What is Faith?

[free spirit]

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

Well ... you have faith in tomorrow, but you cannot have the evidence, because tomorrow is not here yet.

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

You do not understand. So please... listen faith comes first, the evidence come after faith. for if you have the evidences you do not need faith.
Let me share with you my personal experience. I believed in God and had a faith in my Christian denomination based only on believe: then one day God decided to give me the evidence of his existence, and his character, so now I no longer have faith in the denomination I belonged; now I have faith in his character and try to live in it.

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?

If you cannot see the evidence of God in what he created, you are one of those people who are spiritually blind, and I do not have a cure for that.

 

[Meow Mix]

Well ... you have faith in tomorrow, but you cannot have the evidence, because tomorrow is not here yet.

You're missing that my confidence is rational, though. I have no reason to suspect that tomorrow is going to be awful. As far as I know there aren't any known meteors on a collision course with earth due to arrive tomorrow, though it could be true. As far as I know nobody's out to get me; I have no reason to suspect I'll be in a car accident (thanks to statistics, though indeed tomorrow may have a higher probability due to holiday traffic).

The confidence is founded on something is what I'm saying. For any given confidence I have, I can provide justification for it. A rational belief is a justified belief.

Believing that some being exists for which I have no other justification than to just believe that it does exist is not rational and not justified. See the difference?

You do not understand. So please... listen faith comes first, the evidence come after faith. for if you have the evidences you do not need faith.
Let me share with you my personal experience. I believed in God and had a faith in my Christian denomination based only on believe: then one day God decided to give me the evidence of his existence, and his character, so now I no longer have faith in the denomination I belonged; now I have faith in his character and try to live in it.

I'm sorry, but this is wrong. The evidence comes first before forming beliefs. Beliefs made in lieu of evidence are irrational, prone to error, and rife with fallacy. We don't believe the sun rises on the same context of faith as some believe gods exist.

To narrow the confusion and prevent equivocation, let's break "faith" down into faith1 and faith2:

Faith1 is belief in something without evidence, it's simply believed.

Faith2 is confidence of a certain outcome thanks to evidence that the outcome should be rationally expected.

Inventing, expecting the sun to rise tomorrow, expecting to live through tomorrow are all examples of faith2.

You keep equivocating faith2 with faith1. Evidence comes before belief with faith2; belief comes before evidence with faith1. They are entirely different. Faith2 is completely rational, faith1 however is powerfully irrational.

If you cannot see the evidence of God in what he created, you are one of those people who are spiritually blind, and I do not have a cure for that.

This is a cop-out though. If I were to argue to you that magical elves exist, and that you being unable to tell that robins in the spring are powerful evidence of magical elves is clearly evidence of your elf-blindness, wouldn't you agree that such would be a nonconstructive non-argument -- aside from the fact that it reeks of hubris?

You might ask, "Why are the robins in the spring powerful evidence for the existence of magical elves?" and this would be a rational question that deserves an answer.

I would only be copping out if I said, "Oh, if you don't see it then you are blind. Sorry, can't help you."

So, what about the world around us is evidence of God? Can you be more specific? Is it the complexity? Is it the beauty of a sunset or a rainbow? These things have other explanations than a creator-being. What would you say about the world around us represents powerful evidence for the existence of a god that can't be explained more prosaically?

 

[free spirit]

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.

Yes it is easier to destroy than to build, weeds grow and prosper naturally, but roses have to be cultivated; come to think of it anything good needs some TLC.

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.

HO yes ... evidence will change the world you think: Jesus give plenty of evidence you know.... the unbeliever is just that ... unbeliever and there is nothing that will change his durken mind.

 

[free spirit]

You're missing that my confidence is rational, though. I have no reason to suspect that tomorrow is going to be awful. As far as I know there aren't any known meteors on a collision course with earth due to arrive tomorrow, though it could be true. As far as I know nobody's out to get me; I have no reason to suspect I'll be in a car accident (thanks to statistics, though indeed tomorrow may have a higher probability due to holiday traffic).
The confidence is founded on something is what I'm saying. For any given confidence I have, I can provide justification for it. A rational belief is a justified belief.

I can see your point of rational faith and I commend you for it, for if you did not have that your life will be a nightmare.

Believing that some being exists for which I have no other justification than to just believe that it does exist is not rational and not justified. See the difference?

In the beginning my rational for believing in the existence of God was the creation of all liveing things in this world.

I'm sorry, but this is wrong. The evidence comes first before forming beliefs. Beliefs made in lieu of evidence are irrational, prone to error, and rife with fallacy. We don't believe the sun rises on the same context of faith as some believe gods exist.

To narrow the confusion and prevent equivocation, let's break "faith" down into faith1 and faith2:

Faith1 is belief in something without evidence, it's simply believed.

Faith2 is confidence of a certain outcome thanks to evidence that the outcome should be rationally expected.

Inventing, expecting the sun to rise tomorrow, expecting to live through tomorrow are all examples of faith2.

You keep equivocating faith2 with faith1. Evidence comes before belief with faith2; belief comes before evidence with faith1. They are entirely different. Faith2 is completely rational, faith1 however is powerfully irrational.



This is a cop-out though. If I were to argue to you that magical elves exist, and that you being unable to tell that robins in the spring are powerful evidence of magical elves is clearly evidence of your elf-blindness, wouldn't you agree that such would be a nonconstructive non-argument -- aside from the fact that it reeks of hubris?

You might ask, "Why are the robins in the spring powerful evidence for the existence of magical elves?" and this would be a rational question that deserves an answer.

I would only be copping out if I said, "Oh, if you don't see it then you are blind. Sorry, can't help you."

So, what about the world around us is evidence of God? Can you be more specific? Is it the complexity? Is it the beauty of a sunset or a rainbow? These things have other explanations than a creator-being. What would you say about the world around us represents powerful evidence for the existence of a god that can't be explained more prosaically?

The above is the inrefiutable evidence that you idea of faith is in confusion, for when you have the evidence you know, so why you need faith for what you know.

I cannot explain why creation is the evidence of God's existence, it has to come from within you, by your observations of the infinity of life, beauty and vastness of the universe.

 

[free spirit]

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.

[/QUOTE

Marconi understood and that understanding give him faith to act. Colombo understood that the world was round and that understanding give him the faith to sail west to get to the far east

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Just an FYI free spirit, the beginning tag (the one with the author's name in it) can be used as the beginning of the quote. Just type /quote in brackets at the end of what you want to quote and you'll be fine.
That way, your quotes will look like this:

Marconi understood and that understanding give him faith to act. Colombo understood that the world was round and that understanding give him the faith to sail west to get to the far east

Instead of, like this:

Marconi understood and that understanding give him faith to act. Colombo understood that the world was round and that understanding give him the faith to sail west to get to the far east

 

[strikeviperMKII]

You're missing that my confidence is rational, though. I have no reason to suspect that tomorrow is going to be awful. As far as I know there aren't any known meteors on a collision course with earth due to arrive tomorrow, though it could be true. As far as I know nobody's out to get me; I have no reason to suspect I'll be in a car accident (thanks to statistics, though indeed tomorrow may have a higher probability due to holiday traffic).

The confidence is founded on something is what I'm saying. For any given confidence I have, I can provide justification for it. A rational belief is a justified belief.

Believing that some being exists for which I have no other justification than to just believe that it does exist is not rational and not justified. See the difference?

Having this argument with another one, eh?

I'm sorry, but this is wrong. The evidence comes first before forming beliefs. Beliefs made in lieu of evidence are irrational, prone to error, and rife with fallacy. We don't believe the sun rises on the same context of faith as some believe gods exist.

You believe that faith in God, and faith in the sun rising are two different things. I can accept that. The reason being is that you have experienced the sun rising every day since you were born. This has given you no reason to doubt that the sun will indeed rise tomorrow.
With God, however, you are not experienced. Your point of view has just as much weight as a blind person saying light doesn't exist. Its a point of view, and is just as valid as everyone else's, but it is inexperienced.

To narrow the confusion and prevent equivocation, let's break "faith" down into faith1 and faith2:

Faith1 is belief in something without evidence, it's simply believed.

Faith2 is confidence of a certain outcome thanks to evidence that the outcome should be rationally expected.

Inventing, expecting the sun to rise tomorrow, expecting to live through tomorrow are all examples of faith2.

You keep equivocating faith2 with faith1. Evidence comes before belief with faith2; belief comes before evidence with faith1. They are entirely different. Faith2 is completely rational, faith1 however is powerfully irrational.

Faith with experience has a great deal more power than faith without. But they still are the same thing.

This is a cop-out though. If I were to argue to you that magical elves exist, and that you being unable to tell that robins in the spring are powerful evidence of magical elves is clearly evidence of your elf-blindness, wouldn't you agree that such would be a nonconstructive non-argument -- aside from the fact that it reeks of hubris?

You might ask, "Why are the robins in the spring powerful evidence for the existence of magical elves?" and this would be a rational question that deserves an answer.

I would only be copping out if I said, "Oh, if you don't see it then you are blind. Sorry, can't help you."

I'm afraid I'm as 'elf-blind' as you. Though, if you, yourself have not seen elves, then how do you know what elves are? Experience is key when talking about this kind of thing. If you don't have any, you can't really say anything.

So, what about the world around us is evidence of God? Can you be more specific? Is it the complexity? Is it the beauty of a sunset or a rainbow? These things have other explanations than a creator-being. What would you say about the world around us represents powerful evidence for the existence of a god that can't be explained more prosaically?

God does not have to cause a rainbow for it to be evidence of her. In fact, God didn't even have to create the universe for it to shine with her beauty. It simply is. That is evidence enough.

 

[Magic Man]

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.

*sigh* This is exactly what Meow Mix and I have explained is not the case. I do not ignore that faith is part of my daily life, but that's a different kind of faith. Faith in God, even according to you, is belief without evidence. The faith I use in my life is trust/confidence, not belief without evidence. They are two completely different things, and pretending they're the same is what's known as equivocating.

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.

Incorrect. He did have evidence that wireless was possible. Faith was unnecessary. Scientists don't achieve things through faith. They achieve things through research, evidence, logic and reason.

If you do not have faith you will never discover anything new.

That's false. You don't need faith of any kind to discover new things.

Therefore if you do not believe in the existence of God, you have no opportunity in getting the evidences.

I love this argument. "You have to believe before God will reveal himself to you." It's quite a cop-out. That's not how things work. I don't have to believe the evolution is true before I do the research and find all the evidence supporting it. If something needs your belief before you can find evidence of it, it's a good bet that things is BS.

 

[Magic Man]

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

Actually, we hadn't, or else it would have already been shown that that is not the case with faith. The different definitions of faith that are equivocated are not the same thing. That's the whole point.

 

[Magic Man]

Having this argument with another one, eh?

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there who do this equivocation. That's why I fight so hard against it.

You believe that faith in God, and faith in the sun rising are two different things. I can accept that. The reason being is that you have experienced the sun rising every day since you were born. This has given you no reason to doubt that the sun will indeed rise tomorrow.
With God, however, you are not experienced. Your point of view has just as much weight as a blind person saying light doesn't exist. Its a point of view, and is just as valid as everyone else's, but it is inexperienced.

Not quite. It's too different things. With the sun rising we have observable, verifiable, objective evidence. We can check our experience with others'. That's actual evidence. A mystical experience is not evidence of anything but having a mystical experience. It's not verifiable or objective.

So, having faith that the sun will come up tomorrow is just having confidence that it will based on a lot of evidence. Having faith that God exists is believing something without evidence (as expressed even by Free Spirit). They are two different things.

God does not have to cause a rainbow for it to be evidence of her. In fact, God didn't even have to create the universe for it to shine with her beauty. It simply is. That is evidence enough.

No, it's not. If something was not made by God, then it's not evidence of God. For something to be evidence of God, it has to point to God's existence more than God's non-existence. If we can explain something just as easily without God, then it's not actually evidence of God.

 

[Meow Mix]

No, it's not. If something was not made by God, then it's not evidence of God. For something to be evidence of God, it has to point to God's existence more than God's non-existence. If we can explain something just as easily without God, then it's not actually evidence of God.

Moreover, even if something isn't easily explainable at a given time it isn't rational to just say "Aha! God dun it!" unless it provides explicit, positive evidence for God. Otherwise you just have the classic god of the gaps.

God of the gaps - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Which is a subcategory of the wider fallacy, argumentum ad ignorantium: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)

Otherwise, mball summarizes the same objections I would make to the last few posts by free spirit and strikeviper so it's pointless for me to respond and basically just re-summarize what he said

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

I'll be picking up some sort of Scotch before Robbie Burns Day. You're welcome to as much as you want.

Marconi understood and that understanding give him faith to act.

What meaning are you ascribing to "faith" in this sentence? I'm saying that he recognized the conclusion that prior evidence pointed toward. Is that what you're saying as well?

Colombo understood that the world was round and that understanding give him the faith to sail west to get to the far east

No, every educated person in Columbus' time knew that the Earth was round. They also knew how big it was, and knew that no ship would be able to hold enough food and fresh water to sail straight from Europe to Asia without the crew dying of dehydration or starvation long before they got there.

Thanks to a unit conversion error on his part (he interpreted "miles" in a Latin translation of an Arabic text to mean Spanish miles when the author had actually meant Arabian miles), Columbus "understood" the Earth to be half the size that it actually is, and "understood" that the Azores were the midpoint between Europe and Japan. That led him to conclude (wrongly) that the trip to Asia was doable.

But even in his case, it wasn't a matter of "faith", it was a matter of evidence. He just interpreted the evidence spectacularly wrong, and was only saved by the existence of a continent that nobody in Europe at the time (including Columbus) knew anything about.

 

[Willamena]

You're missing that my confidence is rational, though.

Confidence in the creator of everything is rational, because everything exists.

Moreover, even if something isn't easily explainable at a given time it isn't rational to just say "Aha! God dun it!" unless it provides explicit, positive evidence for God. Otherwise you just have the classic god of the gaps.

That "existence exists" is accepted axiomatically. Self-evident truth is a "god of the gaps."

 

[Meow Mix]

Confidence is the creator of everything is rational, because everything exists.

What? Too many "is's," I'm not sure what you're trying to say here no matter how I look at it.

That "existence exists" is accepted axiomatically. Self-evident truth is a "god of the gaps."

This just doesn't make sense. Incorrigible truths are incorrigible truths, there's no "gap" to be had when there's knowledge and truth.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Not quite. It's too different things. With the sun rising we have observable, verifiable, objective evidence. We can check our experience with others'. That's actual evidence. A mystical experience is not evidence of anything but having a mystical experience. It's not verifiable or objective.

Majority rule, eh? So because a lot of people agree with you, you're right?

So, having faith that the sun will come up tomorrow is just having confidence that it will based on a lot of evidence. Having faith that God exists is believing something without evidence (as expressed even by Free Spirit). They are two different things.

The confidence is the same. The faith is the same. You can have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow if you are blind, can you not? Of course, as I said, you don't have any idea what that means until you actually see the sun rising. Once you do, you have evidence, whether other people think you do or not.

No, it's not. If something was not made by God, then it's not evidence of God. For something to be evidence of God, it has to point to God's existence more than God's non-existence. If we can explain something just as easily without God, then it's not actually evidence of God.

If you say so.

 

[Meow Mix]

Majority rule, eh? So because a lot of people agree with you, you're right?

Nice red herring, but he only listed confirmation by external observers as part of a whole; not the entire justification.

The confidence is the same. The faith is the same. You can have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow if you are blind, can you not? Of course, as I said, you don't have any idea what that means until you actually see the sun rising. Once you do, you have evidence, whether other people think you do or not.

No, the faith is not the same. A blind person has evidence of the sun such as the warmth on their skin, the knowledge that birds chirp in the morning, confirmation by external observers, an understanding of solar physics. It's still rational confidence, which is a separate context of faith than the "belief without evidence" sort.

 

[Willamena]

What? Too many "is's," I'm not sure what you're trying to say here no matter how I look at it.



This just doesn't make sense. Incorrigible truths are incorrigible truths, there's no "gap" to be had when there's knowledge and truth.

I fixed teh typoe.

While I agree that ostensibly there can be no gap between knowledge and truth, that's precisely what the practice of "thinking" was devised to do.

 

[Meow Mix]

I fixed teh typoe.

While I agree that ostensibly there can be no gap between knowledge and truth, that's precisely what the practice of "thinking" was devised to do.

Ah, got it now. I was trying to drop one of the "is's," wasn't thinking that it could have been a different word altogether.

"Confidence in the creator of everything" is only rational if there's justification that everything is created, and that it was created by a single creator. There's no justification forthcoming for either of those.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Confidence in the creator of everything is rational, because everything exists.

That entirely depends on how one defines "creator" (as opposed to simply "cause"), IMO.

 

[Willamena]

That entirely depends on how one defines "creator" (as opposed to simply "cause"), IMO.

No argument there. (Yay)