All people live on faith

[JohnnyJersey]

All people live on faith. There is not a soul in the world who KNOWS everything about everything. People all live on faith to some extent or another. By and large, most (if not all) people temper their faith with reason; it is rare that people believe things on blind faith. Someone may not know how or why his car works, but he has faith that it does. He may have enough knowledge about the car to satisfy (or PROVE to) himself that the car is worthy of his putting faith into it to do what he expects it to do. He need not get an education in engineering and auto mechanics to reasonably believe that a car will work as he expects.

People - theists and atheists alike - do this on a daily basis, with (virtually? probably absolutely) everything in their lives. We truly, at the root of it, don't KNOW anything. We use the word "know" to describe those things in which we have the greatest faith.

It is irrational for atheists to presume that theists don't know about God due to a lack of "proof" or due to the fact that there is faith involved. Most of those very atheists claim to "know" a lot of things which they, in fact, only "know" because they put their faith in what they have learned from others. Someone who has not been to Australia cannot claim to KNOW that Australia exists EXCEPT by accepting as valid evidence the reports and tales of others.

Many an atheist has admitted to accepting something as "true" based on a certain amount of evidence. It is implicit in their use of "evidence" that they refer to that evidence which they accept as valid, where someone else may reject that very same "evidence". Yet, they will turn around and decry the "fanciful tales and stories" about "gods and imaginary [sic] beings" that theists and supernaturalists accept as real.

There is a definite disconnect on the part of the anti-faith crowd.

Can anyone reasonably deny that faith plays a huge role in every person's life?

[Zzyzx]

.

Faith is the belief in something without "proof".

Is that the definition Christians use when they refer to their faith?

I do not recall ever encountering a Christian who said they had belief without proof or that is what they mean by faith.

Can you honestly say that is what you mean when you say you have faith?

Naturalists love to crow about how there is "no evidence" for the supernatural, but there is.

You crow about the evidence but produce nothing

Kindly specify what evidence you suggest that others accept for the existence of god.

[JohnnyJersey]

This is a very unusual definition of "faith." Your definition--"Faith is the belief in something without 'proof'" [where you define "proof" as scientific evidence]--assumes that "faith" is a way of knowing something.

I am going by the lexicographical definition of faith:

faith
Pronunciation: fth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths fths, sometimes fthz
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust " more at bide
Date: 13th century

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

So, it's not so unusual, considering it's the dictionary definition of "faith".

That's not the case. Faith is trust based on reasons. Faith is an assent of the will, not an assent of the intellect. When you sit in a chair, you exercise "faith" that the chair will support you. And you exercise that faith based on reasons (e.g. your past experiences with chairs in general and with this one in particular, whether the chair looks sturdy, etc.). You don't know anything "by faith." You can have propositions that are "of the faith," in the sense of propositions that constitute some or all the set of propositions Christians take to be revealed by God.

You're not arguing faith so much as "knowledge", here. I'm trying to leave "knowledge" out of this discussion, as that is the topic of epistemology. I'm trying to stick with the most basic meaning of "knowledge". If one were to go by the dictionary, there are various definitions that could be applied and that is testament to the complexity of what "knowledge" actually entails (hence the philosophical field of epistemology). Knowledge is malleable and relative. People "know" things based on their own, individual experiences, respectively, and those experiences vary. Knowledge may be subject to correction but that is proof that knowledge can be wrong. We are always changing and fixing and updating what we know.

Regardless, even those things we consider ourselves to "know" are often "known" on faith. Do you know that certain countries exist without having experienced their existence yourself, directly? If so, you know that on faith in the data you have that gives you the basis for your belief combined with your acceptance of the evidence as valid and trustworthy. Have you ever "known" something to later learn that you were wrong in your knowledge? Does that mean you did not "know"? Isn't it possible that what you have come to know could be wrong, thereby meaning that your current knowledge may be false, and if so, does that mean your current knowledge isn't really knowledge?

The best definition I can find to avoid getting into epistemological discussions here (this thread is about faith, not knowledge) is that "knowledge" is "the range of one's information or understanding".

Your OP may be after something a little different than an odd definition of "faith." You may be trying to assert (and defend) the following proposition:

(1) Everyone holds at least one belief that cannot be "proven" by your five sense.

If you're asserting and defending (1), then I think that's obviously true. For example, science presupposes the fundamental truths of logic and mathematics. So if science tried to "prove" the truth of those fundamental principles, that would be arguing in a circle. Or, as another example, most people reading this believe the computer screen they're looking at really exists; it's not a image in their mind generated by the Matrix. In other words, most people believe that there is an objective world that exists independently of their minds. But science presupposes the existence of an external world that can be experimental upon. So that, again, if science would to try and "prove" there's an external world, that would be arguing in a circle.

I am asserting the following:

That that which cannot be or is not proven by one's physical senses yet is believed must be believed on faith.

Now, whether that belief constitutes knowledge or not is a different discussion; but belief without proof, by definition, is faith. And, going by that, I am conceding that "proof" need be based on physical evidence, for the sake of argument; in truth, I don't believe "proof" need be based exclusively on physical evidence. But that is aside from this topic, hence my concession.

[JohnnyJersey]

Faith is the belief in something without "proof".

Is that the definition Christians use when they refer to their faith?

It's Merriam Webster's definition. You should consult the dictionary more often for words you don't understand, rather than asking me or others constantly for definitions.

I do not recall ever encountering a Christian who said they had belief without proof or that is what they mean by faith.

What you recall is anecdotal and doesn't really constitute useful information here.

Can you honestly say that is what you mean when you say you have faith?

Naturalists love to crow about how there is "no evidence" for the supernatural, but there is.

You crow about the evidence but produce nothing

I do provide evidence. You don't accept it as valid evidence, but that's your problem. It's easy to convince yourself you win every debate by dismissing evidence as not valid when it's presented to you.

Kindly specify what evidence you suggest that others accept for the existence of god.

That's not the topic of this thread. This thread is about the fact that people believe a lot of what they believe based on faith, regardless of whether those beliefs involve God or not. Try to stay on topic.

[Grumpy]

JohnnyJersey

Now, people can play word games all they want and argue semantics (which is the last resort of a desperate person) by saying "It's not faith, it's confidence, it's earned trust, it's an educated guess, it's a likelihood, a probability, etc." However, that doesn't change the fact that those very things are indeed "faith", by definition.

It is you who is playing word games, inflating the concept of faith so you can raise your acceptance of the unevidenced with a scientists acceptance of the evidenced. This is not the first time you have misused concepts and words, a good example is your inflation of the meanings of assault, attack and violence to include anyone simply disagreeing with you. . You're right, your actions in this regard are desperate, but they are easily seen through and you don't convince anyone.

I will donate a good dictionary if you will use it, deal?

Grumpy

[Flail]

All people live on faith. There is not a soul in the world who KNOWS everything about everything. People all live on faith to some extent or another. By and large, most (if not all) people temper their faith with reason; it is rare that people believe things on blind faith. Someone may not know how or why his car works, but he has faith that it does. He may have enough knowledge about the car to satisfy (or PROVE to) himself that the car is worthy of his putting faith into it to do what he expects it to do. He need not get an education in engineering and auto mechanics to reasonably believe that a car will work as he expects.

People - theists and atheists alike - do this on a daily basis, with (virtually? probably absolutely) everything in their lives. We truly, at the root of it, don't KNOW anything. We use the word "know" to describe those things in which we have the greatest faith.

It is irrational for atheists to presume that theists don't know about God due to a lack of "proof" or due to the fact that there is faith involved. Most of those very atheists claim to "know" a lot of things which they, in fact, only "know" because they put their faith in what they have learned from others. Someone who has not been to Australia cannot claim to KNOW that Australia exists EXCEPT by accepting as valid evidence the reports and tales of others.

Many an atheist has admitted to accepting something as "true" based on a certain amount of evidence. It is implicit in their use of "evidence" that they refer to that evidence which they accept as valid, where someone else may reject that very same "evidence". Yet, they will turn around and decry the "fanciful tales and stories" about "gods and imaginary [sic] beings" that theists and supernaturalists accept as real.

There is a definite disconnect on the part of the anti-faith crowd.

Can anyone reasonably deny that faith plays a huge role in every person's life?

Faith and trust without evidence is dangerous. Are you equating faith in the existence of Australia with faith in the existence of an invisible God? There is overwhelming evidence of Australia, none for your particular God. Yes, we put faith or trust in things we cannot prove beyond all doubt but this faith IS based on evidence, sometimes only circumstantial evidence, but evidence never the less.

I cannot prove the sun will rise tomorrow but I trust that it will based upon my experience with it and the science available. The fact of my faith in the sun's rising is shown by my lack of ritual and belief dances to make it rise. Christianity's insistence on worship and ritual demonstrates a lack of faith and a focus on membership and showmanship.

[bernee51]

JohnnyJersey

Now, people can play word games all they want and argue semantics (which is the last resort of a desperate person) by saying "It's not faith, it's confidence, it's earned trust, it's an educated guess, it's a likelihood, a probability, etc." However, that doesn't change the fact that those very things are indeed "faith", by definition.

It is you who is playing word games, inflating the concept of faith so you can raise your acceptance of the unevidenced with a scientists acceptance of the evidenced. This is not the first time you have misused concepts and words, a good example is your inflation of the meanings of assault, attack and violence to include anyone simply disagreeing with you. . You're right, your actions in this regard are desperate, but they are easily seen through and you don't convince anyone.

I will donate a good dictionary if you will use it, deal?

Grumpy

As noted...it is a fallacy of equivocation.

[Flail]

Faith is the belief in something without "proof".

Is that the definition Christians use when they refer to their faith?

It's Merriam Webster's definition. You should consult the dictionary more often for words you don't understand, rather than asking me or others constantly for definitions.

I do not recall ever encountering a Christian who said they had belief without proof or that is what they mean by faith.

What you recall is anecdotal and doesn't really constitute useful information here.

Can you honestly say that is what you mean when you say you have faith?

Naturalists love to crow about how there is "no evidence" for the supernatural, but there is.

You crow about the evidence but produce nothing

I do provide evidence. You don't accept it as valid evidence, but that's your problem. It's easy to convince yourself you win every debate by dismissing evidence as not valid when it's presented to you.

Kindly specify what evidence you suggest that others accept for the existence of god.

That's not the topic of this thread. This thread is about the fact that people believe a lot of what they believe based on faith, regardless of whether those beliefs involve God or not. Try to stay on topic.

What are these things that make your particular God 'evident' and demonstrable? How do these things differ from what makes the Islamic faith evident and demonstrable to the Muslim?

[Zzyzx]

.

Faith is the belief in something without "proof".

Is that the definition Christians use when they refer to their faith?

It's Merriam Webster's definition. You should consult the dictionary more often for words you don't understand, rather than asking me or others constantly for definitions.

Correction: The Merriam Webster Dictionary definition of faith IS:

1 a : the act or state of wholeheartedly and steadfastly believing in the existence, power, and benevolence of a supreme being, of having confidence in his providential care, and of being loyal to his will as revealed or believed in : belief and trust in and loyalty to God *people earnestly prayed in the ages of faith T to be delivered from sudden death" J.A.Pike* *lost his faith at an early age* b (1) : an act or attitude of intellectual assent to the traditional doctrines of one's religion : orthodox religious belief (2) : a decision of an individual entrusting his life to God's transforming care in response to an experience of God's mercy c among Roman Catholic theologians : a supernatural virtue by which one believes on the authority of God himself all that God has revealed or proposes through the Church for belief
2 a (1) : firm or unquestioning belief in something for which there is no proof *for the scientist faith can be no virtue, because it is inconsistent with the resolution to accept the fact as supreme" P.W.Bridgman* *clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return* (2) : uncritical grounds for belief " used chiefly in the phrase on faith *you will have to accept my statements on faith* b : CONFIDENCE; especially : firm or unquestioning trust or confidence in the value, power, or efficacy of something *have faith in prayer* *faith in his medical skill* *the faith on which science rests, the faith in the value of truth seeking" H.T.Muller*
3 a : an assurance, promise, or pledge of fidelity, loyalty, or performance *gave his faith that he would come on the appointed day* " often used in the phrases to keep faith or to break faith *to have hitchhiked would have been breaking faith, for all who use the country's youth hostels are honor bound to reach them under their own power" H.V.Morton* b : fidelity to one's promises : allegiance to a duty or a person : sincerity or honesty of intentions : LOYALTY " often used with the qualifiers good or bad to specify a state of mind of one trying to be honest and faithful *observed perfect good faith and strictly fulfilled their engagements" Marjory S. Douglas* or of one trying to deceive, mislead, or defraud *accused him of bad faith*
4 obsolete : AUTHORITY, CREDIT, CREDIBILITY
5 : something that is believed or adhered to especially with strong conviction: as a (1) : a system of religious beliefs : RELIGION *an individual of the Jewish faith* (2) : the body of believers : an organized church or denomination *a movement supported by all the great faiths* b : the cherished values, ideals, or beliefs of an individual or people : WELTANSCHAUUNG, CREED, CREDO *a free world which is strong in its faith and in its material progress" Dean Acheson* c : the fundamental tenets, views, or beliefs of an individual or group on a particular subject or in a particular field *a profession of literary faith* *I state my own faith at once T organic union under the Crown is vital" R.G.Menzies* *she visits the prisoners of her own political faith" Katharine A. Porter*
6 often capitalized : the true religion from the point of view of the speaker " usually used with the *the king, temporal head of the faith*
synonyms see BELIEF, RELIGION, TRUST
"in faith : by my faith : VERILY

I ask which of the meanings (definitions) is applied by Christians and which is implied in the OP.

If you were to answer honestly and openly, you would acknowledge that one part of the definition is used by Christians to identify what they mean by "faith" and a different part of the definition is what you quote.

I do not recall ever encountering a Christian who said they had belief without proof or that is what they mean by faith.

What you recall is anecdotal and doesn't really constitute useful information here.

Are YOU willing to refrain from anecdotal comments?

I am willing to debate you Head to Head under controlled conditions wherein no personal comments of any kind are permitted. You are evidently unwilling or unable to accept those terms and to debate fairly and honestly.

Naturalists love to crow about how there is "no evidence" for the supernatural, but there is.

You crow about the evidence but produce nothing

I do provide evidence. You don't accept it as valid evidence, but that's your problem.

Exactly what do you present as evidence that any supernatural god exists or influences human affairs or conditions.

Kindly show readers what evidence you claim to have presented.

It's easy to convince yourself you win every debate by dismissing evidence as not valid when it's presented to you.

I have no interest in winning debates, but instead, my motivation is to call readers attention to the illogic of believing that any of the thousands of proposed invisible, undetectable gods or spirits exist or influence human lives (or theorized afterlives).

It is easy for those who claim to have knowledge of proposed supernatural gods or spirits to make themselves look very foolish by claiming to have evidence when they have nothing but stories, conjectures, opinions and emotional appeals.

Kindly specify what evidence you suggest that others accept for the existence of god.

That's not the topic of this thread. This thread is about the fact that people believe a lot of what they believe based on faith, regardless of whether those beliefs involve God or not. Try to stay on topic.

You claim above to have presented evidence but when I ask what evidence? instead of answering you claim off topic.

To eliminate that excuse, I started another thread entitled WHAT evidence?, and invite you to present readers with the evidence that you repeatedly claim to have.

[JohnnyJersey]

JohnnyJersey

Now, people can play word games all they want and argue semantics (which is the last resort of a desperate person) by saying "It's not faith, it's confidence, it's earned trust, it's an educated guess, it's a likelihood, a probability, etc." However, that doesn't change the fact that those very things are indeed "faith", by definition.

It is you who is playing word games, inflating the concept of faith so you can raise your acceptance of the unevidenced with a scientists acceptance of the evidenced. This is not the first time you have misused concepts and words, a good example is your inflation of the meanings of assault, attack and violence to include anyone simply disagreeing with you. . You're right, your actions in this regard are desperate, but they are easily seen through and you don't convince anyone.

I will donate a good dictionary if you will use it, deal?

Grumpy

Not a single thing in your post shows how I am "inflating the concept of faith" or inflating "meanings of assault, attack and violence" at all. You make the claim that I do so but you don't show how. The word games and accompanying desperation are obviously on your part and on the part of those who take up for your empty argument.

As for the dictionary, I think you need it much more than I do.

[Goat]

Not a single thing in your post shows how I am "inflating the concept of faith" or inflating "meanings of assault, attack and violence" at all. You make the claim that I do so but you don't show how. The word games and accompanying desperation are obviously on your part and on the part of those who take up for your empty argument.

As for the dictionary, I think you need it much more than I do.

The issues Grumpy brought up are in the thread you started at http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... highlight=

It was quite extensively pointed out in that thread., and your responses trying to make that claim were weak at best, full of the logical fallacy of equivocation.