Proof and faith

[Audie]

Ok, thanks, good answer, I dont know of anything else to ask.

[abelcainsbrother]

Im curious about one detail, which is about proof of God, which the shroud potentially could be.

If there is proof of God, then of what use is faith?

First off I think if your going to think about faith?Then I think you have to understand how the bible describes faith.Faith to us Christians means this Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for,the evidence of things not seen."

This means that faith is not blind like I hear bible critics say.There is substance and evidence to our faith. We can have faith in a number of ways it could be how God saved you and changed you and you realize that it was not you changing yourself but the Holy Spirit,or how God brought you through a difficult time by answering your prayers and you realize God was guiding you the whole way,etc it could be by researching science and a discovery they made or something that exists that confirms the bible true like the shroud,it might be archeological discoveries that confirm things,history,prophecies,etc but this means faith is not blind because you can actually pick up substance and see the evidence and examine it.

Now as time goes on more is revealed and so you begin compiling the evidence you know about and it strengthens your faith in what you believe.

But because this kind of stuff is not revealed all at once and you don't have the whole picture or proof for everything atleast yet, you somehow still know it will be in the future though.So because it is not revealed all at once and it cannot all be revealed yet it still requires faith to believe it.We cannot prove it true all 100% but know it will all be revealed 100% in the future and yes if we could we would not need or have faith and yet faith is what moves God and so it is very important,more important than we might realize.

[Audie]

Im curious about one detail, which is about proof of God, which the shroud potentially could be.

If there is proof of God, then of what use is faith?

First off I think if your going to think about faith?Then I think you have to understand how the bible describes faith.Faith to us Christians means this Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for,the evidence of things not seen."

The devil can quote scripture, you know. Seriously, I do know these things, but thanks for the quote, in case I didnt.

This means that faith is not blind like I hear bible critics say

When it specifically says that you cant see it (hear smell or touch either) then that is the very definition of blind!

Its metaphorical of course, not literal. One may have faith in what he hopes for.

"Blind' would mean, hoping with no reason at all to think there is hope, dont you think so?

Blind faith that I will win the lottery, despite not even entering. ( I actually did win one that way... go figure)

There is substance and evidence to our faith

I did of course specify "proof", not evidence. There was evidence that OJ was guilty, and evidence that he was not.

I wont disagree with the idea that when a person has evidence, it strengthens faith.
I have faith that my car will start, for a kind of silly example.

. We can have faith in a number of ways it could be how God saved you and changed you and you realize that it was not you changing yourself but the Holy Spirit,or how God brought you through a difficult time by answering your prayers and you realize God was guiding you the whole way,etc

It could also be that rather than realizing it is God, that you are deciding it. Big difference! Im sure you could think of examples of people making such a decision when it seems to you most unlikely that God had a role in what happened.

t could be by researching science and a discovery they made or something that exists that confirms the bible true like the shroud,it might be archeological discoveries that confirm things,history,prophecies,etc but this means faith is not blind because you can actually pick up substance and see the evidence and examine it.

Now we are back to proof, with which there is no need for faith , is it not so?

Now as time goes on more is revealed and so you begin compiling the evidence you know about and it strengthens your faith in what you believe.

That may also be the very definition of confirmation bias.

But because this kind of stuff is not revealed all at once and you don't have the whole picture or proof for everything atleast yet, you somehow still know it will be in the future though

.

So because it is not revealed all at once and it cannot all be revealed yet it still requires faith to believe it.We cannot prove it true all 100% but know it will all be revealed 100% in the future and yes if we could we would not need or have faith and yet faith is what moves God and so it is very important,more important than we might realize.

Isnt there a difference between KNOWING, and having faith?

I do appreciate your telling my your thoughts on this.

[B. W.]

Im curious about one detail, which is about proof of God, which the shroud potentially could be.

If there is proof of God, then of what use is faith?

Depends on if you are defining faith as presumption or not while for others here, they define it differently and thus you have a cross cultural misunderstanding.

I think it would be best for you to actually define what you mean by faith and then go from there.
-
-
-

[Audie]

Im curious about one detail, which is about proof of God, which the shroud potentially could be.

If there is proof of God, then of what use is faith?

Depends on if you are defining faith as presumption or not while for others here, they define it differently and thus you have a cross cultural misunderstanding.

I think it would be best for you to actually define what you mean by faith and then go from there.
-
-
-

I mean whatever Christians mean by it.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

I mean whatever Christians mean by it.

That's a cop out. It isn't an answer to B.W.'s question. You have to write down an answer from your own understanding so that this discussion can move ahead.

Im curious about one detail, which is about proof of God, which the shroud potentially could be.

Why do you think an old rag can be proof of God's existence? Please, tell me you are not serious! please, please, please...

FL

[RickD]

FL wrote:
Why do you think an old rag can be proof of God's existence? Please, tell me you are not serious! please, please, please...

I could make a joke about FL being an old rag...

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

FL wrote:
Why do you think an old rag can be proof of God's existence? Please, tell me you are not serious! please, please, please...

I could make a joke about FL being an old rag...

I wanted Chinadoll to answer but I got YOU!

I'm worried about her...it is as if she told me that she reads her horoscope. I don't see how an atheist can see the Shroud as a possible proof of God's existence. All it is is a Roman Catholic icon.

FL

[B. W.]

Im curious about one detail, which is about proof of God, which the shroud potentially could be.

If there is proof of God, then of what use is faith?

Depends on if you are defining faith as presumption or not while for others here, they define it differently and thus you have a cross cultural misunderstanding.

I think it would be best for you to actually define what you mean by faith and then go from there.

I mean whatever Christians mean by it.

I am asking you how you define faith. The reason is simple logic. You want to understand the Christian definition of faith and then say however we (Christians) define faith is how you define it, well, this poses a logical contradiction. How so - you can't define it and are seeking a definition.

Now in order to actually find out what the Christian definition on faith would involve you defining what you mean by faith first so that one can converse in a reputable manner from common ground in which to build off of as a starting point.

Very simple...

...then we can discuss your question fully.

So how do you define what faith is?
-
-
-

[Audie]

Im curious about one detail, which is about proof of God, which the shroud potentially could be.

If there is proof of God, then of what use is faith?

Depends on if you are defining faith as presumption or not while for others here, they define it differently and thus you have a cross cultural misunderstanding.

I think it would be best for you to actually define what you mean by faith and then go from there.

I mean whatever Christians mean by it.

I am asking you how you define faith. The reason is simple logic. You want to understand the Christian definition of faith and then say however we (Christians) define faith is how you define it, well, this poses a logical contradiction. How so - you can't define it and are seeking a definition.

Now in order to actually find out what the Christian definition on faith would involve you defining what you mean by faith first so that one can converse in a reputable manner from common ground in which to build off of as a starting point.

Very simple...

...then we can discuss your question fully.

So how do you define what faith is?
-
-
-

For me, faith is believing in something for which I do not have proof.
How much faith is needed relates to how much evidence I have

One of the tricky things in faith is confirmation bias. Young love seeing only perfection is an example. People in casinos have faith that they found a lucky slot machine.

Im not a psychologist, to talk about how these things work.

If I knew the slot machine was rigged in my favour, I wont need faith.

If I had proof of God, I would not need any faith to believe in Him.

If faith in God just about faith that He will ultimately be looking out for you, no matter how things look at the moment?

[PaulSacramento]

The biggest issue that people have with faith is that most think that faith is believing in something with no proof, sometime even no evidence.
Particularly in things not seen.
Christian faith is not SUPPOSED to be like that.
It is supposed to be based on reason.
We reason that God is worth having faith in ( there are various lines of reasoning of course) BUT we are not suppose to have faith in God because we are "told to".
That is a hollow faith, easily broken.
Paul himself mentioned that a believer must be able to give an account of his faith.

[PaulSacramento]

I don't think that because we have proof in something that means we don't need to have faith.
I have proof that my wife loves me, I have it everyday BUT I also have faith that she loves AND faith IN Her love for me, I have faith IN Her.

[B. W.]

...For me, faith is believing in something for which I do not have proof.
How much faith is needed relates to how much evidence I have

One of the tricky things in faith is confirmation bias. Young love seeing only perfection is an example. People in casinos have faith that they found a lucky slot machine.

Im not a psychologist, to talk about how these things work.

If I knew the slot machine was rigged in my favour, I wont need faith.

If I had proof of God, I would not need any faith to believe in Him.

If faith in God just about faith that He will ultimately be looking out for you, no matter how things look at the moment?

Thank you, now we have someplace to start.

FL and myself are former atheists as as such, I used to define faith as based upon mere presumption that is all based upon one's presuppositions.

Presumption and presupposition defined by Websters Dictionary are as follows: Presumption- a belief that something is true even though it has not been proved; of law - an act of accepting that something is true until it is proved not true; willingness to do something without the right or permission to do it...

Presupposition: 1. To believe or suppose in advance. 2. To require or involve necessarily as an antecedent condition.

I see that you hold to a similar line of reasoning in that faith is presumption without evidence.

Therefore, are you also no presuming that faith has no basis because it has has no evidence and therefore, faith is for the weak willed and feeble superstitious uneducated masses as you gave in your examples concerning slot machines etc? I used that line of reasoning a lot against Christians long ago to justify my own presumption to remain wise and enlightened.

So you wrote this: If I had proof of God, I would not need any faith to believe in Him

Isn't that built upon presumption and presupposition?

Question: do you presume that the grocery store with keep food stocked on the shelves?

Does the the employer presume one will arrive to work on time and do their job?

What happens to presumptions when these examples are interrupted?

You see faith is - trust - and trust can be broken. Faith is not presumption built upon presuppositions but rather - Trust.

Whom and in what do you place your trust in?
-
-
-

[Audie]

...For me, faith is believing in something for which I do not have proof.
How much faith is needed relates to how much evidence I have

One of the tricky things in faith is confirmation bias. Young love seeing only perfection is an example. People in casinos have faith that they found a lucky slot machine.

Im not a psychologist, to talk about how these things work.

If I knew the slot machine was rigged in my favour, I wont need faith.

If I had proof of God, I would not need any faith to believe in Him.

If faith in God just about faith that He will ultimately be looking out for you, no matter how things look at the moment?

Thank you, now we have someplace to start.

I see that you hold to a similar line of reasoning in that faith is presumption without evidence.

No, you misunderstood me. See... I said how much faith / how much evidence.

faith is believing in something for which I do not have proof.

How much faith is needed relates to how much evidence I have

Therefore, are you also no presuming that faith has no basis because it has has no evidence and therefore, faith is for the weak willed and feeble superstitious uneducated masses as you gave in your examples concerning slot machines etc.

Wrong premise and getting some really really wrong therefores!

So you wrote this: If I had proof of God, I would not need any faith to believe in Him

Isn't that built upon presumption and presupposition?

Not really. If I had proof, then I'd believe, no faith needed. No scientific tests, no challenges, no doubts, no nothing, there He is.

Faith in this case might be the faith that he'd look out for me. Just coz He is there wont mean he is going to rescue me.

Whom and in what do you place your trust in?

I put different amounts of faith / trust in different people, things, institutions, as I see them I expect you do the same.

Hi Audie, I edited your post here because of the way you posted it, no one could tell who is saying what. Please try to use the form edited in next post, thank you

[Audie]

I mean whatever Christians mean by it.

That's a cop out. It isn't an answer to B.W.'s question. You have to write down an answer from your own understanding so that this discussion can move ahead.

Im curious about one detail, which is about proof of God, which the shroud potentially could be.

Why do you think an old rag can be proof of God's existence? Please, tell me you are not serious! please, please, please...

FL

Well, I think that an "old rag" has a vanishingly small chance of proving anything other than that there is a lot of hype and wishful thinking.

Do you think-assuming there is a God- that He could not make an old rag that did not
contain proof of His existence?