism leveled at your claims.. as if idiotically.. repeating your claims somehow answers the logical contradictions there in.

[Omen]

Another tactic you're using repeatedly are red herrings; you change the subject with each new post, pushing the discussion farther and farther away from the original criticism.  There have been half a dozen posts since the one I posted, you've managed to ignore what was stated, change the subject entirely to about AP, and play a game of denial.

Do you think that your behavior can't be observed and identified?  Do you think you're actually actively fooling anyone?

[fizixgeek]

That's exactly what I'm saying.

None of your claims are consistent much less coherent, plus you refuse to address the logical contradictions pointed out to you.  There is nothing to test, no where to begin, no predictions to be made, and absolutely nothing to do with taking a testable hypothesis and arriving to an outcome.

You have to do the experiment yourself. There's no other way to know.

I can't, your qualifications for knowledge remove any possibility to know anything.

Like you said:

But, no one can show it to you. It's not that kind of epistemology.

Then it is conclusively not objective, not testable, and by definition not knowable.  Its not that 'kind' of epstemology, removes any semblance of 'knowing' that isn't interchangeable with make believe.  If I can't differentiate your claims from make believe, then I can't possibly know anything.

What you're doing is hiding your religious beliefs behind a facade of sophistry and obfuscation, trying to weasel out of the burden of proof for positive assertions and claims.  in order to do this, you've just plainly ignored people or repeated your initial claims to the criticism leveled at your claims.. as if idiotically.. repeating your claims somehow answers the logical contradictions there in.

It's not objective, but definitely testable.

[Ambassador Pony]

What are the success criteria?

[fishjie]

But can we agree that a system where God exists and you can't see God is self-consistent?

Depends how you define God.    The "god" that deists and agnostics believe in, sure.

The God of the Bible that revealed himself by directly talking to prophets via burning bushes, floods, plagues, rising from the dead, raising others from the dead, and other such miracles and displays of power?   No way.    And I'm assuming that's who you are referring to.

[Omen]

It's not objective, but definitely testable.

There would be no method of drawing conclusions from the test, because the results could never be understood to be independent of subjective experience.

By definition, you contradicted yourself... again.  It has to be objective in order to be testable, otherwise there is no method of knowing to differentiate it from make believe.  Like I said before.. and you ignored over and over and over.

YOU are the one claiming a method of knowing, can you demonstrate it: Yes or No?

[fizixgeek]

It's not objective, but definitely testable.

There would be no method of drawing conclusions from the test, because the results could never be understood to be independent of subjective experience.

By definition, you contradicted yourself... again.  It has to be objective in order to be testable, otherwise there is no method of knowing to differentiate it from make believe.  Like I said before.. and you ignored over and over and over.

YOU are the one claiming a method of knowing, can you demonstrate it: Yes or No?

No.

[Omen]

No.

If it were testable, meaning that it would by definition require the ability to separate the results from a subjective experience, then you would be able to demonstrate it.  You then cannot claim it to be testable, there is no logical criteria for which to test for and your conclusions require that someone 'know the truth' before they attempt to 'test' it.  Hence, you've gone full circle from babbling non-sequiturs to claiming to know something one cannot feasibly know without knowing it to begin with, then dishonestly dismissed anyone who rejects your sophistry for what it is.

Why would you do this sir and expect to be taken seriously at all?

How could you hope to convey anything at all with this kind of poorly made obfuscation?

[jetson]

Moderator Comment

fizixgeek,

I tend to agree that you need to provide some explanation of an "alternate method" along your line of thought.  Those responding to you have little to go on if you cannot provide some base line to think from.

Jetson

Provided oodles of text in this post. It tends to get buried underneath all the comments, but it's there.

Yeah, I read that, and I'm not seeing it.  I'm willing to admit that I'm not smart enough to see it, but I wonder if you are also willing to admit that you may have fallen short in your presentation?

[fizixgeek]

What are the success criteria?

You'll begin to feel more of what believers call the fruits of the Spirit. You'll be naturally more loving, more patient, more self-assured, happier. It'll get easier to be the person you want to be. You'll start to enjoy the scriptures, even to draw strength from them. It'll be easier to forgive those who've hurt you, not because you find an appropriate excuse for them, but because you wish to be forgiven by God and want to allow others the same release.

[Omen]

You'll begin..

Why do higher rates of religious belief correlate with lower education standards, higher rates of violent crime, higher rates of spousal abuse, higher rates of rape, higher rates of abortion, greater teen pregnancy, higher rates of STDS, and other kinds of negative societal ills amongst every secular democracy in existence?

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

"Conclusion

[20] The United States’ deep social problems are all the more disturbing because the nation enjoys exceptional per capita wealth among the major western nations (Barro and McCleary; Kasman; PEW; UN Development Programme, 2000, 2004). Spending on health care is much higher as a portion of the GDP and per capita, by a factor of a third to two or more, than in any other developed democracy (UN Development Programme, 2000, 2004). The U.S. is therefore the least efficient western nation in terms of converting wealth into cultural and physical health. Understanding the reasons for this failure is urgent, and doing so requires considering the degree to which cause versus effect is responsible for the observed correlations between social conditions and religiosity versus secularism. It is therefore hoped that this initial look at a subject of pressing importance will inspire more extensive research on the subject. Pressing questions include the reasons, whether theistic or non-theistic, that the exceptionally wealthy U.S. is so inefficient that it is experiencing a much higher degree of societal distress than are less religious, less wealthy prosperous democracies. Conversely, how do the latter achieve superior societal health while having little in the way of the religious values or institutions? There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms (Aral and Holmes; Beeghley, Doyle, 2002). It is the responsibility of the research community to address controversial issues and provide the information that the citizens of democracies need to chart their future courses."

[HAL]

You'll start to enjoy the scriptures, even to draw strength from them.

That's funny. If you talk to a Muslim they would tell you the same things about their scriptures in the Koran. How could that be when, if your holy book is the true word of god?

[EV]

I can sense that none of this is going anywhere as everyone is at each others throats...

Fiz,
Why did Joseph Smith read the Book of Mormon out of a hat, and then when asked to do it again (after having 116 pages of the previously dictated pages hidden) couldn't do it and claimed God was angry so it'd be the same basic story but told differently?


And did you know that Joseph Smith died not as a martyr, but in a gun battle in which he fired a number of shots. He was in jail at the time, under arrest for having ordered the destruction of a Nauvoo newspaper which dared to print an exposure (which was true) of his secret sexual liaisons. At that time he had announced his candidacy for the presidency of the United States, set up a secret government, and secretly had himself crowned "King of the Kingdom of God."


Also in your holy book and taught as part of your faith:

-God was once a man like us.
-God has a tangible body of flesh and bone.
-God lives on a planet near the star Kolob.
-God ("Heavenly Father") has at least one wife, our "Mother in Heaven," but she is so holy that we are not to discuss her nor -pray to her.
-Jesus was married.
-We can become like God and rule over our own universe.
-There are many gods, ruling over their own worlds.
-Jesus and Satan ("Lucifer") are brothers, and they are our brothers - we are all spirit children of Heavenly Father
-Jesus Christ was conceived by God the Father by having sex with Mary, who was temporarily his wife.
-We should not pray to Jesus, nor try to feel a personal relationship with him.
-The "Lord" ("Jehovah") in the Old Testament is the being named Jesus in the New Testament, but different from "God the Father" ("Elohim").
-In the highest degree of the celestial kingdom some men will have more than one wife.
-Before coming to this earth we lived as spirits in a "pre-existence", during which we were tested; our position in this life (whether born to Mormons or savages, or in America or Africa) is our reward or punishment for our obedience in that life.
-Dark skin is a curse from God, the result of our sin, or the sin of our ancestors. If sufficiently righteous, a dark-skinned person will become light-skinned.
-The Garden of Eden was in Missouri. All humanity before the Great Flood lived in the western hemisphere. The Ark transported Noah and the other survivors to the eastern hemisphere.
-Not only will human beings be resurrected to eternal life, but also all animals - everything that has ever lived on earth - will be resurrected and dwell in heaven.
-Christ will not return to earth in any year that has seen a rainbow.
-Mormons should avoid traveling on water, since Satan rules the waters.
-The sun receives its light from the star Kolob.
-If a Gentile becomes Mormon, the Holy Ghost actually purges his Gentile blood and replaces it with Israelite blood.
-A righteous Mormon will actually see the face of God in the Mormon temple.
-You can identify a false angel by the color of his hair, or by offering to shake his hand.[1]

What do you think of that? These are all doctrines of your faith, revealed as you have been brainwashed after years. New converts are never told these because they sound ridiculous and would dissuade them from converting.

How on earth are any of these premises more true than Scientology, Catholicism, Islam, Baha'i etc...

Honestly.
 

1.	http://www.exmormon.org/tract2.htm#UNUSUAL

[Truth OT]

There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms (Aral and Holmes; Beeghley, Doyle, 2002).

This evidence is perhaps, PURELY CIRCUMSTANTIAL in nature. How about focusing on the fact that there is a socio-economic status gap when comparing silicon valley to the south and mid west? In addition, when one considers that the religion in question speaks against sex outside of marriage, begrudges rage and violent crimes, as well as proclaiming divorce as something that is hated by its God; is it even logical to propose that those who are a part of a religion that has such stances would be more likely to be involved in the things mentioned above?
Bottom line is that the study uses the same type of flawed reasoning that is employed when people say all Americans are Christians because America is a christian country. Such reasoning doesn't account for the idea that those who practice the deviant behavior very likely are not "practioners" of the religion in question.

[12 Monkeys]

That's exactly what I'm saying.

None of your claims are consistent much less coherent, plus you refuse to address the logical contradictions pointed out to you.  There is nothing to test, no where to begin, no predictions to be made, and absolutely nothing to do with taking a testable hypothesis and arriving to an outcome.

You have to do the experiment yourself. There's no other way to know.

I can't, your qualifications for knowledge remove any possibility to know anything.

Like you said:

But, no one can show it to you. It's not that kind of epistemology.

Then it is conclusively not objective, not testable, and by definition not knowable.  Its not that 'kind' of epstemology, removes any semblance of 'knowing' that isn't interchangeable with make believe.  If I can't differentiate your claims from make believe, then I can't possibly know anything.

What you're doing is hiding your religious beliefs behind a facade of sophistry and obfuscation, trying to weasel out of the burden of proof for positive assertions and claims.  in order to do this, you've just plainly ignored people or repeated your initial claims to the criticism leveled at your claims.. as if idiotically.. repeating your claims somehow answers the logical contradictions there in.

It's not objective, but definitely testable.

So it works on ALL gods to prove they are real or just yours?

[12 Monkeys]

There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms (Aral and Holmes; Beeghley, Doyle, 2002).

This evidence is perhaps, PURELY CIRCUMSTANTIAL in nature. How about focusing on the fact that there is a socio-economic status gap when comparing silicon valley to the south and mid west? In addition, when one considers that the religion in question speaks against sex outside of marriage, begrudges rage and violent crimes, as well as proclaiming divorce as something that is hated by its God; is it even logical to propose that those who are a part of a religion that has such stances would be more likely to be involved in the things mentioned above?
Bottom line is that the study uses the same type of flawed reasoning that is employed when people say all Americans are Christians because America is a christian country. Such reasoning doesn't account for the idea that those who practice the deviant behavior very likely are not "practioners" of the religion in question.

What exactly do you mean with your last sentence of your statement? You mean like child molesting priests are not "practioners" of the religion in question? Religous wife beaters? The women who says God told her to drown her kids? This is not an attack I just want to know what your thinking is.

[Ambassador Pony]

What are the success criteria?

You'll begin to feel more of what believers call the fruits of the Spirit. You'll be naturally more loving, more patient, more self-assured, happier. It'll get easier to be the person you want to be. You'll start to enjoy the scriptures, even to draw strength from them. It'll be easier to forgive those who've hurt you, not because you find an appropriate excuse for them, but because you wish to be forgiven by God and want to allow others the same release.

These all seem, theoretically, at least, like measurable effects. That would allow one to scrutinize a sample population to determine the efficacity of the treatment along those spectra (happiness, forgiving behaviour, enjoyment of scripture...etc). A simple Likert scale would do the trick to get the ball rolling.

Are there any other effects?

Edit: Have you watched the JugofMilk video from WWGHA? A JOM type treatment would make a nice placebo group. Compare mormon-style treatment, JOM-type treatment, and no treatment.

Edit edit: Chinese traditional / folk religious treatment! It dates well.
 

[jetson]

There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms (Aral and Holmes; Beeghley, Doyle, 2002).

This evidence is perhaps, PURELY CIRCUMSTANTIAL in nature. How about focusing on the fact that there is a socio-economic status gap when comparing silicon valley to the south and mid west? In addition, when one considers that the religion in question speaks against sex outside of marriage, begrudges rage and violent crimes, as well as proclaiming divorce as something that is hated by its God; is it even logical to propose that those who are a part of a religion that has such stances would be more likely to be involved in the things mentioned above?
Bottom line is that the study uses the same type of flawed reasoning that is employed when people say all Americans are Christians because America is a christian country. Such reasoning doesn't account for the idea that those who practice the deviant behavior very likely are not "practioners" of the religion in question.

Correlation does not mean causation, but for you to simply claim that those who fit the correlation are not practitioners is worse than simply acknowledging the data.

[fizixgeek]

You'll begin..

Why do higher rates of religious belief correlate with lower education standards, higher rates of violent crime, higher rates of spousal abuse, higher rates of rape, higher rates of abortion, greater teen pregnancy, higher rates of STDS, and other kinds of negative societal ills amongst every secular democracy in existence?

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

"Conclusion

[20] The United States’ deep social problems are all the more disturbing because the nation enjoys exceptional per capita wealth among the major western nations (Barro and McCleary; Kasman; PEW; UN Development Programme, 2000, 2004). Spending on health care is much higher as a portion of the GDP and per capita, by a factor of a third to two or more, than in any other developed democracy (UN Development Programme, 2000, 2004). The U.S. is therefore the least efficient western nation in terms of converting wealth into cultural and physical health. Understanding the reasons for this failure is urgent, and doing so requires considering the degree to which cause versus effect is responsible for the observed correlations between social conditions and religiosity versus secularism. It is therefore hoped that this initial look at a subject of pressing importance will inspire more extensive research on the subject. Pressing questions include the reasons, whether theistic or non-theistic, that the exceptionally wealthy U.S. is so inefficient that it is experiencing a much higher degree of societal distress than are less religious, less wealthy prosperous democracies. Conversely, how do the latter achieve superior societal health while having little in the way of the religious values or institutions? There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms (Aral and Holmes; Beeghley, Doyle, 2002). It is the responsibility of the research community to address controversial issues and provide the information that the citizens of democracies need to chart their future courses."

You're a better sociologist than that, aren't you? You of course know such a study would have to be carefully corrected for socio-economic class, education level, etc. No one ever claimed religion would make you better than someone else, just better than you are now.

[fizixgeek]

I can sense that none of this is going anywhere as everyone is at each others throats...

Fiz,
Why did Joseph Smith read the Book of Mormon out of a hat, and then when asked to do it again (after having 116 pages of the previously dictated pages hidden) couldn't do it and claimed God was angry so it'd be the same basic story but told differently?


And did you know that Joseph Smith died not as a martyr, but in a gun battle in which he fired a number of shots. He was in jail at the time, under arrest for having ordered the destruction of a Nauvoo newspaper which dared to print an exposure (which was true) of his secret sexual liaisons. At that time he had announced his candidacy for the presidency of the United States, set up a secret government, and secretly had himself crowned "King of the Kingdom of God."


Also in your holy book and taught as part of your faith:

-God was once a man like us.
-God has a tangible body of flesh and bone.
-God lives on a planet near the star Kolob.
-God ("Heavenly Father") has at least one wife, our "Mother in Heaven," but she is so holy that we are not to discuss her nor -pray to her.
-Jesus was married.
-We can become like God and rule over our own universe.
-There are many gods, ruling over their own worlds.
-Jesus and Satan ("Lucifer") are brothers, and they are our brothers - we are all spirit children of Heavenly Father
-Jesus Christ was conceived by God the Father by having sex with Mary, who was temporarily his wife.
-We should not pray to Jesus, nor try to feel a personal relationship with him.
-The "Lord" ("Jehovah") in the Old Testament is the being named Jesus in the New Testament, but different from "God the Father" ("Elohim").
-In the highest degree of the celestial kingdom some men will have more than one wife.
-Before coming to this earth we lived as spirits in a "pre-existence", during which we were tested; our position in this life (whether born to Mormons or savages, or in America or Africa) is our reward or punishment for our obedience in that life.
-Dark skin is a curse from God, the result of our sin, or the sin of our ancestors. If sufficiently righteous, a dark-skinned person will become light-skinned.
-The Garden of Eden was in Missouri. All humanity before the Great Flood lived in the western hemisphere. The Ark transported Noah and the other survivors to the eastern hemisphere.
-Not only will human beings be resurrected to eternal life, but also all animals - everything that has ever lived on earth - will be resurrected and dwell in heaven.
-Christ will not return to earth in any year that has seen a rainbow.
-Mormons should avoid traveling on water, since Satan rules the waters.
-The sun receives its light from the star Kolob.
-If a Gentile becomes Mormon, the Holy Ghost actually purges his Gentile blood and replaces it with Israelite blood.
-A righteous Mormon will actually see the face of God in the Mormon temple.
-You can identify a false angel by the color of his hair, or by offering to shake his hand.[1]

What do you think of that? These are all doctrines of your faith, revealed as you have been brainwashed after years. New converts are never told these because they sound ridiculous and would dissuade them from converting.

How on earth are any of these premises more true than Scientology, Catholicism, Islam, Baha'i etc...

Honestly.

1.	http://www.exmormon.org/tract2.htm#UNUSUAL

Thanks for the summary. Some of these are true, most are invented. In the interest of time and staying on topic, I'll not go into these here. More on Mormon beliefs can be found at www.whatdomormonsbelieve.com and www.mormon.org.

[Graybeard]

This would undeniably be special pleading if I were trying to prove God exists, which I am not. My post can be thought of as a constructive proof of the statement "There exists a self-consistent concept of God which allows for

1. The existence of God
2. The absence of evidence for God's existence"

As such, I will not attempt to prove that this concept is true, just that it's consistent.

I don’t want you to be disappointed, but there is little requirement for the proof of a concept of an imaginary being. I’m sure that most people have a concept of unicorns, pixies and dragons. We know that these are distinct concepts as they can distinguish one from another.

I will challenge you to show to me that unicorns, pixies and dragons, as a concept, do not exist. If you wish, 

I will show "There exists a self-consistent concept of unicorns, pixies or dragons which allows for

1. The existence of unicorns, pixies or dragons
2. The absence of evidence for unicorns’, pixies’ and dragons' existence."

[voodoo child]

 No one ever claimed religion would make you better than someone else, just better than you are now.

facepalm.

[screwtape]

Hi fiz

It begins with an understanding of faith.

Faith is something I have spent a lot of time thinking about.  I thought about it when I was a believer, but I probably thought about it more since I lost my god beliefs. Faith is a slippery word and has several semi-related meanings that slippery theists will shift between without warning and at their convenience. 

In the Bible, faith is described as “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

What, in your own words, does that mean?  Be clear and specific.  Try to avoid mystical sounding poetry like that bible quote.  To me, it means nothing.  Gobbledeegook.

It’s easy to see that, if God were visibly present in your life, you could not have faith in Him.

nope.  My wife is present in my life.  I have faith in her.  That is to say, I trust she will not only not hurt me, but she will strive to be of benefit to me.  I trust she is my partner. 

I also am faithful to her.  See how the meaning changed slightly?  That can be taken to mean she can trust me in the same way I trust her.  But it also means, I am loyal.  And this faith - mine in her and to her - is based not on "evidence of things not seen" but on observed behavioral patterns.  I have faith in her because she has never screwed me over.  At least, not on purpose.   I have faith in her because she does nice things for me and expresses kindness and love.  Without this history together, I could not have the faith in her and to her that I do.

That is not to say you wouldn’t need faith in Him.

There is a big difference in having faith in god and having faith that god exists.  I have heard other religious people explain faith that way - faith in god, rather than faith that he exists.  But that is putting the cart before the horse, no?  Have faith in god?  What god?

I mean only that it’s impossible to have faith, according to the scriptural definition, in something that is seen.

The scriptural definition is crap, innit?  And I argue the opposite. You can only have faith in things you have observed.  Also, notice that here you have shifted[1] from faith in god to faith that god exists.  And by that you are saying blind faith.  That is, believing in god without evidence. 

So, one reason for God to remain hidden is to enable us to have faith.

Well, if you mean have faith that god exists, then yes.  Blind faith that something exists is only possible when you have absolutely no reason to believe it.  But it is still possible to have faith in a myriad of other things. 

Why do you think blind faith is something a god would want?  Why would it not want us to be supremely reasonable?  Or to be expert jugglers?  Or fast runners?  Why do you think blind faith would be valued by the omnimax god?  That is an extremely important question.

But, faith is a principle of power. Having and exercising faith in things that are not seen empowers us to master ourselves and become more like God.

Malarkey.

The process of hoping and waiting on the Lord in faith strengthens the part of us that has access to spiritual truths.

Dude, I am sorry to be rude, but you are completely talking out your ass here. What part of us is that?  Define "spiritual".  Define "spiritual truths" and give me examples.  I reject the idea that blind faith leads to making anyone better in any way.  I reject the idea that this unexamined version of faith you are trying to foist on us leads to any kind of truth.

One important extension of this is the conclusion that a person is (morally) more than the sum of his or her knowledge.

Again, you are talking out your ass.  How is a person morally summed up?   

Come on, fiz.  You are better than this.

1.	as I predicted