Right now too many people behave like the church of old when it tried to be the sole authority over what we think. What fools these people are to restrict discussions to technological correctness as they know all that is important to know. — Athena

That is more of a discriminatory opinion than an absolute fact. That statement has stereotypical innuendos assuming that every Church in the world is that way.

Yes, granted there are several incidents that church promotes ignorance whether it is through good intentions or maintaining there political agendas.

I believe religion has philosophical truths, if your conscious allows you to dismiss the cultural laws and just focus on its teachings. To me, Philosophy and Religion are twin brothers with identical attributes. They just don’t get along because they seek justification to condemn one another for there convictions.

I guess my argument is we manifest our own reality. Validation is irrelevant it only becomes relevant if the witness choose to believe in the evidence.

If you choose not to believe in the evidence than validation is none existent. For validation to exist the mind must believe to be true.

Maybe Truth is just up to the mind to interpret and whatever you believe is the truth. And that is how reality is perceived.

Is humanity, as a species, capable of selecting competent, moral leadership with the will to move this world forward into an age of sustainable environmental stewardship and peaceful coexistence with each other......or are we totally screwed. — Steve Leard

I lean toward faith and hope. To romanticize a potential for a bright future in the hopes that the next generation are wiser than us.

Which is better then to telling your grandkids “It sucks to be you.”

I hear you but the truth of those statements requires more reason than this for me to accept it. — Tom Storm

How do you recognize reason if ego lies to the mind?

Ego purpose is to create the illusion to preserve emotional health and consciousness.

To recognize truth you must first learn the psychology that drives your mind and why you want to know the truth.

Than discipline the mind to acknowledge the truth, whether it cause distress to the psyche or not.
Because truth will challenge conviction, what we believe becomes our identity and gives us purpose.

So is not just simply reasoning and validating the truth but also prime the mind to accept it when found.

To assume you are ready to accept the truth without mental preparation will just lead you in a never ending cycle.

What about the notion that truth is worth pursuing for its own sake? If you are not a philosophical pragmatist does truth have to have a function? — Tom Storm

You put yourself at risk of Existential OCD if you don’t give it a purpose?

In other words know when enough is enough. Know your limits and acknowledge the end of the journey.

Just remember that most people are trying to form rulesets that can reliably predict the future, or follow some shared understanding, or describe things in accordance with ideas like logic, reason and etc. — Judaka

You also need to acknowledge things change, our environment change and that is why rules change.

I guess to put it simply, don’t get to comfortable things always change and you will need to adapt to the new rule set when it does. This concept always needs to be considered due to the existence of time and the unawareness of instances that cannot be observed.

Predicting things and finding structure is like building a damn and always assuming it will always be there. There will be rainy seasons that will cause a flood breakdown the damn you build.

As for my definition of reality, I am opened minded enough to a say I may be full of it. But that is my way of respecting change and excepting that my ideals and beliefs need to always be expendable. This way I can be receptive to new Truths.

This is my humble philosophy “Pop a beer and enjoy the ride.” If it is great, if not well it was one hell of a ride.

So my question is: Are truths useful? Aren't there falsehoods that are more useful? Is the truths that you pursue(d), if you pursue(d) them, useful? If they aren't useful, do you practice philosophy knowing that finding the truth is useless? Is usefulness the correct criteria to judge if we should pursue truth? — FlaccidDoor

Philosophy can be useful and useless at the same time. It depends on the purpose of Truth. Why you are pursuing it.

If philosophy is to pursue a universal morality that everyone can agree on. Than yes philosophy is useless because a type of universal moral conduct does not exist.

If philosophy is to teach you the basics of moral principles so you can expand on it based on your own personal journey. Than yes it is useful because it teaches you about analytical thinking and awareness about yourself.

Acknowledging philosophy as a way to understand things like a sort of strategy is the best way to see it. Philosophy is not the solution is just one of many possible ways to the solution.

The answer to the question is no. No sensation, no reasoning of any kind is possible. Rocks do not reason. No reasoning no argument for validation is possible. — Athena

This may sound like a ridiculous scenario but bare with me. I understand I am transitioning away from the topic of spirituality to more like science fiction but “When in Rome” right?

I disagree with that statement due to the possibility of telepathic communication and how it may exist now through nature. This presumption was brought on because scientists discovered evidence of its existence through there research.

This discovery or potential of this discovery may change how we perceive reality.

If telepathic communication is possible then sensory input may become obsolete or not necessary to perceive reality.


“Scientists Prove That Telepathic Communication Is Within Reach“

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/scientists-prove-that-telepathic-communication-is-within-reach-180952868/

There are two scenarios here.

Survival of the body or to do to stay physically alive.

Survival of the mind, your conscious is a threat to your mental health. Which can lead to corrupting your logical state. Leading to self mutilation like suicidal tendencies.

Which take precedence, body or mind? What is the solution to preserve both?

What happen to “A cigar is just a cigar”

To ask why to love is to define the purpose of Good and Evil.

Best example is questioning if 1 + 1 truly = 2

It can’t get any more basic than that.

This example is to show our ability to acknowledge the answer to be the end of the journey.

If you can’t acknowledge the end there is no point to question because you’ll find yourself in a infinite loop.

To question is to start a journey of your own.

To answer is to achieve satisfaction and peace within yourself.

Maybe, the answer is to just appreciate Love and let it be.

If you want to be a true intellectual you need to learn to recognize the end of the journey. Be mindful not to create the illusion of answer.

And the other question is, is reality then always private? Does it then exist within only your perception?
So, if you cannot perceive any of them, does it mean that reality does not exist? The good old idealist vs. realist arguments, but I am still struggling to know which one is definitely correct. — Corvus

My teacher once told “The one who seeks knowledge let him find it. If the knowledge they seek is found they will be troubled by what they know.”

That is why I preach about faith and trust. I also discourage the pursuit of control and power. Control and power may lead to self mutilation and mutilation to others.

Questions are infinite and the more you know the more questions will arise. If any speculation ever becomes validated than you will be burden by wonder. Wonder of why and if there is more. Finding yourself in a never ending cycle of questions and answers. This is the trouble he speaks of, the restlessness and the turmoil of thought.

Hell is described as Aporia, the existence of doubt, arrogant thinking and being devoid of compassion, love, mercy and forgiveness.

The only pursuit is peace and joy and the spread of it.

Our purpose is the acts of Compassion, Love, Mercy and Forgiveness.

This how reality is defined.

But I wanted to ask you even before that, what is your definition of reality. Does reality mean the World, the universe, or simply things around you, which is also called as external matters? — Corvus

I doubt my eyes but I see, I doubt my ears but I hear, I doubt touch but I feel, I doubt my nose but I smell, I doubt my mouth but I taste. I only trust what the spirit witness.

What am I?

Answer that question for me and that is my reality.

But it also stands to reason that God would not have allowed innocent creatures to live in ignorance in a dangerous world. Thus, as God exists and there is no doubt we do live in ignorance in a dangerous world, we can conclude that we are not innocent — Bartricks

I think the only danger is the danger of over thinking.

To have knowledge is one thing, to have the maturity to understand it is another.

To obtain knowledge is to be troubled and burdened by the responsibility of this knowledge and to be accountable when used.

If the danger does not involve you don’t worry about it, leave it to God to work on it and trust in him.

If the danger is part of your life, trust that the suffering and pain that may come from it is to prepare you for a journey. From this struggle comes valuable lessons required to complete the purpose that will be assigned to you.

Off topic, I preach of faith as in believing in good. To recognizing that everything is designed perfectly and things are how it supposed to be. The pain and suffering you witness is just work in progress and the results will present itself in the future and it will be good.

My teacher once told me “Pain and suffering of this world is like the pain of child birth. The Mother must go through the contractions to bring forth the miracle of life”

Pain and suffering are the contractions and the Mother is this world.

And the child being born is the miracle of bring heaven on Earth.

And purpose is not discovered but assigned to us by God.

Is like a soldier who is in the reserves, we wait patiently to heed the call of God.

When he calls us out that will be our purpose.

Just understand there is a danger to defining morality on your own conclusions

I understand that it contradicts what I said earlier but you need to acknowledge the dark side of morality.

How ego and arrogance can cloud the mind and spread cruelty and malicious behavior. Believing your actions are righteous but may be motivated by evil intentions.

The mind is not perfect, it is flawed and undisciplined and must be treated as unreliable.

So understand yourself and what motive these codes.

I am a man of faith with no religion but even I respect certain boundaries because I acknowledge my limitations.

If there is a way to know what one should do, why is it still a question? — Mww

The question shouldn’t exist because morality should be inherently there like thinking and breathing. Whether you believe in God or not it should already be known to you.

If you need to ask the definition of morality then you are seeking justification to contradict what you already know is right. Or another possibility, there is a deficiency in the mind which cannot recognize morality in its natural state.

This is where things get confusing. By what definition of morality are you asking about? To justify to do good, to do bad, to be selfish to help humanity?

You need to acknowledge the intention of having morality for morality to have meaning?

Let me ask you this. What is your intentions to have morality? To do good? To do evil? To serve or to self indulge? Is it to justify your actions to be virtuous?

Be true to yourself and admit the purpose. Than that will be your moral code.

If a country is governed wisely,
its inhabitants will be content.
They enjoy the labor of their hands
and don't waste time inventing
labor-saving machines.
Since they dearly love their homes,
they aren't interested in travel.
There may be a few wagons and boats,
but these don't go anywhere.
There may be an arsenal of weapons,
but nobody ever uses them.
People enjoy their food,
take pleasure in being with their families,
spend weekends working in their gardens,
delight in the doings of the neighborhood.
And even though the next country is so close
that people can hear its roosters crowing and its dogs barking,
they are content to die of old age
without ever having gone to see it. — T Clark

I love it, I have no criticism about it. It is sort of romantic in a sense.

What book is that? So I may explore it for myself.

To be able to validate these concepts, you must first define what reality is. Does reality means the World? Or just external matters outside of your perception? Can you ever define what reality and World is? Tell us first what your definition of reality and world is. — Corvus

That is my question I ask to all scholars who acknowledge science as the final truth?

How can you differentiate the reality of the external (World) and the internal (In your mind)? Is science able to discriminate the two? And what evidence must we search for to discriminate the two?

To answer these questions will validate scientific finding without doubt.

It’s a paradox that I struggle with in my mind and why I am on this forum.

As someone who believes in God I can honestly say yes you can justify morality without religion.

But you have to be accountable to your own decisions on what you perceive as morality.

And that is the difference between atheism and religion practitioner.

Those who practice religion don’t want to be accountable and those who don’t believe may perceive that accountability is not present or non existent.

So for morality to work properly you need to be accountable to someone or something.

Here is my assessment while trying to creat my own AI (Artificial Intelligence)

Consciousness is a series of impulses in “pursuit of gratification” and “avoidance of consequence” being the 1 and 0 of programming.

Consciousness purpose is to try to navigate the physical and emotional maze. And how intelligence reasons each action action.

Basic core of human programming is pursue gratification while avoiding moral dilemma.

Do "minds" generate the world around it? — Cobra

That is the question I am curious about too.

Mostly because this question has real life applications. And answering this question can help countless people who struggle with sensory deficiencies and how it effects the psychological aspect of the mind.

But this thought also leads me to ask myself this question does consciousness conform to reality or does reality conform to our consciousness?

And if it is the latter does knowledge have any relevance?

Than I am forced to ask if it is consciousness that creates reality why can’t we manifest what we want? Whatever I choose to believe will become my reality.

Faith, as I understand it, is the acceptance of the testimony of a sacred text or of a religious community.

That is one problem there “as I understand it” meaning is a perspective I cannot validated and you are telling me to trust his testimony of thought which in turn require me to have faith in him and his thought process.

The common characteristic of faith in almost all religious traditions is its irrevocability. A faith which is held tentatively is no true faith.

I disagree, faith can be as basic as just believing that God exist.

In some traditions the irrevocability of faith is reinforced by the imposition of the death penalty for apostasy, which is the abandonment of faith.

That is a paradox since no human has the authority to judge what is the right way or wrong way to practice faith. And by this you break your own laws because by passing judgment on how to practice faith you are claiming you are God. Only the Spirit has authority not man.

Trust and faith are distinct. Trust is earned and warranted. Faith is demanded and conscripted. — Banno

That is not my Faith. My faith is different, is trusting in what you believe. You test your belief through trust. And by this behavior of trust I confirmed the spirit is real.

Example:
If someone claims this medication will heal my illness. You either decide to trust it and take the medication. Note the effects, if the effects observed proves to be positive it is true, if the effects observed proved to be negative or none existent than it is false. If you decide not to trust then you are just left with wonder.

Through my trust in God I confirmed my belief to be true because I observed the effects to be positive. Is up to the audience to believe in the Witness testimony or not. If you don’t believe in the Witness, then believe in the result through the behavior of Trust. Is by this behavior Truth reveals itself or what you call proof.

All awesome replies thank you everyone.

The conscious mind without sense is in reference to the fetus, the unborn child. Whether the senses are dormant, non existent or the child simply forgot what he/she experienced while in the womb. This describes how the conscious mind is clean and pure, protected from the external. My perspective is that experience is just a manipulative factor not the cause of awareness.

The Helen Keller Story is a reference to the struggle on acknowledge reality with limited senses.

These two examples is an attempt to explain Faith and how it is an intricate part in interpreting reality.

Faith define as in behavioral (Two definition: Faith of Spirit and Faith of the Mind)

These example is an attempt to present an idea and how we pursue Truth (Proof). That in our pursuit for Truth, it may or may not be observable due to our own limitations.

Maybe when humanity evolves and acquire new senses it will become observable. Or the Truth may manifest itself in another form to where it can be recognized.

Faith is vital due to the existence of witnesses and testimonies. For example, a blind person asking another person to describe color to him. How do you describe “Red”, “Blue” and “Green” to someone who never experienced sight?

The blind person has a choice to trust in the testimony or not. Whatever he decides will become his reality.

Color being the proof you are seeking

Witness is your fellow peer

Blind person is the person who didn’t witness the proof.

Faith is the choice to “Trust”. Do you trust the Witness testimony or not. Whatever you decide, to believe or not, faith is a constant. Without proof to support your convictions then there is just Faith.

A married man has a wife, she loves him and She loves her. — SteveMinjares

A married man has a wife, she loves him and he loves her**. “Typo correction”

Generally faith is how people explain holding a belief when they don't have good reason for it. In the context of theology it isn't the same thing as love and it needs to be said that you can introduce me to the people you listed above. God, it could be said, remains undetectable, absent - at best the subject of cryptic signs or speculations. Or, in the absence of evidence... faith — Tom Storm

A married man has a wife, she loves him and She loves her.

There is no physical proof that she will stay faithful to him. Just her love which is the testimony of her fidelity. Will she every be with another man? The only thing that is certain is that love is sustaining the faith in there marriage. Is the love for one another that cause them to believe in each other without proof.

If, on inspection, you found that the cup was not in the cupboard where you had left it, you would be entitled to ask why, to make enquiries. You would seek a cause for the anomaly. — Banno

True but I would think the cup is serving a more urgent need greater than my own. And the answer to my question will be answered on its own time. It will come naturally to me and I don’t need to pursue it.

A seperate point: Faith is different to trust. You might arguably simply trust that the cup is there when it can't be seen. Faith, in contrast, is belief despite, or in the face of, the facts. Faith believes this is the blood of Christ, despite the fact that it is wine. Faith would be insisting the cup was absent when all could see it. — Banno

I think that is the problem with faith is a matter of personal interpretation.

My personal definition of faith is having a loving and trusting relationship.

That is why many loose faith because they assume faith is following laws and technicality. Than you have atheist doing rituals who go to Church (but that’s a subject for another time)

Faith to me is described as a type of relationship and I’m not just talking about God. But relationship with people too.

I understand as a Christian I am supposed to talk about God but belief and faith to me are two separate things. That serves different purposes.

That’s why I say...

Faith is having love, trust and confidence in your relationships with...

Family

Wife

Children

Friends

Yourself

God (If you desire to believe)

Is a life style...

Purpose to have faith is to Live, Love, be Happy and Heal broken hearts as you live.

Nothing fancy just keeping it simple.

The question is the mind being able to accept truth or will our ego deny the truth to continue supporting our own convictions.

The problem is not that proof exists. I believe it does exist. Is acknowledging the proof when you encounter it.

Proof is a threat to convictions and the mind is attached to convictions and ideals. Whatever convictions and ideals we uphold in our minds motivates us to move toward whatever goal we have in mind.

The problem is if you find the proof you may encounter a paradox. If that proof contradicts everything you learned and believe.

You find yourself at a crossroad to accept it and re-evaluate your values and morals. Or deny it in the hopes to maintain a resemblance of inner peace.

But if you are lucky the proof will align with your values. Who knows?

So this raise another question do you have the courage and mental discipline to accept the truth and make your ideal and values expendable? Will you be able to Adapt to the new reality?

Isn't this the same question as, "Does the cup cease to exist when put away in the cupboard?"

What's your answer to that? — Banno

From my personal perspective, it’s irrelevant it only becomes relevant to me when it is needed. Knowledge is only relevant if it can be implemented in ones lifetime. To learn and understand something that will never be used is just a waste of time and ones life.

As for the cup scenario I just have faith it will be there. Faith is not just a spiritual concept is also a practical concept.

Like starting a business I think it there for it becomes my reality. If not now it will be later in my future. I think it therefore it is.

Faith is not exclusive to religion. Is a way of thinking and how it explains a trusting relationship with anything in life. From marriage, work, or any kind of relationship in our existence.

Is a form of confidence knowing the cup will be there. Whether it disappears the moment you close the cupboard door than reappears the moment you open it is irrelevant. As long as it is present when needed, ready to serve its purpose.

This thought was inspired to me by The Helen Keller story.

How the human mind interpret reality, and how does the conscious mind adapt to changes like how a blind man adapts to the world..

As for Meaning is pretty arbitrary, in a sense on how you navigate your own existence to bring yourself gratification while doing it in a way that is acceptable by society standards. Which contradicts what I said earlier if there is no sensory input to acknowledge another person, who do you get approval from? If there is no one to be accountable too. Does that undermine morality and how the consciousness pursue personal gratification?

God exist is the disappointment that he does not meet our expectations that disillusioned us and cause us to stray away from faith. And is due to ego and desire for control that warps our perspective.

Counterpunch - science is like a caveman making tools to survive.

That’s no different in the iPhone or Computer. Granted more sophisticated but still fulfilling the same purpose. So really the intention never changes just how we exercise it’s usefulness.

We need to acknowledge that when more sophisticated and complicated technology is introduced it gets the more dangerous. Is more vita than ever to make sure that civilization has the maturity and wisdom to be responsible for it.

Hence why I talk about emotional intelligence and how human being react to new information.

From faith, new knowledge and technology. Point of these example is to highlight the reactions and understanding them. And being aware that how we process and react to new input is a indicator on how mature and discipline we became as a civilized people.

I am not condemning knowledge and /or technology. I am simply asking the question.

Are we as a civilization maturing along with technology or is technology advancing ahead us?

And my belief is for civilization to evolve to the next level we need to be mindful of our emotional intelligence. So that we maintain a balance between our own achievements and ourselves.

And to explain why I say we are delayed. I see we are emphasize to much on our achievements and not enough on emotional intelligence.

It doesn’t do no good to have a car if you don’t know how to drive it or worse get in a accident and killing yourself.

With respect I have to disagree.

Ego to me is a trait used to identify your reality and a way to justify your reactions to your environment.

If someone offends you, your ego will rationalize how to react to that offense. And gives you various choices of action and/or explanation on how to overcome that negative emotion.

That’s where maturity, discipline and wisdom comes in.

Analyze the circumstances as in why the other person offended you and analyze yourself as in why it effects you. In other words how will you negotiate that circumstance.

Will you think of your community and be mindful of your reaction because what you do may cause a ripple effect through out your society.

Or will you be selfish and choose the reaction to preserve your own state.

And...

Power is just an illusion there is only self discipline and balance. Control is a lie we tell ourselves so we don’t fear our own existence and our eventual deaths.

We pursue knowledge in the hopes to control our environment but that is a fools endeavor.

The only true knowledge is the understanding of self and emotional state of self and others.

***Trigger warning going to use my belief as an example.***

God may offend some and it shouldn’t, if you believe great! God bless you brother.

If you don’t believe then there shouldn’t be a reaction. A mature intellect will just see it as a form of expression. And take it as a non threatening manner.

If you find God offensive then there is a underlining issue that maybe causing you emotional distress.

I’m a believer but will play devils advocate for a moment, to make a point.

If you are a true none believer than God should not cause any emotional reaction at all “zero” feelings.

And when I say “Zero” I mean no good or no bad. There should be a sort of nothingness an emptiness in your emotional state when you hear the word.

But if you have a need to be sarcastic, defense, or disrespectful or you feel something when you hear the “Word”

Ask yourself again do you believe? This question goes both ways as feeling blessed or feeling spiteful.

Your emotional state to the question is your acknowledgement of his existence. How you react to his existence it is up to you.

So ask yourself this can you still support your convictions after you acknowledge your emotional state and whatever is motivating them to exist.

And to be mutually respectful I will reciprocate the question to myself as a believer. And in pursuit of learning I asked myself the same question.

But a series of many events that I personally witnessed makes me say he is real.

I often tell myself “I wished I hadn’t met God” not because he is bad, he is a good God. When you witness him you live by knowing not by faith. And all is left is just devotion.

To acknowledge God by knowledge and not by faith is the greatest burden a human being can bare. And to know with no proof to show for, will alienate you by the faithful and and the non believers. You live life as a nomadic person. Find yourself condemn as a blasphemer by the faithful or be labeled as a mad man by the non believers.

You will find yourself not being able to relate to anyone, walking a path, just you and God.

what I am saying morality is not just a higher function of intelligence but also a state of intuition.

And to attempt to label morality to conform to a culture or standard. Can lead to abusing and/or oppressing another society that is different to there own.

Morality is only as good as what society deems it to be.

Reason for that is people believe it's a structure set of rules to follow.

is not, that is why I say it's dynamic.

Morality Is half aesthetic, half external input received and past recollection.

How you receive the external input and how your aesthetic reacts or interpret will compile the moral code.

The moral code will be define by how it makes you feel.

In turn morality is nothing more than a reflection of your true intentions.

Saying morality is a form of higher intelligence is only stating half truth but not the whole.

sense; like humour or aesthetics. It was drilled into the human organism by evolution in the context of the hunter gatherer tribe. — counterpunch

I do agree that morality is a form of aesthetics. But to say it solely comes from evolution just seems to me an incomplete answer.

Is like saying an AI came to be without a Developer.

You need to acknowledge the Developer and the source code to explain where the AI came from not just the programming language.

In other words evolution is the programming language that created us. The next question is who used this language to create the AI? Which is us.

Faith is my way to sum up all the questions and acknowledgments at the same time.

we cannot define something that keeps changing. Trying to reason a universal moral code is impossible. Moral code needs to be perceived as dynamic to have meaning.

And if the intention remain unverified the moral code becomes obscured.

If the father spanks the child, is the culture condoning the act?

What is the reason for the spanking, is it justified or overreacted?

Is the spanking justifiable in the future?

Is impossible to define ever dimensional reason to defend the moral code that is composed?

That is why I say we live with no foundation, everything changes.

And the only foundation I can perceive is Faith.

The point of saying this is to reveal the nature of the question. And the nature of the question is that anyone who asks, doesn't desire truth but conformity.

That is why God never reveal's himself. He knows that human kind intentions are driven by arrogance and only want to defend what they perceive as a foundation.

To see God you have to admit that there is no foundation and everything in existence and the mind is dynamic.

What ever standard that dictates your thought process has to always be dismissed as inferior or obsolete.

Is like saying "Geppetto must remain anonymous so Pinocchio may live." Another dimensional way of thinking.

But understand, I am not here to convert but to introduce another way of thinking. By saying when you dismiss God you make yourself stagnant in how you produce thought and discover truth.

I can write an entire essay about the question on "Is God real?" but to answer that question you have to acknowledge various dimension of the mind and reality. Which can lead to another question "Is human kind cognitively capable to perceive God in his true form?"

Are we just dismissing him because is just a form of convenience because we refuse to acknowledge our own cognitive limitation to witness such a Supreme being?

Saying it didn't come from God is foolish.

Is like asking what came first ”the Chicken or the Egg”?

The question has already been answered, it came from your heart. If you have the need to ask again, then you are struggling with your own doubt.

The Prodigal Son...

The parent can give the child advice on how to live but can’t force it on them. The parent knows better but the child is insistent on there ways.

So the parent allows them to learn on there own. This is the light, that is the way. A parent longing to guide the child but does not dictate them so he is patient and waits for there return.

And when they do a great celebration awaits for you.

The purpose of contradiction and paradox is to reveal the nature of your status quo, to understand that Faith is a motivator to evolve.

And paradox is to show you that you became stagnant in your ways. That if you conform to your own perspective of status quo you can not grow and evolve into God’s image

To add to this, walking by faith is to believe without observing.

To observe is to cater to our arrogance and desires to dictate and control.

God made us already believing in him before you were conceived. So why do you need to witness what you already know.

And to deny him is to admit you want absolute control because you do not trust.