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

I need a definition of faith that is precise.

#31cyclonekrusePosted 1/14/2013 3:42:35 PM
OrangeWizard posted...
You're talking nonsense. Humans don't work that way. No one is born believing in anything.

Well belief need not be restricted to humans. But that aside prove that we aren't born with any beliefs. You're probably going to find that to be a difficult task. We aren't clean slates when we are born.

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.

You need a reason to form a belief, yes. Not all reasons to believe are "evidence" though. For example you might believe something just because it's easier to believe. Or you could just want X to be true.

You can't believe in something you have insufficient evidence for, either,

You can if you have a non-evidential reason to believe.

Yes you do.
Otherwise, you would not believe.

Non sequitur. I have sufficient reason to believe. I don't have the evidence needed (though I have some, of course).
---
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"
#32cyclonekrusePosted 1/14/2013 3:47:07 PM
OrangeWizard posted...
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?

So in order to believe you need something beside that evidence. Therefore if you do believe its not (entirely) because of the evidence. You're believing because of the faith you have in your friend. And, no, that is not 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!"
#33OrangeWizardPosted 1/14/2013 6:14:29 PM
From: cyclonekruse | #027
But that aside prove that we aren't born with any beliefs.


Reversal of the burden of proof.
Prove that we are.

I'm not the one who claimed that humans are hard-wired to believe stuff. You did. You prove it.

You need a reason to form a belief, yes. Not all reasons to believe are "evidence" though.


According to Dictionary.com, evidence is:" that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof."

So yes, all reasons to believe make is considered evidence.

For example you might believe something just because it's easier to believe. Or you could just want X to be true.


That doesn't happen.

You're making up an intentionally disparaging definition of faith, possibly so you can have an easier time painting a more horrible picture of believers.

You can if you have a non-evidential reason to believe.


Which doesn't exist.

From: cyclonekruse | #028
So in order to believe you need something beside that evidence.


That horrible evidence, insufficient to justify/warrant belief, yes.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#34OrangeWizardPosted 1/14/2013 6:14:55 PM
Therefore if you do believe its not (entirely) because of the evidence. You're believing because of the faith you have in your friend. And, no, that is not evidence.


Yeah, if I'm willing to abandon reason and just magically start believing in something without a cause, then sure, I guess I'd have faith under your definition.

Just admit it, you want faith to be some unreasonable, illogical thing that comes completely out of nowhere, against better judgement, and serves as an emotional anchor to the weak. That is what I'm hearing from you so far.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#35cyclonekrusePosted 1/14/2013 6:45:42 PM
From: OrangeWizard | #033
Reversal of the burden of proof.
Prove that we are.

I'm not the one who claimed that humans are hard-wired to believe stuff. You did. You prove it.

I never claimed that either. You asked for a way that one would believe without a valid reason to believe. I offered a possible answer. I never actually said humans were that way, though you did claim that humans weren't wired to believe anything before birth.

According to Dictionary.com, evidence is:" that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof."

So yes, all reasons to believe make is considered evidence.

Going by that logic, all evidence is proof then because "proof" is also part of that definition.

But even ignoring that, all this definition shows is that if something is evidence, then it is a grounds for belief. I'll buy that. I just wouldn't reverse it and say that if something is a grounds for belief, then that thing is "evidence." So, the definition here doesn't show what you're trying to show. Namely that all reasons to believe can be considered evidence.

That doesn't happen.

I would like to see proof of that because it seems to me that it does happen.

You're making up an intentionally disparaging definition of faith, possibly so you can have an easier time painting a more horrible picture of believers.

That would make more sense if I weren't a believer myself. But I'm actually a Lutheran. And I don't see anything disparaging about my definition of faith.

Which doesn't exist.

Not the way you define things, maybe. But I'm perfectly comfortable calling "faith" a non-evidential reason to believe.
---
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"
#36cyclonekrusePosted 1/14/2013 6:58:45 PM
That horrible evidence, insufficient to justify/warrant belief, yes.

Yes. You would need to place (or misplace) great faith in your friend.

From: OrangeWizard | #034
Yeah, if I'm willing to abandon reason and just magically start believing in something without a cause, then sure, I guess I'd have faith under your definition.

It's not belief without a "cause." The belief is definitely caused by something. Here, I'd say it's your trust in your friend. Why you keep insisting on bastardizing what I said is beyond me. I never said that belief was uncaused or unjustified or unwarranted. I said that some beliefs are unjustified by evidence. Which seems uncontroversial since you admitted that believing your friend's claim would be unjustified if your only evidence was that s/he told you s/he was good to drive. It would be especially unjustified if you have evidence to the contrary of the claim (such as seeing them imbibe a lot of alcohol).

Just admit it, you want faith to be some unreasonable, illogical thing that comes completely out of nowhere, against better judgement, and serves as an emotional anchor to the weak. That is what I'm hearing from you so far.

On the contrary, I view faith as a necessary part of life. I do not feel I have sufficient evidential justification for many beliefs I hold. For instance, I believe in the past and I believe there are other minds out there. I believe the external world exists. I believe I'm not in the Matrix. I have evidence for these beliefs, some to a greater extent than others. But I don't have proof, i.e. sufficient evidence. To "make up" the gap, I need faith.

I'm just comfortable saying that not all my beliefs are solely based on 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!"
#37ProudcladPosted 1/14/2013 7:09:46 PM
Hebrews 11. John chapters 14 and 15.

Faith is an action. It's a demonstration of belief by doing what Jesus taught. Even if your state of mind is doubtful, one demonstrates faith by doing what Jesus taught. You remain in God's love by remaining in Jesus, and you remain in Jesus by doing what Jesus taught.

And when you remain in Jesus, you can ask God for anything in Jesus' name and God will give it to you. "In Jesus' name" implies that the request be after God's will, and it's worth pointing out that God's will does include big and undeniable things.

Faith is trust. And you can demonstrate trust with actions even if your mind is doubtful.
---
proudclad LAYING DOWN THE SMACK - Error1355
chaoscoalition.net
#38OrangeWizardPosted 1/14/2013 7:32:43 PM
From: cyclonekruse | #024
One way would be to come "preprogrammed" to believe. If you're wired to believe X then you'll believe X.


This is where you claimed we're hard-wired to believe things.

From: cyclonekruse | #031
You asked for a way that one would believe without a valid reason to believe. I offered a possible answer


So you admit to talking nonsense?

Going by that logic, all evidence is proof then because "proof" is also part of that definition.


Going by the dictionary, proof is: "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth."

So no, you just don't know how dictionaries work.

I just wouldn't reverse it and say that if something is a grounds for belief, then that thing is "evidence."


Because you're insane.

I would like to see proof of that because it seems to me that it does happen.


Reversal of the burden of proof.
The one making the positive, claim, that X happens, has the burden.
So YOU prove to ME that it DOES happen.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#39OrangeWizardPosted 1/14/2013 7:32:53 PM
That would make more sense if I weren't a believer myself. But I'm actually a Lutheran. And I don't see anything disparaging about my definition of faith.


Oh, you must be one of those guys who whip themselves, then, judging by how much you're insulting yourself with your definition of faith.

And you must not put much stock in the bible, because, as I already mentioned, and as proudclad JUST mentioned, the bible has it's own definition of faith. Why are you ignoring that definition?
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#40cyclonekrusePosted 1/14/2013 8:08:12 PM
From: OrangeWizard | #038
This is where you claimed we're hard-wired to believe things.

That IS one way it would work. I never said it does work that way.

So you admit to talking nonsense?

It's only nonsense if you can show it's wrong. Which I note you're not doing.

Going by the dictionary, proof is: "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth."

You:
According to Dictionary.com, evidence is:" that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof."
(emphasis mine)
So, evidence is "proof" according to that definition. And proof is evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true. So evidence is evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true. Which makes little sense.

Because you're insane.

That's hardly Christian of you. But if you take the first definition of "fish" from Merriam Webster you get: "a : an aquatic animal —usually used in combination"
And a fish is definitely an aquatic animal. I just wouldn't call all aquatic animals "fish."
---
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"