This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

I need a definition of faith that is precise.

#21cyclonekrusePosted 1/13/2013 12:52:16 PM
OrangeWizard posted...
If A tells you X, and you believe it because you trust A

There you go. That's not evidence. That's faith. Of course you can supplement the faith with evidence such that the importance of faith in forming the belief diminishes but the evidence is not justifying belief by itself. That is, the evidence itself is not sufficient to justify belief..

You can't believe in ANYTHING without having evidence or argument that is sufficient to warrant/justify belief.

Tell that to foundationalists. Also what justification do you have for believing your senses reflect reality? Or that the past existed?

No.
Your point?

So are you basing the belief on the evidence or on your faith/trust in your friend?
---
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"
#22LastManStandingPosted 1/13/2013 9:34:35 PM
Faith is first of all a personal adherence of man to God. At the same time, and inseparably, it is a free assent to the whole truth that God has revealed. As personal adherence to God and assent to his truth, Christian faith differs from our faith in any human person. It is right and just to entrust oneself wholly to God and to believe absolutely what he says. It would be futile and false to place such faith in a creature.
---
Divine Mercy - God Loves you as a sinner.
Christ Said: Before the Day of Justice, I am sending the Day of Mercy. (Diary 1588) Day of Mercy was declared in 2000
#23LastManStandingPosted 1/13/2013 9:38:12 PM
No one sees God the Father, except the one whom Jesus Christ reveals Father to.
---
Divine Mercy - God Loves you as a sinner.
Christ Said: Before the Day of Justice, I am sending the Day of Mercy. (Diary 1588) Day of Mercy was declared in 2000
#24LastManStandingPosted 1/13/2013 9:39:20 PM
No one can say without the Holy Spirit, the]at Jesus is the Christ.
---
Divine Mercy - God Loves you as a sinner.
Christ Said: Before the Day of Justice, I am sending the Day of Mercy. (Diary 1588) Day of Mercy was declared in 2000
#25OrangeWizardPosted 1/13/2013 9:58:46 PM(edited)
I'd like you to look closely at what you said.

Faith is belief without ...evidence or argument that is sufficient to warrant/justify belief.

Now answer me this question.

How can you have belief, without anything that is sufficient to warrant/justify belief.?

?

If you don't have anything that is sufficient to warrant/justify belief, then you obviously do not believe.

People do not just start believing things for ABSOLUTELY NO REASON.
People only believe things when they have "anything that is sufficient to warrant/justify belief".
This is their reason.

And so where does faith ever fit in, then, if you either have no belief, or you have something sufficient to warrant belief?


From: cyclonekruse | #020
That's faith.


No, that's my "thing sufficient enough to warrant/justify belief"

From: cyclonekruse | #020
Also what justification do you have for believing your senses reflect reality?


Who says that I do?

So are you basing the belief on the evidence


The evidence.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#26cyclonekrusePosted 1/14/2013 5:40:14 AM
From: OrangeWizard | #025
I'd like you to look closely at what you said.

Faith is belief without ...evidence or argument that is sufficient to warrant/justify belief.

Now answer me this question.

How can you have belief, without anything that is sufficient to warrant/justify belief.?

First, "without evidence or argument" is not "without anything." Second, I think you'd find the answer to your questions if you read the rest of that post:

From: cyclonekruse | #011
Perhaps more precisely, faith is the "thing" that makes up for the insufficient evidence.

There you have it. Faith would be the thing that justifies or warrants belief in the absence of sufficient evidence or argument.

No, that's my "thing sufficient enough to warrant/justify belief"

That doesn't mean it's not faith...

Who says that I do?

You're avoiding the question.

The evidence.

That doesn't make sense. The evidence you have is that the person says they're good to drive. In the absence of faith, you've already admitted that the evidence wouldn't be sufficient to make you believe they're good to drive. So, if you come to believe they're good to drive, how can you say it's a belief based on the evidence?
---
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"
#27OrangeWizardPosted 1/14/2013 7:47:43 AM
From: cyclonekruse | #022
First, "without evidence or argument" is not "without anything."


Then what else is there?

If you do not have a valid reason to believe, then how can you have belief?

If it causes you to believe in it, It's evidence.
You can't believe in something you have absolutely no evidence for.
Therefore, faith, in your definition, does not exist.

There you have it.


No, there we don't have it.

If you have insufficient evidence, then you do not believe.
If you have no belief, then you cannot have faith.
If you have evidence, then you cannot have faith.

Your definition doesn't work.

That doesn't mean it's not faith...


So Faith is belief without "X" where X can either be "evidence or argument sufficient to warrant/justify belief" or "faith"?

Your definition doesn't work.

You're avoiding the question.


Pot calling the kettle black.

That doesn't make sense. The evidence you have is that the person says they're good to drive.


And I don't believe that.
I believe the evidence that I collected when I saw this person drink so much at the bar.

When did I ever say I believed they were good to drive?
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#28cyclonekrusePosted 1/14/2013 10:37:08 AM
OrangeWizard posted...
Then what else is there?

Um...faith.

If you do not have a valid reason to believe, then how can you have belief?

One way would be to come "preprogrammed" to believe. If you're wired to believe X then you'll believe X. Hard to call that evidence.

If it causes you to believe in it, It's evidence.

I don't think that follows.

You can't believe in something you have absolutely no evidence for.

Insufficient evidence =/= no evidence.

If you have insufficient evidence, then you do not believe.

That also does not follow. I don't have sufficient evidence to believe there was a past. But I still believe there was.

If you have no belief, then you cannot have faith.

I don't agree with that either. You can place some faith in your friend's claim but it might not be enough to bring you to belief (especially in the face of evidence to the contrary).

If you have evidence, then you cannot have faith.

Again, no. Some evidence =/= sufficient evidence. Think of a court trial. The prosecution might present some evidence of the defendant's guilt. That doesn't necessarily imply that it's sufficient evidence to prove guilt.

So Faith is belief without "X" where X can either be "evidence or argument sufficient to warrant/justify belief" or "faith"?

What? Where are you getting that from?

And I don't believe that.
I believe the evidence that I collected when I saw this person drink so much at the bar.


That's not evidence for the proposition "X is okay to drive." Also no you don't have that evidence here. Right now we're focused solely on whether or not "being told" is sufficient to bring about belief. Without any faith in the person telling you, you won't believe. Therefore simply being told something is insufficient to make you believe it. Some measure of faith is required.
---
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"
#29OrangeWizardPosted 1/14/2013 11:00:03 AM
From: cyclonekruse | #024
One way would be to come "preprogrammed" to believe. If you're wired to believe X then you'll believe X.


You're talking nonsense. Humans don't work that way. No one is born believing in anything.

If this is all you can do in the face of my argument; fabricate nonsense things that don't happen in reality, then it looks like your definition really had failed.

I don't think that follows.


Believe in God. Right now.
Believe that Jehovah's Witnesses are the one true religion. Do it.

What's that you say? You can't? You need evidence in order to believe?
There you go.

You can't just believe in things for NO REASON.
The reason that leads you to belief is called evidence.

Insufficient evidence =/= no evidence.


You can't believe in something you have insufficient evidence for, either, because it's INSUFFICIENT for a reason.

I don't have sufficient evidence to believe there was a past.


Yes you do.
Otherwise, you would not believe.

I don't agree with that either.


Then you simply aren't thinking logically.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#30OrangeWizardPosted 1/14/2013 11:00:09 AM
Think of a court trial. The prosecution might present some evidence of the defendant's guilt. That doesn't necessarily imply that it's sufficient evidence to prove guilt.


This has nothing to do with your definition of faith.

What? Where are you getting that from?


You said that my "thing sufficient enough to justify/warrant belief" could be called faith.
That means we can plug "faith" into your original definition, so it cancels itself out.

I grow weary of reminding you of your own definition of faith.


Yeah, I know.
That's not evidence for the proposition "X is okay to drive."


Right now we're focused solely on whether or not "being told" is sufficient to bring about belief.


And it isn't. I don't believe that. So what's your point? Where does "faith" enter into this hypothetical if I don't even believe?
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face