What is Faith?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hear, hear. Happy Hannukah, Kwanza, and Christmas everybody!

It's Festivus Eve and I haven't even bought my aluminum pole yet!

 

[lunamoth]

[/size][/font]
To Lunamoth: this is what mball and I have been trying to say this whole time. This is absolutely the most common thing that we deal with as unbelievers who try to talk about faith: exactly this.

I hear you on this MM, and understand your frustration. However, keep in mind that we don't feel like we believe without evidence. It's just that the evidence is not compelling to you.

Because it is Christmas I would like to put debate about God aside. You've made many great points in this thread and I have enjoyed the exchange. Thank you!

Have a wonderful holiday season! :rudolph::Ball:

luna

 

[Willamena]

I hear you on this MM, and understand your frustration. However, keep in mind that we don't feel like we believe without evidence. It's just that the evidence is not compelling to you.

Proof and evidence are not the same thing, right.

Merry Ho-Ho.

 

[lunamoth]

It's Festivus Eve and I haven't even bought my aluminum pole yet!

Is it time yet for the airing of grievances?

What, no Festivus icon in the smiley list!?!

 

[lunamoth]

Proof and evidence are not the same thing, right.

Merry Ho-Ho.

And a wondrous New Year of health and good cheer!

 

[Magic Man]

So, Luna, do I not get a response to this question?

I'll take that as a "no". Oh well. It sure would have been nice to at least get a response, even if it was just "no".

 

[lunamoth]

I'll take that as a "no". Oh well. It sure would have been nice to at least get a response, even if it was just "no".

Have a happy holiday season, mball!

 

[free spirit]

Yes, so far, so good, although this doesn't answer my question about something illogical and reasonable. This is what I've been saying, though. It's belief without evidence.
And now, this is just more equivocation. No, making new inventions is not the same as the faith described above. You don't have to believe anything without evidence to make new inventions. This is a different use of the word faith, and has nothing to do with the one above which is the one used concerning God.

Well, you fail to consider that faith is present in your daily life in more ways that you know.

Faith in the existance of God is no different.

Guglielmo Marconi did not have evidence that a wireless was possible, it took faith for him to spent his time and money on what he believed; and his faith was rewarded by the eventual evidences as you know.

If you do not have faith you will never discover anything new.
Therefore if you do not believe in the existence of God, you have no opportunity in getting the evidences.

 

[Meow Mix]

Well, you fail to consider that faith is present in your daily life in more ways that you know.

Faith in the existance of God is no different.

Guglielmo Marconi did not have evidence that a wireless was possible, it took faith for him to spent his time and money on what he believed; and his faith was rewarded by the eventual evidences as you know.

If you do not have faith you will never discover anything new.
Therefore if you do not believe in the existence of God, you have no opportunity in getting the evidences.

The problem here though is that the word "faith" has multiple contexts, and you're equivocating several of them.

Faith that something exists is different entirely from faith (confidence) that an invention will work. Marconi didn't just on a whim decide that maybe invisible radiation existed which would allow his device to work: he already knew that thanks to Hertz and others' work. He didn't just throw circuits together hoping to get something that would work; he knew the basic principles of electronics and electromagnetic radiation and worked on that knowledge.

In other words, Marconi had a rational confidence that given X and Y's truth, he could build a device based on principles X and Y which should do action Z. "Faith" as a word indeed has this context; that of confidence in the efficacy of something.

But faith that something exists without evidence is an entirely different context of faith. To say "I believe God exists on faith without tangible evidence, but you have faith too because you have confidence that technology works" is not a valid argument because it's equivocation.

Equivocation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Faith (confidence) that the sun will rise tomorrow is rational because of induction and a general understanding of solar mechanics.

Faith (confidence) that a new invention will work is rational because we understand the principles behind an invention's component parts. Yes there's a chance that it won't work because of some unforseen interference or circumstance but our belief that the device will probably work is rational.

Faith that some being exists without any sort of evidence or data to base that decision on, however, is irrational. It's a different context of the word "faith."

 

[Willamena]

Head, meet brick wall.

 

[Meow Mix]

Head, meet brick wall.

Think those are the sentiments on both sides here. Still loves ya, though :flirt:

 

[strikeviperMKII]

I thought we already discussed that equivocation of two things that actually are the same thing is not equivocation.

 

[free spirit]

The problem here though is that the word "faith" has multiple contexts, and you're equivocating several of them.

You are very confused of what Faith is. The opposit of faith is fear, and fear can ruin your life. but faith gives you confidence in tomorrow.

Faith that some being exists without any sort of evidence or data to base that decision on, however, is irrational. It's a different context of the word "faith."

The evidence of what gives us faith of the existence of God is all around us to see, unless we have been blinded by the lie.

 

[darkendless]

The evidence of what gives us faith of the existence of God is all around us to see, unless we have been blinded by the lie.

You could easily turn that around. I could say all the evidence you have for God is evidence against God. I could say you have been blinded by the lie. Either way its 50/50. Neither of us can prove anything, but in the end, since i don't claim to believe in God, its not up to me to prove anything.

However, there is a difference between "evidence" which is used commonly and a reason for belief. Too often on this forum people mix the two up and consider reasons for their belief to be evidence. Evidence is something that is readily demonstrated to others.

 

[Meow Mix]

I thought we already discussed that equivocation of two things that actually are the same thing is not equivocation.

However, the contexts I described are not the same thing.

 

[Meow Mix]

You are very confused of what Faith is. The opposit of faith is fear, and fear can ruin your life. but faith gives you confidence in tomorrow.


The evidence of what gives us faith of the existence of God is all around us to see, unless we have been blinded by the lie.

I have confidence in tomorrow, hope for humanity, faith in my friends and my lover.

However I don't have "faith" in the sense of believing something without evidence.

Can you provide an example of this evidence that's "all around us to see" which isn't already explainable without bringing the unknown into the picture?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Guglielmo Marconi did not have evidence that a wireless was possible, it took faith for him to spent his time and money on what he believed; and his faith was rewarded by the eventual evidences as you know.

That's not true. Marconi had plenty of evidence that wireless communication was possible. He was building on the theories of Hertz, Faraday, Maxwell and others that were very compelling evidence of electromagnetic waves and how to both generate and receive them.

As Wikipedia puts it:

During his early years, Marconi had an interest in science and electricity. One of the scientific developments during this era came from Heinrich Hertz, who, beginning in 1888, demonstrated that one could produce and detect electromagnetic radiation—now generally known as "radio waves", at the time more commonly called "Hertzian waves" or "aetheric waves". Hertz's death in 1894 brought published reviews of his earlier discoveries, and a renewed interest on the part of Marconi. He was permitted to briefly study the subject under Augusto Righi, a University of Bologna physicist and neighbour of Marconi who had done research on Hertz's work. Righi had a subscription to The Electrician where Oliver Lodge published detailed accounts of the apparatus used in his (Lodge's) public demonstrations of wireless telegraphy in 1894. Marconi also read about Nikola Tesla's work.[5]

 

[Meow Mix]

That's not true. Marconi had plenty of evidence that wireless communication was possible. He was building on the theories of Hertz, Faraday, Maxwell and others that were very compelling evidence of electromagnetic waves and how to both generate and receive them.

As Wikipedia puts it:

Jinx. You owe me a coke.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Jinx. You owe me a coke.

Bah. I should've looked closer at the posts after the one I was replying to. :sorry1:

I'm out of coke - will beer do?

 

[Meow Mix]

Bah. I should've looked closer at the posts after the one I was replying to. :sorry1:

I'm out of coke - will beer do?

Not a beer person (I'm a whiskey girl). How about a shot?