Faith vs Skepticism - Why faith?

The Bibles take on the meaning of the word 'faith' is different perhaps, than your own. If so, then your bafflement might be resolved by merely shifting from your current definition to the biblical definition - when faced with people of faith. Biblical faith is 'defined' as a particular class of evidence which leads a person to eg: know God exists / trust in God / love God. It is described as the substance which powers such things.Thus:- if a person believes in God by faith then all that is being said is that they believe based on evidence - in which case they are being perfectly rational and there is nothing in particular to be intriqued about.- if a person believes in God by faith and says they have evidence which lets them conclude God then they are being consistant and there is no reason to be baffled.- It doesn't in the sense of the mechanics of belief (ie: a person believes something to be the case based on evidence. The more convincing the evidence, the stronger they believe whatever it is) The only significant difference has to do with the class of evidence being dealt with (see above). Faith is 'empirically invisable evidence'. That said, the empirical world does evidence biblical argument and can be said to be evidence of God and what he says is the case. For example:- man sharing a(n arguably) common morality evidences the biblical argument which says all men have a God-given conscience- the world proving itself incapable of avoiding war and getting along with each other evidences the biblical argument which says man is intrinsically sinful and selfish.-If I've missed the point by hopping in so then my apologies. Feel free to ignore the post.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

No worries.. good title. Anglagard missed the opportunity to use the actual songs title over at the 'God is evil' thread.- I have my own idea (centred around a philosophy called empiricism) but let's have a look see.- If that's what skeptics are faced with then certainly, the fault lies with the believer. It would strike me as fair and decent that the believer approach things evidentially according to the rules of what constitutes evaluation of evidence. Or they begin their discussion, as you suggest, from the viewpoint of faith - the unseen evidence.. To mix the two as you suggest, even if not deliberately intended so, will surely leave the sour impression of faith: the bolthole.The problem could be expected to be accentuated if the believers understanding of what faith is and does is poorly understood (and I include myself in that - having only but grasped the idea that faith is at least a substance which powers the believers belief). It behoves the belief to be able to give a reason for the hope that they have - and whilst they can never prove their position they can at least atttempt to argue from a reasoned position given starting assumptions.We shouldn't forget the false profession of a "Jew", ie: the religiously Christian person who supposes themselves a believer but who isn't actually. There is no short measure of this type muddying the waters. Their faith, unbiblical in nature, has no substance. The resulting belief is, therefore, a blind and spiritually unevidenced belief, buttressed only by whatever indoctrination supports it + whatever hard evidence there is which can be argued to support that belief.It follows that such believers will be forced to tend towards faith: the bolthole. Which means you, an unbeliever, need take your complaint up with then, the unbelievers . Behold, Mod, you stand at the wrong persons door and knock.. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

More or less.Given that there are truly but two categories of person, the (as yet) lost and the found, then a lost person who adheres to Christian practice - for whatever reason (usually as a result of their upbringing) - is not a believer in the only sense that matters. They might believe in God, but even the demons do that...It's no ironclad measure of things (although it isn't that hard to spot the average unbeliever), but at the last census ca. 90% of the Irish population self-identified as Christian (largely Roman Catholic). Yet on an average Sunday in the town where I attend church, only 400-500 of the 15,000 or so population ever attend Sunday church of any denomination.- Their profession of belief might be genuine. What matters is the basis of their believing what they believe. If it's the result of a personal encounter with God then it's a saving belief. If its the result of upbringing .. or even a sincere desire to believe, then it not a saving belief - however genuinely felt/desired.- My apologies. You're usually so knowledgeable about that which you engage in discussion in, I'd taken it for granted you'd know.As mentioned earlier, there are but two categories of people in the whole world, regardless of the age they lived in. The two categories of people we'll call; The Lost and The Found. Amongst The Lost there are also two main divisions: The Religious Lost and The Irreligious Lost. Both are destined for Hell should they remain lost.The Religious Lost 'believe in God' (perhaps in the way outlined above) and attempt to obtain favour with God (unto favorable afterlife outcome) by following Gods laws to the best of their ability. Examples of The Religious Lost would be found in Judaism, Islam and any works-based Christian denomination (usually, but not at all limited to, Roman Catholicism). Ex-member Jar, for example, was an excellent example of The Religious Lost, centring his theology on Matthew 25, in which the saved and the unsaved appear to be separated on the basis of their having done good works.Why describe The Religious Lost as 'Jew'? Well, in Pauls day, the Jew was the obvious, local example of a Religious Lost on which to base his global example. The Jews in those days sought to appease God through their observence of legal statutes. They do so still - as do many other religions: Islam, Roman Catholicism, aspects of Protestantism..* arguably, you could include any kind of religious person and any kind of divinity into the 'Jew' category of lost person. The word 'Jew' in this context is merely representitive of a type: the person who believes they can earn a 'positive afterlife outcome' by their following the rules of whatever diety they happen to worship. And so we can include eg: Hindu's in our list of 'Jews')The other category of lost person, the irreligious person, is referred to as 'a Gentile'. Atheists and agnostics and deists would fit snugly into this category of lost folk.There's no a cut n' dried de-lineation between that which is a 'Jew' and that which is a 'Gentile'. Not that it much matters. What needs to be born in mind is that both are lost.-__________* that someone identifies as eg: a Roman Catholic or a Hindu doesn't necessarily mean they are lost. It is part of the human condition to suppose that we must appease God (a notion even the atheists give credence to - in their supposing that their works would be the defining issue "should it turn out that God actually does exist at the end of the day"). And so, someone who has fulfilled the criterion of salvation, perhaps unknown to themselves, can continue to labour under the notion that they must 'appease God by my works' and in turn, adhere to the tenets of a 'Jewish' religion Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

That's a question I've meant to ask a dozen times at least. Like, what set of parameters does a person apply to the problem of Gods likelyhood or no? And how do they figure those parameters to be relevant to the question at hand?

You appear to have had a reasonable amount of time to form some kind of tentitive conclusion. What kind of god do you envisage based on the above approach?Supposing for a moment the 'collected works' of creation as presented to you were analogous to a sagging-on-it's-springs, rusted old BMW: a remarkable work - but clearly flawed. And you'd never seen a new BMW. How does your approach circumvent the natural tendency to conclude the BMW's designer somewhat incapable?

I'm with Jung.

I believe the external reality is objective and that I'm not a brain in a jar. I'm in the same position as you I'd imagine. What was that you were saying about your position being based on 'unless there is objective evidence'?