>>623573
Every argument has a set of premises, and logical steps leading to the conclusion.
The premises are:
>1. Proof denies faith
>2. Without faith God is nothing.
The steps are:
>1. God is proven to have existed
>2. Therefore there is proof of God
>3. Therefore there is no faith in God, following from premise 1.
>4. Therefore God does not exist, following from premise 2.
There are multiple problems with this argument. Premise 1 is questionable, but arguing against it is not useful due to its subjective nature. Premise 2 is outright wrong- God exists independently of us as he is, has been, and always will be. To say that the existence of God is predicated on whether a virtue is present or not is horrible reasoning and has no backing in scripture.
Finally, steps 3 and 4 are contradictory. At best you could say that it would lead to the existence of God being logically undecidable, but this is relevant ONLY if the premises are correct, which they are not.