[Slick]

It is not a logical fallacy, as the context of the statement makes clear. To spell it out, if you believe, without proof, then you can see "proof" (I should have put quotes) anywhere. If you don't believe, then you will never have "proof" (which of course you cannot have.

I was assuming that the quotes around the second "proof" were not necessary, being readily understood by the context.

[tim politicus]

Perhaps belief is required to function in any endeavor? And the question is just whether we believe with proof or without, with reason or without.

As a believer in God, I never have been aware of believing without reason. Is proof and reason the same? Or different?

[tortoise]

It is not a logical fallacy, as the context of the statement makes clear. To spell it out, if you believe, without proof, then you can see "proof" (I should have put quotes) anywhere. If you don't believe, then you will never have "proof" (which of course you cannot have.

Yeah, the quotes would have helped. The "faith first" argument is a convoluted form of broken deduction. It kind of breaks down like this:

1.) Acknowledge there is no proof God exists. (a premise)
2.) Hypothesize (i.e. "have faith") that God exists, and it will be obvious that the universe is God's work. (Broken deduction = logical fallacy).
3.) Because it is obvious that the universe is God's work, God must exist. (Affirming the consequent and begging the question = logical fallacy).

I can see how you may not have meant it literally like this (though I read it that way), but I've seen this argument many times over. I've seen arguments over all sorts of topics constructed this way, not just this one, and it drives me nuts to see people do it over and over again. Cheers!