A Better Faith.

[Doctor Ninja]

A Lamborghini Murciélago and a 1992 Toyota Accord are alike, too, in some senses and not in others but to say it is redundant to consider them different is not very smart, is it? Your use of faith and mine are alike in some things and not in others but enough for me to say the word "alike". Read what I've written and try to figure out the differences.

Love your round about way to state that Jeff K. is "not very smart". Let me guess, those that "agree" with you "get it" and are the "smart" ones? Okay, I finally get it now, thanks.

[LeSellers]

A Lamborghini Murciélago and a 1992 Toyota Accord are alike, too,

Well, no, they are not. the hypothetical toyota does not exist. An Accord is a Honda.

Lehi

[Ahab]

done. this is like saying to a philosopher that the dictionary definition for "cause" overrides all his arguments and ideas for saying cause is not seen in the proper light nor is it justified; or saying to a scientist that the definition of "species" is what the dictionary says without considering all the evidence he has pointing to saying "species" is not clear enough.

I don't understand the point you are making, assuming you are making a point.

My point is that the word "faith" actually means something, and what it means can be defined or explained using some other words to try to explain it. Assurance, for example, is another word which can correctly substitute for the word "faith", just as the phrase "to be sure about something" is another concept of what it means to have what the word "faith" is used to refer to.

I already explained why it is absurd to say such a thing in the OP. This is too broad a brush since ALL kinds of beliefs you are "sure" about would qualify as faith, which is silly.

Silly, but true. The fact that a person may have faith in something silly doesn't mean that he doesn't have real "faith" in that thing, however wrong he may be to have faith in it.

For example, if I "feel sure" that a cow just now jumped over the moon while a cat was playing a fiddle, what I have is "faith" in that concept, even though I could very well be wrong to have "faith" in that idea.

If I believe that tossing a coin and getting tails has a chance of 50% then, supposedly, I would be having faith in that 50% is the chance a coin toss result has of being tails.

Right, and even if you were wrong you would still have what is correctly called "faith" in that idea.

Or, if I believe that 2+2=4, then I have faith that 2+2=4, not knowledge.

You can have faith and knowledge at the very same time, and with either you could be wrong in what you claim to "know" or "feel sure" is true.

Even "things seen" would qualify as faith, although in the scriptures you read it is about things "not seen".

What you have faith "in" is a separate issue of what "faith" actually is.

Your mission, should you find out how to accept it, is to be sure about what is both true and good.

Your question has very little to do with the issue at hand so I'll ask you to please refrain from discussing this here. If you want to discuss "Who gave you that faith (or assurance)?" then open another thread.

I was just trying to help you out by telling you what "faith" really is, and you can be sure about whatever you want to be sure about.

Edited June 28, 2011 by Ahab

[elguanteloko]

I don't understand the point you are making, assuming you are making a point.

My point is that the word "faith" actually means something, and what it means can be defined or explained using some other words to try to explain it. Assurance, for example, is another word which can correctly substitute for the word "faith", just as the phrase "to be sure about something" is another concept of what it means to have what the word "faith" is used to refer to.

...OK, and I said why that definition doesn't make sense and gave reasons for that.

Silly, but true. The fact that a person may have faith in something silly doesn't mean that he doesn't have real "faith" in that thing, however wrong he may be to have faith in it.

What was silly is the use of "faith", not the object of faith.

For example, if I "feel sure" that a cow just now jumped over the moon while a cat was playing a fiddle, what I have is "faith" in that concept, even though I could very well be wrong to have "faith" in that idea.

You can have faith there since that is an extremely unlikely thing to believe. You don't have faith when you see a cow right in front of you and say "I believe there is a cow in front of me". THAT is what I said was silly and what your definition of faith requires to be called faith also. ANY belief about anything would be faith and that is silly.

Right, and even if you were wrong you would still have what is correctly called "faith" in that idea.

Being correct or not about anything has little to do with my use of faith, also, so there's no big problem here.

You can have faith and knowledge at the very same time, and with either you could be wrong in what you claim to "know" or "feel sure" is true.

Once again, being "wrong" has nothing to do with faith for me either.

What you have faith "in" is a separate issue of what "faith" actually is.

They are different but I'm alluding to the Bible's definition of faith that says faith is "certain of what we don't see". Certainty and hope of things seen is not faith even by Bible standards.

Your mission, should you find out how to accept it, is to be sure about what is both true and good.

...

I was just trying to help you out by telling you what "faith" really is, and you can be sure about whatever you want to be sure about.

Well, it's not "whatever I want", I'm giving you good reasons for it.

Edited June 28, 2011 by elguanteloko

[elguanteloko]

Well, no, they are not. the hypothetical toyota does not exist. An Accord is a Honda.

Lehi

LOL yes, sorry about that. haha!

[Ahab]

...OK, and I said why that definition doesn't make sense and gave reasons for that.

That definition of faith actually does make sense, and I feel very sure about that. You're simply showing that you don't agree with me, not that I'm wrong.

What was silly is the use of "faith", not the object of faith.

Okay, but people often use "faith" as a word to describe how they "feel sure" that something is true even when what they "feel sure" about isn't true... silly or not.

You can have faith there since that is an extremely unlikely thing to believe. You don't have faith when you see a cow right in front of you and say "I believe there is a cow in front of me". THAT is what I said was silly and what your definition of faith requires to be called faith also. ANY belief about anything would be faith and that is silly.

You have "faith" when you "feel sure" that something is true, and you can have that feeling even when you "know" something or can see it right in front of you.

Being correct or not about anything has little to do with my use of faith, also, so there's no big problem here.

Okay, then it looks to me like we agree at least partially on the concept of what it is to have faith even though we don't agree on what we feel sure about.

Once again, being "wrong" has nothing to do with faith for me either.

Okay, again, I can see that.

They are different but I'm alluding to the Bible's definition of faith that says faith is "the assurance of things NOT SEEN". The assurance of things seen is not faith even by Bible standards.

Paul was using a very narrow definition of "faith", rather than giving an exhaustive treatise on what faith, itself, really is.

Most prophets and apostles used and still use the word "faith" to refer to "faith from God", but "faith" can come from others, too, including people who are wrong about what they have faith in... or feel sure about.

Edited June 28, 2011 by Ahab

[Jeff K.]

So why would I drive your Toyota when God gave us a Lamborghini. Just because you put a few extra switches and flashy lights does not make your definition better. Frankly its kind of clunky and doesn't quite do the job. But you want us to run to it and exclaim its greatness? We are mortal, but we weren't born yesterday.

I would suggest the following.

First off, find out where the Lord is lacking in knowledge and communication of what faith is.

Second, learn to articulate the difference and why your version is better than the one God gave us.

Third, always remember that saying "you don't get it" is more a reflection of your ability to understand and communicate than it is someone who may get it reject what they view as an inferior product.

Try the steps, really, it works. And then you too will be able to "get it".

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Well, no, they are not. the hypothetical toyota does not exist. An Accord is a Honda.

Lehi

I have been to all 57 states with a... one more to go.

Pooned.

[elguanteloko]

No, you trust because that person has gained your trust through prior experience.

Sorry I wasn't clear enough. I meant that you use the trust you have in that person because there is a high risk of bumping into something while walking in the dark. We don't say "I trusted John when he told me the sky was blue although I was looking at the sky at the same time and I had already seen it blue." There's no need to use the trust or to apply the trust you have in a person for things that are obviously true or highly likely to be true.

It has nothing to do with what you can or can't see. A person has faith in God because he has had previous experience with God or knows someone he trusts who has. And you keep saying that what you have faith in is the most likely thing not to be true and is the greatest risk. I totally disagree. Trusting in God is not risky and will bring you to what is true.

Trusting in God is risky because chances are he doesn't exist at all just like grandma's cancer being cured by an angel or by God's power instead of the drugs is a highly unlikely thing to happen. That's why we call them miracles, after all. If cancer got cured 4 of every 5 times because of the power we clearly saw emanating from God's person, then there wouldn't be much of a miracle but a common occurrence.

Edited June 28, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Jeff K.]

Really your example is a bit lax and overlooks God's definition of faith.

Perhaps you should reread it and then apply it to the example you gave, which frankly is weak.

Sorry I wasn't clear enough. I meant that you use the trust you have in that person because there is a high risk of bumping into something while walking in the dark. We don't see "I trusted John when he told me the sky was blue although I was looking at the sky at the same time and I had already seen it blue." There's no need to use the trust or to apply the trust you have in a person for things that are obviously true or highly likely to be true.

The Apostle Paul taught that "faith is the substance [assurance] of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). Alma made a similar statement: "If ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true" (Alma 32:21). Faith is a principle of action and power. Whenever we work toward a worthy goal, we exercise faith. We show our hope for something that we cannot yet see.

What is true is often not seen. A blind man that cannot see the sky as being blue is taking it upon a certain level of faith. And it is true, the sky is blue, except of course where it is not. Your view of faith is a rather shallow view of perception justifying faith, however perception, like that of the blind man is limited.

If we want to really look at the perception problem we would see this....

Trusting in God is risky because chances are he doesn't exist at all just like grandma's cancer being cured by an angel or by God's power instead of the drugs is a highly unlikely thing to happen. That's why we call them miracles, after all. If cancer got cured 4 of every 5 times because of the power we clearly saw emanating from God's person, then there wouldn't be much of a miracle but a common occurrence.

You are like the blind man, and so to you, your faith is based entirely upon perception and so it is rather shallow since anything that you cannot percieve (or just plain disagree with) will be dismissed by you. In effect, you want to reduce faith to mere preception which, in the end is not faith, just what and how you happen to see things. Like the bottom feeder near a shore, you have no perception of the deep ocean out at sea, no real perception of the land, and the skies? Well, they change so much, how can you trust that it really exists. To you the sky is a miracle, it is unnatural and it is not consistent, your mind, like the bottom feeder near shore, has decided to jettison what it cannot predict, what it cannot measure, but what exists.

And you want us to accept this faith?

I am not sure you get what faith is.

Edited June 28, 2011 by Jeff K.

[elguanteloko]

That definition of faith actually does make sense, and I feel very sure about that. You're simply showing that you don't agree with me, not that I'm wrong.

Since you are not offering reasons but mere "I feel very sure about that" and "you just don't agree with me" instead of addressing the reasoning I'm offering, I won't be answering your posts until I see something of substance in them. Sorry. You have a serious problem identifying what a "reason" is.

Okay, but people often use "faith" as a word to describe how they "feel sure" that something is true even when what they "feel sure" about isn't true... silly or not.

Sure, and I use LOL when I don't really "laugh out loud"... we are trying to be more careful here than just saying "but that's not how A and B use it like". That's as relevant as saying, "Well, John Doe does NOT believe in the Big Bang"... good for him, I guess.

You have "faith" when you "feel sure" that something is true, and you can have that feeling even when you "know" something or can see it right in front of you.

I told you repeatedly why this can NOT be a good definition for faith. Address the reasoning. (writing something just below a quote of what I said is NOT the same thing as addressing my reasoning)

Okay, then it looks to me like we agree at least partially on the concept of what it is to have faith even though we don't agree on what we feel sure about.

LOL. No, we obviously don't agree with the most important aspects of what faith is. The statement I made ( and to which you are responding here) was about something very corollary to my definition. It's a consequence of my definition but kind of besides the point when you don't see what I'm trying to say.

Okay, again, I can see that.

...

Paul was using a very narrow definition of "faith", rather than giving an exhaustive treatise on what faith, itself, really is.

Whatever. It still directly contradicts what you were saying. Plus, you are far from offering "an exhaustive treatise on what faith, itself, really is" yourself. You don't even see the basics here.

Most prophets and apostles used and still use the word "faith" to refer to "faith from God", but "faith" can come from others, too, including people who are wrong about what they have faith in... or feel sure about.

Wherever it comes from (or if it should be thought of as something "coming from somewhere") is a different issue and an irrelevant one when one hasn't understood what faith is properly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Look, Ahab, please go back to the OP and read it more carefully this time. I promise everything you need to know to understand what I'm saying is right there.

[elguanteloko]

The Apostle Paul taught that "faith is the substance [assurance] of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1).

Notice this makes faith ONLY applicable to things which are not seen. If you see it then you don't have faith in it. If you see me standing in front of you, you don't have faith I'm standing in front of you. This is perfectly consistent with what I'm saying although I think this is way to broad and I made an effort to be clearer in the OP and throughout the posts.

Alma made a similar statement: "If ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true" (Alma 32:21)

Once again, things NOT SEEN. If you see something then you don't have faith in what you are seeing.

Jeff, you also said:

What is true is often not seen.

Not only is it "often not seen" but is MUST NOT be seen, according to the definitions you quoted, so it can be called faith. That is too unclear and I follow from these definitions and elaborate in the OP. What I'm saying does not contradict what you quoted at all.

[elguanteloko]

I have been to all 57 states with a... one more to go.

Pooned.

LOL Knock it off!

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 28 June 2011 - 04:18 PM, said:

The Apostle Paul taught that "faith is the substance [assurance] of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1).

Notice this makes faith ONLY applicable to things which are not seen. If you see it then you don't have faith in it. If you see me standing in front of you, you don't have faith I'm standing in front of you. This is perfectly consistent with what I'm saying although I think this is way to broad and I made an effort to be clearer in the OP and throughout the posts.

Let us provide the entire context please....

The Apostle Paul taught that "faith is the substance [assurance] of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). Alma made a similar statement: "If ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true" (Alma 32:21). Faith is a principle of action and power. Whenever we work toward a worthy goal, we exercise faith. We show our hope for something that we cannot yet see.

It makes faith applicable to what is also seen but not fully understood. The context is changed dramatically when you do not attempt to parse the idea of faith and thus your objection becomes moot. Editing should not change context

Quote

What is true is often not seen.

Not only is it "often not seen" but is MUST NOT be seen, according to the definitions you quoted, so it can be called faith. That is too unclear and I follow from these definitions and elaborate in the OP. What I'm saying does not contradict what you quoted at all.

You seem hung up on literalist terms without understanding context. The context of "not seeing" does not mean invisible or undefinable, it also means not fully understood, which in turn lends itself to partially understood or partially seen. I do not need to poke out both my eyes to be completely faithful because the context does not call for that. Your literalist stance is not quite accurate.

[elguanteloko]

Let us provide the entire context please....

It makes faith applicable to what is also seen but not fully understood.

...and if you understand what I'm saying you would realize I have no problem with this. "Not really understood" or "half understood" etc, has little to do with what I'm talking about and offers to conflict with the concept of faith I'm speaking of. From the options you have, whatever those options you happen to see and however those options happen to look like, the definition of faith I'm using says you must not pick the most likely option you see available in order for it to be called faith. If you pick the most likely option to be the case then you are not having faith.

The context is changed dramatically when you do not attempt to parse the idea of faith and thus your objection becomes moot. Editing should not change context

You didn't offer any context as far as the verses go. I was addressing the verses, now really the other things you said.

You seem hung up on literalist terms without understanding context. The context of "not seeing" does not mean invisible or undefinable, it also means not fully understood, which in turn lends itself to partially understood or partially seen. I do not need to poke out both my eyes to be completely faithful because the context does not call for that. Your literalist stance is not quite accurate.

Once again, "not fully understood" is also compatible with what I'm saying. No problem there. Jeff, seriously, read the OP carefully, would you?

Edited June 28, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Jeff K.]

Once again, "not fully understood" is also compatible with what I'm saying. No problem there. Jeff, seriously, read the OP carefully, would you?

I am forced to question whether you really understood what you wrote. To you use your words... Seriouslly, you need to understand the words you are using.

[elguanteloko]

I am forced to question whether you really understood what you wrote. To you use your words... Seriouslly, you need to understand the words you are using.

Here's the OP:

It is rather all too common to hear believers say to non-believers that they, too, have faith in many things and that they can't help do otherwise. I will propose that this is a ludicrous view and I will also propose a definition of faith (which I've proposed before here) that I think has several advantages and is clearer.

The definition of faith I propose is the following:

Faith is a trust or confidence that a given fact, explanation, or belief is the correct one while one also realizes said explanation, fact, or belief is NOT the most likely fact, explanation, or belief to be the case.

This proposed definition of faith has several advantages:

1. It differentiates between mere reckless belief or so-called "blind faith" and actual faith. To have faith requires having correct beliefs and realize what has good evidence going for it and what does not have good evidence going for it. If I use as reliable evidence for God's existence the fact that my grandmother's cancer was cured after I prayed fervently, and I base my belief in God in such events, then I do NOT have faith (though I have a reckless belief) since I'm using very bad evidence to justify God's existence.

2. This definition of faith makes it a necessary condition for having faith that the individual realizes the choice they are trusting on is NOT the most likely thing to be the case and this, in turn, means one HAS to be informed to a degree of what they are doing in order for it to be said to be faith. To have faith would require a realist view of the situation and of the options available. One would have to realize that asking for a miracle is NOT the most likely thing to be the case (not that many people spontaneously recover, for example) but one still chooses to go with trusting God.

3. This also distinguishes between having true beliefs, false beliefs, and simply picking a choice among the options (to say it in a way) from actual faith. If the car is behind either door A or door B and door A has about a 66% change of being the correct one while B has about 33%, then to choose A because we realize it has a better chance does NOT mean one has faith that the car is behind A at all. In other words, picking what we see as having the best chances of being correct is NOT faith but just either a belief or just playing with the chances.

I can explain this definition using the analogy presented in the movie Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. in that movie Indiana has to step into what seems an endless pit. He realizes that the most likely thing to be the case is that his eyesight is not mistaking him and that he is going to fall and die. He recognizes this fact but still chooses to "throw himself" and give that leap of faith. Indiana is informed that his eyes are very likely telling him the truth and that "something is going to support him" is NOT the most likely thing to happen. He, however, decides to have faith in this case and walk through it.

Imagine now a blind person who doesn't even realize there is (what looks like) an endless pit there but just walks through it because he is told to (or simply because he doesn't see any risk in that)... he can't possibly have faith since he doesn't even see "that walking through that place and not falling into certain death" is NOT the most likely explanation, something he would realize if he, like Indiana, was able to see. He just doesn't think about that risk since he can't see. This is an analogy to what I've been calling "reckless belief" or "blind faith": those beliefs that ignore evidence and just keep on walking because they don't see anything risky about it.

...in other words, we need to be informed in the sense Indiana was informed of the likelihood of his options had of being correct, IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE CALLED FAITH and not mere reckless belief or so-called "blind faith". Blind faith is not faith but reckless belief.

Now, read it carefully and then tell my why this excludes "not understanding fully" as a case that does not fit the definition I'm providing (put special attention on the Indiana Jones analogy where Indiana does NOT know whether there is a bridge or not but looks like there isn't any). "You don't get" is never enough, Jeff. You have a bad habit of doing that without proper justification. Stop it.

Edited June 28, 2011 by elguanteloko

[TAO]

Elguanteloko, you must have faith first too see. So in order to get that desired knowledge, you must take 'that step into the darkness', and then 'a whole bunch more lights up'. I like that apostle's analogy. Or was it a prophet? I forget. But you will no more see nor find what you desire unless you take the step of faith first. And I wouldn't be offering you this advice unless I knew it was true.

Innocent, pure, clean, and perfect faith will get you far further than distrust will, in how much God reveals himself to you, in many unexpected ways.

Best Wishes,

TAO

Edited June 28, 2011 by TAO

[elguanteloko]

Elguanteloko, you must have faith first too see. So in order to get that desired knowledge, you must take 'that step into the darkness', and then 'a whole bunch more lights up'. I like that apostle's analogy. Or was it a prophet? I forget. But you will no more see nor find what you desire unless you take the step of faith first. And I wouldn't be offering you this advice unless I knew it was true.

Innocent, pure, clean, and perfect faith will get you far further than distrust will, in how much God reveals himself to you, in many unexpected ways.

Best Wishes,

TAO

....thanks, I guess.

what did you think about the OP?

[Jeff K.]

Sigh, lets take it apart piece by piece and show the errors involved. In doing so I will use God's definition of faith since its simple and straightforward truth illustrates Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and myself as a reflection of Corinthians 1:27.

I have posted the following:

The Apostle Paul taught that "faith is the substance [assurance] of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). Alma made a similar statement: "If ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true" (Alma 32:21). Faith is a principle of action and power. Whenever we work toward a worthy goal, we exercise faith. We show our hope for something that we cannot yet see.

Here is your definition

1. It differentiates between mere reckless belief or so-called "blind faith" and actual faith. To have faith requires having correct beliefs and realize what has good evidence going for it and what does not have good evidence going for it. If I use as reliable evidence for God's existence the fact that my grandmother's cancer was cured after I prayed fervently, and I base my belief in God in such events, then I do NOT have faith (though I have a reckless belief) since I'm using very bad evidence to justify God's existence.

2. This definition of faith makes it a necessary condition for having faith that the individual realizes the choice they are trusting on is NOT the most likely thing to be the case and this, in turn, means one HAS to be informed to a degree of what they are doing in order for it to be said to be faith. To have faith would require a realist view of the situation and of the options available. One would have to realize that asking for a miracle is NOT the most likely thing to be the case (not that many people spontaneously recover, for example) but one still chooses to go with trusting God.

3. This also distinguishes between having true beliefs, false beliefs, and simply picking a choice among the options (to say it in a way) from actual faith. If the car is behind either door A or door B and door A has about a 66% change of being the correct one while B has about 33%, then to choose A because we realize it has a better chance does NOT mean one has faith that the car is behind A at all. In other words, picking what we see as having the best chances of being correct is NOT faith but just either a belief or just playing with the chances.

1. It differentiates between mere reckless belief or so-called "blind faith" and actual faith. To have faith requires having correct beliefs and realize what has good evidence going for it and what does not have good evidence going for it. If I use as reliable evidence for God's existence the fact that my grandmother's cancer was cured after I prayed fervently, and I base my belief in God in such events, then I do NOT have faith (though I have a reckless belief) since I'm using very bad evidence to justify God's existence.

It fails the credibility test because the definition of faith is a belief in things that are true, actual faith. To have faith requires correct beliefs, or in other words, belief in things that are true. The problem you have in your first statement is that truth exists with or without good evidence in its favor. Plate tectonics for existence did not suddenly exist when someone thought of them and found evidence, they existed before such evidence ever came about. Evidence is a perception or rationalization, it can lead to truth, however truth is not, nor ever has relied upon "evidence". If it is true, whether we find evidence or not is irrelevant to its truth.

So your first point is flawed, and dismissed because it does not understand the term truth in faith.

. This definition of faith makes it a necessary condition for having faith that the individual realizes the choice they are trusting on is NOT the most likely thing to be the case and this, in turn, means one HAS to be informed to a degree of what they are doing in order for it to be said to be faith. To have faith would require a realist view of the situation and of the options available. One would have to realize that asking for a miracle is NOT the most likely thing to be the case (not that many people spontaneously recover, for example) but one still chooses to go with trusting God.

Faith does not exist as an opposite point to most likely. Since the definition of faith the Lord provided is based on truth, faith may also exist in the most likely outcome. Faith may exist in any spectrum of liklihoods since precentages of outcome are based entirely upon perceptions and not necessarily what actually is. Noah is a case in point. Laughed at and ignored, his knowledge of the flood was very unlikely but true. A blessing upon my wife for surgery was also an act of faith, even though it was likely that she would recover fully. Remember, "If ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true" So your second point is again, short of the mark since it mistakes what faith is, and how it operates. You presume faith is something that by its nature must exist in the least likely catagory, which is a false and flawed assumption. So part two is pretty much tossed in the bin.

This also distinguishes between having true beliefs, false beliefs, and simply picking a choice among the options (to say it in a way) from actual faith. If the car is behind either door A or door B and door A has about a 66% change of being the correct one while B has about 33%, then to choose A because we realize it has a better chance does NOT mean one has faith that the car is behind A at all. In other words, picking what we see as having the best chances of being correct is NOT faith but just either a belief or just playing with the chances

The original quote from Heavenly Father through Alma is "If ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true". Since I have shown that faith, the belief in truth which is not seen, can exist in any range of possibility, your third point (which is actually a corallary to point two and therefore is not plausible. Indeed from your own "rules" you are left with gaping holes. You have not shown, in your literalist sense for example, what percentage (from your perception) the likliness of something has to be in order to define it as "faith" for you. So you cannot define the limits (and yet God did in one short verse), and are therefore left with "well what level of liklihood does faith exist at (2% likely, 10% likely, 80% likely?). You may not know it, but your term "playing with chances" exactly defines how you view faith. And that is indeed shallow and without understanding.

So you have spent many posts providing what you "percieve" is a better term for faith. You have said that depending on chance is not faith (and in that you and I agree because truth exists regardless of chance or evidence, both seen and unseen).

And yet a simple verse.... "If ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true". Completely destroys the entire house of cards and verbage you have built.

Edited June 28, 2011 by Jeff K.

[Ahab]

The definition of faith I propose is the following:

I'll use a different approach now, elguan, since it appears you're more interested in trying to redefine faith than to understand what it actually is.

Faith is a trust or confidence that a given fact, explanation, or belief is the correct one...

So far so good, but you mess up by trying to add something to the definition of faith instead of accepting it for what it actually is.

...while one also realizes said explanation, fact, or belief is NOT the most likely fact, explanation, or belief to be the case.

Someone who would accept such an idea of what faith is, while believing he or she has faith, would have to be a few short of a six pack.

Why would someone have faith in something while realizing what they had faith in wasn't the most likely fact, explanation, or belief to be the case?

Eh?

Nevermind, you don't have to answer that one when instead you can just have faith that what you are saying is true.

This proposed definition of faith has several advantages:

Even if the following were actually advantages, it still wouldn't do anything to explain why someone would want some kind of "faith" like that.

It's like they'd be saying: What I have faith in is NOT the most likely fact, explanation, or belief, or whatever, but I still feel sure about it anyway.

Ack!

1. It differentiates between mere reckless belief or so-called "blind faith" and actual faith. To have faith requires having correct beliefs and realize what has good evidence going for it and what does not have good evidence going for it. If I use as reliable evidence for God's existence the fact that my grandmother's cancer was cured after I prayed fervently, and I base my belief in God in such events, then I do NOT have faith (though I have a reckless belief) since I'm using very bad evidence to justify God's existence.

Using your definition, your faith not only doesn't have to be the most likely fact or explanation or belief, but you're saying at the outset that it isn't. Why do that,. or believe in something that you would say isn't most likely the case???

2. This definition of faith makes it a necessary condition for having faith that the individual realizes the choice they are trusting on is NOT the most likely thing to be the case and this, in turn, means one HAS to be informed to a degree of what they are doing in order for it to be said to be faith. To have faith would require a realist view of the situation and of the options available. One would have to realize that asking for a miracle is NOT the most likely thing to be the case (not that many people spontaneously recover, for example) but one still chooses to go with trusting God.

Why would anyone in their right mind trust or believe in something which they would say is not most likely to be true? Do you think all people with faith are idiots?

People who would admit that they were most likely wrong, because they would believe that what they believe in is NOT most likely the case, would have to have some kind of a mental problem to go along with thinking like that. Do you still wonder why most of us aren't jumping onto your own bandwagon?

3. This also distinguishes between having true beliefs, false beliefs, and simply picking a choice among the options (to say it in a way) from actual faith. If the car is behind either door A or door B and door A has about a 66% change of being the correct one while B has about 33%, then to choose A because we realize it has a better chance does NOT mean one has faith that the car is behind A at all. In other words, picking what we see as having the best chances of being correct is NOT faith but just either a belief or just playing with the chances.

So help me get this straight. As you see it, the person who would pick door B would be the person who would have and be exercising their own faith, because they would NOT be picking the door they felt was most likely to be the right door. In other words, they would be picking the door they "felt" was the wrong one, and because they felt it was most likely wrong, they would have faith.

Am I right?

I can explain this definition using the analogy presented in the movie Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. in that movie Indiana has to step into what seems an endless pit. He realizes that the most likely thing to be the case is that his eyesight is not mistaking him and that he is going to fall and die. He recognizes this fact but still chooses to "throw himself" and give that leap of faith. Indiana is informed that his eyes are very likely telling him the truth and that "something is going to support him" is NOT the most likely thing to happen. He, however, decides to have faith in this case and walk through it.

Yep, it looks like I'm right about you, after all. To you, the guy with faith is the guy who would intentionally do something he didn't reallly think would work out.

There might be a teeny weeny chance that it would work out, but the guy with faith wouldn't be going on that feeling. He'd be going against what he felt WAS most likely the case.

Not really the way people most people with faith live their own lives, elguanteloko.

We who live by faith live by what we feel sure is actually the truth, rather than what we believe is NOT most likely the case.

Edited June 29, 2011 by Ahab

[elguanteloko]

Well, I have to congratulate you, Jeff. This is, at least in comparison with your other posts, a truly outstanding and remarkable post! Seriously, I enjoyed responding to it. Keep it up!

Sigh, lets take it apart piece by piece and show the errors involved. In doing so I will use God's definition of faith since its simple and straightforward truth illustrates Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and myself as a reflection of Corinthians 1:27.

I have posted the following:

Here is your definition

Well, that wasn't the definition. The definition was: "Faith is a trust or confidence that a given fact, explanation, or belief is the correct one while one also realizes said explanation, fact, or belief is NOT the most likely fact, explanation, or belief to be the case."

It fails the credibility test because the definition of faith is a belief in things that are true, actual faith. To have faith requires correct beliefs, or in other words, belief in things that are true.

That's what I said in the OP. I said that, "1. It differentiates between mere reckless belief or so-called "blind faith" and actual faith. To have faith requires having correct beliefs and realize what has good evidence going for it and what does not have good evidence going for it. If I use as reliable evidence for God's existence the fact that my grandmother's cancer was cured after I prayed fervently, and I base my belief in God in such events, then I do NOT have faith (though I have a reckless belief) since I'm using very bad evidence to justify God's existence."

You need to make a distinction here between the object of faith and what one thinks of that object of faith. When I said faith requires having "correct beliefs" I was NOT talking about the object of faith but about realizing that some of the options are more likely than others and to see that the object we are going to put our faith on is NOT the most likely thing to be true. Do you understand this? If you do not have the correct belief that the "God" option is not the most likely to be true, then you can't have faith in that sense REGARDLESS of whether God is true or not since that's another issue (i.e. the object of faith is another issue from what one thinks of the object of faith).

Now, Alma does speak of having faith in things that are true in order for that belief to be called faith but I think that is extremely problematic (the one in Hebrews 11:1 is much better). If you "don't see it" then you can't say it is true and determine if it is faith in the first place. Faith, then, becomes a matter of mere "hitting the target without knowing if you got it" in which you trust in some things and there's no way of knowing whether you are having faith or not since you don't know they are true or not since you not seeing them is a requirement for faith. Please read this carefully to understand what I'm saying here. I'm saying the definition of faith given in Alma is a performative contradiction in that it says we must NOT see it but must be true while to say it is true we must first see it. That definition of faith says the object of faith must be true though we can't determine if it is without seeing it... but you can't see it because then it wouldn't be faith. If you say it's true then you saw it but if you saw it then it isn't faith. Then, since the definition of faith in Alma requires both, it requires seeing the object of faith (so as to determine if it is true) and not seeing it (so as to meet the "not seen" part).

The problem you have in your first statement is that truth exists with or without good evidence in its favor. Plate tectonics for existence did not suddenly exist when someone thought of them and found evidence, they existed before such evidence ever came about. Evidence is a perception or rationalization, it can lead to truth, however truth is not, nor ever has relied upon "evidence". If it is true, whether we find evidence or not is irrelevant to its truth.

I NEVER said faith requires evidence in its favor AT ALL. I'm saying faith requires that one realizes that options is NOT the most likely thing to be the case, either with or without evidence for it.

So your first point is flawed, and dismissed because it does not understand the term truth in faith.

...

Faith does not exist as an opposite point to most likely. Since the definition of faith the Lord provided is based on truth, faith may also exist in the most likely outcome. Faith may exist in any spectrum of liklihoods since precentages of outcome are based entirely upon perceptions and not necessarily what actually is. Noah is a case in point. Laughed at and ignored, his knowledge of the flood was very unlikely but true. A blessing upon my wife for surgury was also an act of faith, even though it was likely that she would recover fully. Remember, "If ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true" So your second point is again, short of the mark since it mistakes what faith is, and how it operates. You presume faith is something that by its nature must exist in the least likely catagory, which is a false and flawed assumption. So part two is pretty much tossed in the bin.

...

The original quote from Heavenly Father through Alma is "If ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true". Since I have shown that faith, the belief in truth which is not seen, can exist in any range of possibility, your third point (which is actually a corallary to point two and therefore is not plausible. Indeed from your own "rules" you are left with gaping holes. You have not shown, in your literalist sense for example, what percentage (from your perception) the likliness of something has to be in order to define it as "faith" for you. So you cannot define the limits (and yet God did in one short verse), and are therefore left with "well what level of liklihood does faith exist at (2% likely, 10% likely, 80% likely?). You may not know it, but your term "playing with chances" exactly defines how you view faith. And that is indeed shallow and without understanding.

What the actual percentages are does NOT matter. All I'm requiring for faith is that you see the option you are going to trust on as the one that is NOT the most likely to be true. That is, most of the times, extremely easy to see.

So you have spent many posts providing what you "percieve" is a better term for faith. You have said that depending on chance is not faith (and in that you and I agree because truth exists regardless of chance or evidence, both seen and unseen).

And yet a simple verse.... "If ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true". Completely destroys the entire house of cards and verbage you have built.

...

Edited June 29, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Jeff K.]

Well, I have to congratulate you, Jeff. This is, at least in comparison with your other posts, a truly outstanding and remarkable post! Seriously, I enjoyed responding to it. Keep it up!

Wish I could return the complement, but unfortunately you seem to have the same blindness to words and their meaning that you have always shown. I would suggest you read my post more carefully as it defines faith, whereas you have not defined it, you have merely played percentages.

Try and do better next time.

I have never liked backhanded compliments or patronizing attitudes.

Edited June 29, 2011 by Jeff K.

[TAO]

....thanks, I guess.

what did you think about the OP?

I didn't like it too much, tbh. I view faith pretty much the same way that I view trusting another person. Really, God is like a person, when you talk to him. Well - actually he is a person XD. No wonder.

Of course I realize that I could be wrong, but ya' know, I don't care about it much, because, I also could be right, and it feels right for me. I'll take God's word as his and try it out first. Just as I take another person's word as honest until I learn otherwise. As the events stack up, so does the probability, so to say, and so far, God's word has been very solid for me. Sometimes hard - but very solid, and always, trustworthy.

[elguanteloko]

Wish I could return the complement, but unfortunately you seem to have the same blindness to words and their meaning that you have always shown.

You think so? Did you even read what I posted?

I would suggest you read my post more carefully as it defines faith,

Done! ...and it still doesn't work. See the post #47 for why that is.

whereas you have not defined it,

Well, I have. You might think it isn't right but that I've defined it is a fact anyone with eyesight can see it in the OP.

you have merely played percentages.

I said already that the actual percentages do not matter. What matters is what the one having faith sees. I explained this in the OP.

Try and do better next time.

I have never liked backhanded compliments or patronizing attitudes.

What? I was serious, Jeff. I enjoyed your comment and responding to it.

Edited June 29, 2011 by elguanteloko