A Better Faith.

[elguanteloko]

What, in your opinion, is something that "needs" to be seen with the eyes before you can choose to believe in it?

God... before I can believe in it.

I don't think there is anything, because any of us could choose to believe whatever we want to believe, with or without any evidence.

I can't choose to believe that there isn't a what I call a computer in front of me. If you can do that... well, you are a scary dude.

How do you know your "option" is the "real" one? How do you know you know? What if what you think you see is not really there?

"What if?" is not a reason to doubt anything.

It's all by faith, bro... even when your faith is "dormant". You still "feel sure" even when you "know" something.

Listen, Ahab, if you are not going to engage the arguments and you are going to repeat like a 5-year old that what you are saying is faith, then don't post in this thread anymore. Please.

Faith is to "feel sure" about something, and you can stil "feel sure" even when you "know" something is true.

and this even rejects the scriptures as I have been telling you over and over again.

The word used is "dormant", not "absent". "Knowing" is simply a 100% certainty in something you were once not 100% certain about.

"Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." (Hebrews 11:1). "[...]for if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it." (Alma 32:18) "therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true." (Alma 32:21) "[...]and he had faith no longer, for he knew, nothing doubting" (Ether 3:19)

You are wrong. Deal with it.

You can see all of those things with your natural eyes, in examples. I asked you for an example of something that you can't see with your natural eyes.

Those are universals, they are not seen with the "natural eye". You don't see in nature that everything must be whatever it is and can't be whatever it is not. You don't see in nature that everything that has a form of modus ponens is a valid inference. You don't see that everything you put for 2 will give you 4 if you add 2+2. You don't see in nature that ALL triangles in a plane will have all its angles summed to 180 degrees.

For example, how do you know somebody loves you? Or more to the point, what makes you feel "sure" someone does?

Similar behaviors to my own. Simple. I may not "know for certain" but that doesn't mean I don't know. Doubt, also, requires justification, Ahab, and I have no reason to doubt other some else loves me when I recognize it.

If it is by some actions you see there are some other explanations for why they could be acting that way.

ONCE AGAIN, that there are other explanations you can come up with does NOT justify doubting in what you already believe when those seem much less likely to be the case.

[elguanteloko]

I had a huge response, but if you recognize a difference in the way the terms have been used over the centuries, by all means, continue.

I don't mean over the centuries but over the scriptures. Read what I wrote to see what I mean. I put verses there that are clearly NOT talking about action or loyalty but about a belief or trust.

[Ahab]

God... before I can believe in it.

Would you be satisfied with gaining knowledge of the fact that there must be a God, before you actually saw him (or her or them or it) ?

That's where I started, before I started trying to actually communicate with him (the one I usually think of when I refer to a particular person as God, and yes I'm pretty sure it's a him), and to get to that point is pretty easy.

All you have to do is think of "God" as the ultimate kind of being in all of existence, and then start looking for the signs that there must be a "supreme" out of "all" that exist.

You do know there are many kinds of beings which exist, don't you?

Well, God is the best, or most supreme, kind... with that kind also existising as both male and female, as we do.

Anyway, just thought I would throw you out a little more life line, just in case you might like to grab hold of a little more reality.

I can't choose to believe that there isn't a what I call a computer in front of me. If you can do that... well, you are a scary dude.

I could do that, but I'd rather not. I know better than to believe something that stupid.

"What if?" is not a reason to doubt anything.

"What if" is a reason to start believing in the possibility that something actually is real, though.

"What if there is a God" is a question you should consider finding the correct answer to.

Listen, Ahab, if you are not going to engage the arguments and you are going to repeat like a 5-year old that what you are saying is faith, then don't post in this thread anymore. Please.

I will and have been engaging in the arguments, at my leisure.

and this even rejects the scriptures as I have been telling you over and over again.

No it doesn't. You might think it does, but you would be wrong to think that it does.

"Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." (Hebrews 11:1). "[...]for if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it." (Alma 32:18) "therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true." (Alma 32:21) "[...]and he had faith no longer, for he knew, nothing doubting" (Ether 3:19)

As I told you, I don't actually "see" God with my natural eyes, nor do I see (with my natural eyes) the answers God gives to me, personally.

And as I also told you, there is a way of "knowing" soemthing without having to see it with your natural eyes.

You are wrong. Deal with it.

Your faith which is your feeling that I am wrong is what is wrong. Deal with that.

Those are universals, they are not seen with the "natural eye".

You "see" them by seeing examples of them, just as you see anything else by seeing an example of it.

You don't see in nature that everything must be whatever it is and can't be whatever it is not.

Actually, I do. When I look at something, in nature or anywhere else, what I see is that it is what it is, even if it's only a figment of my imagination.

You don't see in nature that everything that has a form of modus ponens is a valid inference.

I'm just a poor wayfaring man of grief. Can you put that in plain English for me, please?

You don't see that everything you put for 2 will give you 4 if you add 2+2.

Yes I do, if I'm adding 2 + 2 of the same kind of thing... and it's also 4 items if they are different kinds of things.

You don't see in nature that ALL triangles in a plane will have all its angles summed to 180 degrees.

I think that's because there are different kinds of triangles with different angles in them.

Similar behaviors to my own. Simple. I may not "know for certain" but that doesn't mean I don't know. Doubt, also, requires justification, Ahab, and I have no reason to doubt other some else loves me when I recognize it.

I don't really want you to doubt that somebody loves you, but I would like you to at least consider that possibility that what "some people" call love isn't really love, even though they might think it is.

ONCE AGAIN, that there are other explanations you can come up with does NOT justify doubting in what you already believe when those seem much less likely to be the case.

Exactly, which is why I will continue to have faith in what I faith in regardless of what the naysayers and those who like to cast doubts about my faith say to me.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Ahab

[elguanteloko]

This is derailing the thread, Ahab.

Would you be satisfied with gaining knowledge of the fact that there must be a God, before you actually saw him (or her or them or it) ?

Irrelevant.

That's where I started, before I started trying to actually communicate with him (the one I usually think of when I refer to a particular person as God, and yes I'm pretty sure it's a him), and to get to that point is pretty easy.

All you have to do is think of "God" as the ultimate kind of being in all of existence, and then start looking for the signs that there must be a "supreme" out of "all" that exist.

You do know there are many kinds of beings which exist, don't you?

Well, God is the best, or most supreme, kind... with that kind also existising as both male and female, as we do.

Anyway, just thought I would throw you out a little more life line, just in case you might like to grab hold of a little more reality.

LOL Funny but irrelevant.

I could do that, but I'd rather not. I know better than to believe something that stupid.

...

"What if" is a reason to start believing in the possibility that something actually is real, though.

"What if there is a God" is a question you should consider finding the correct answer to.

I will and have been engaging in the arguments, at my leisure.

No it doesn't. You might think it does, but you would be wrong to think that it does.

As I told you, I don't actually "see" God with my natural eyes, nor do I see (with my natural eyes) the answers God gives to me, personally.

And as I also told you, there is a way of "knowing" soemthing without having to see it with your natural eyes.

Your faith which is your feeling that I am wrong is what is wrong. Deal with that.

You "see" them by seeing examples of them, just as you see anything else by seeing an example of it.

Actually, I do. When I look at something, in nature or anywhere else, what I see is that it is what it is, even if it's only a figment of my imagination.

I'm just a poor wayfaring man of grief. Can you put that in plain English for me, please?

Yes I do, if I'm adding 2 + 2 of the same kind of thing... and it's also 4 items if they are different kinds of things.

I think that's because there are different kinds of triangles with different angles in them.

I don't really want you to doubt that somebody loves you, but I would like you to at least consider that possibility that what "some people" call love isn't really love, even though they might think it is.

Exactly, which is why I will continue to have faith in what I faith in regardless of what the naysayers and those who like to cast doubts about my faith say to me.

LOL Dude, with all due respect, you take the prize as the worst poster of the thread. I beg you not to continue posting here. Take that as a kind favor I'm asking of you.

Edited June 30, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Ahab]

I beg you not to continue posting here.

Aww, you didn't have to resort to begging me, bro.

All you had to say was you didn't want any help with your unbelief and I wouldn't have even tried to help you.

May the force be with you when you someday really want it to be.

Do not witness, proselyte or anything like unto it on our board. The state of anyone's belief is not your concern.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Minos

[Ahab]

Do not witness, proselyte or anything like unto it on our board. The state of anyone's belief is not your concern.

You're fooling yourself if you think people who post on this board aren't doing some form of "witnessing" to others when they write a post on "our" board.

We are all here to share some form of witness to others, whether it is a true or false witness, and you'll have to ban every single one of us if you really want to try to stop it.

[HeatherAnn]

...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.

Hi Elguanteloko (what a name!),

I agree & I like your quote, "An 'inner process' stands in need of outward criteria." -Ludwig Wittgenstein

I felt the spirit about my ex boyfriend, so I thought, does this mean I should leave my husband & kids for this guy who's cheated on every woman he's been with??

Of course not! That's when I started to realize... that spiritual feelings are beautiful in themselves, but deciding what they mean intellectually, is a whole other matter.

We must use both logic & the Spirit, in interpretting spirtiual feelings & experiences.

We all have the seed of love within us... & sometimes the thought of someone or something can water that seed, but sometimes it's not any more than that.

I also resonate with how you explained all cannot be known through the senses.

Such humility is an ingredient for spiritual experiences, as well as faith & love.

My favorite definition of faith (so far) is in Hebrews 11:1: "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

The dark energy/matter (which makes up 95% our universe) fits this definition of faith.

Faith, hope & LOVE are so intertwined - practically one & the same.

IMO, Love is hoping & striving for what is best, through trial & error (faith).

God represents the highest love - or the highest good of any moment, which we sometimes miraculously find through both reason/intellect & spirit/intuition.

Edited July 1, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[HeatherAnn]

...All you have to do is think of "God" as the ultimate kind of being in all of existence, and then start looking for the signs that there must be a "supreme" out of "all" that exist.

Well, God is the best, or most supreme, kind... with that kind also existising as both male and female, as we do.

..."What if there is a God" is a question you should consider finding the correct answer to.

...As I told you, I don't actually "see" God with my natural eyes, nor do I see (with my natural eyes) the answers God gives to me, personally.

...I think that's because there are different kinds of triangles with different angles in them.

I don't really want you to doubt that somebody loves you, but I would like you to at least consider that possibility that what "some people" call love isn't really love, even though they might think it is.

Exactly, which is why I will continue to have faith in what I faith in regardless of what the naysayers and those who like to cast doubts about my faith say to me.

Hi Ahab,

You've mentioned several interesting concepts I relate with.

I believe we find what we look for... & beliefs are powerful! (Just consider how you feel when thinking stressful thoughts or after thinking of something hillarious & laughing).

So it is important to continue to have faith, no matter what anyone says.

A scripture about this used to tick me off, but now it's one of my favorites! It's about the Canaan woman who persistently begged Jesus to heal her daughter. His disciplies told Jesus to send her away because she was bugging them. Instead, Jesus explained to her that he was only to help those of Israel & that "It is not meet to take the children's bread, & to cast it to dogs." Yet she replied, "Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table." Then Jesus answered, "O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. & her daughter was made whole from that very hour." (Matt 15:22-28)

This parable reminds us of the greatest commandments - to love others AS OURSELVES.

We are commanded to love & keep faith in ourselves, even & especially when others don't.

I like how you refer to God as both male & female - it makes sense.

IMO, denying God is denying that there is much unknown & unknowable scientifically.

Also, many define God in limiting ways that would make me deny also.

I believe God represents the highest energy - best possibility in any given circumstance.

With this definition of God, all believe in & are actively pursuing getting to know God.

Good analogy of many triangles with many angles within them.

A friend taught me that truth is perspective, the more perspectives, the more truthful.

Love is based on understanding - the more perspectives we gather, the more we understand & the better we can love (do what's best for self & others).

Edited July 1, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[elguanteloko]

I also resonate with how you explained all cannot be known through the sense .

Such humility is an ingredient for spiritual experiences, as well as faith & love.

?

That's not humility, that's a fact. That I can't know through the sense that the square root of 2 is irrational is a fact, not an expression of my "humility".

My favorite definition of faith (so far) is in Hebrews 11:1: "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Which is very incomplete and I explain why in the OP.

The dark energy/matter (which makes up 95% our universe) fits this definition of faith.

I explained several times (and in the OP) why this isn't faith at all.

This isn't faith because it is the best explanation for events. If the best explanation for some events in the universe is dark matter, how is that faith? That's just the best you've got and you need absolutely no trust to accept it. It is not trust to believe that my car is not going to explode because that is not the most likely thing to happen. Science isn't faith based because it works ONLY with the best explanations or tries to look for the best explanations.

The only way the dark matter explanation can be said to be faith-based is if someone thinks that it is NOT the most likely explanation and still chooses to trust in it.

Faith, hope & LOVE are so intertwined - practically one & the same.

IMO, Love is hoping & striving for what is best, through trial & error (faith).

God represents the highest love - or the highest good of any moment, which we sometimes miraculously find through both reason/intellect & spirit/intuition.

...

Edited July 1, 2011 by elguanteloko

[HeatherAnn]

It'd be nice if your posts became more full of faith, hope & love. lol

Humility is realizing there is much more to us & everything, & that we are so tiny in comparison, as Moses realized.

So... in order to have faith in something, one must first deny it, then believe it anyway???

Who in this wide world is motivated that way? Maybe someone who's missing a marble or two.

Or maybe those who are in living in major denial.

The ONLY reason why we'd pursue faith is because of hope & love, not because of denial.

I respect your ever-changing perspective, yet mine is different.

Are you trying to explain that spirituality cannot be proved scientifically, so one must put aside standard scientific methods to spiritually measure spiritual matters?

Edited July 1, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[elguanteloko]

It'd be nice if your posts became more full of faith, hope & love. lol

Humility is realizing there is much more to us & everything, & that we are so tiny in comparison, as Moses realized.

I gave an example of something that is not shown "with the senses". Would you mind addressing it? That's not a matter of opinion or of me being humble but a matter of fact.

So... in order to have faith in something, one must first deny it, then believe it anyway???

One must realize it isn't the most likely thing to be the case. If you think walking through the street and not falling to the center of the Earth is the most likely thing to believe, then you walking through the street is NOT an act of faith. If you think it is quite likely that you are going to fall but you trust in that you will not, THEN you have faith. Go back to the OP and read the Indiana Jones analogy.

Who in this wide world is motivated that way? Maybe someone who's missing a marble or two.

Sons who trust their parents? Parents who trust their sons? Friends who trust their friends?

Or maybe those who are in living in major denial.

The ONLY reason why we'd pursue faith is because of hope & love, not because of denial.

I respect your ever-changing perspective, yet mine is different.

...again, please go back to the OP and read it carefully. You haven't, apparently.

Are trying to explain that spirituality cannot be proved scientifically, so one must put aside standard scientific methods to spiritually measure spiritual matters?

Not at all; on the contrary. You MUST know that your view is not the most likely in order for you to have faith. Reckless belief or naive belief is not faith. I'm talking about possibilities and chances here, NOT about what you do or do not know (if you know something it is a given that you can't have faith in it).

Edited July 1, 2011 by elguanteloko

[CV75]

You MUST know that your view is not the most likely in order for you to have faith. Reckless belief or naive belief is not faith. I'm talking about possibilities and chances here, NOT about what you do or do not know (if you know something it is a given that you can't have faith in it).

This is what I was saying in my last post a couple of pages ago—possibilities and chance are not about faith. People can't have assurance in something they assess as having little or no chance or possibility of happening. This is why they act, see results, and continue growing in faith.

[elguanteloko]

This is what I was saying in my last post a couple of pages ago—possibilities and chance are not about faith.

So here you just deny what I said without any reason.

People can't have assurance in something they assess as having little or no chance or possibility of happening.

Which is not a problem to my position; you are going to an absurd extreme that I don't hold. I'm not saying they have to accept what they see as having "little or no chance or possibility of happening" (though if they do it would still be faith, though), but that they must accept something they see as being NOT most likely choice. Do you see the difference? It could be the second down the list and that would still be faith (though we would call that trust requiring very little faith).

This is why they act, see results, and continue growing in faith.

...

[HeatherAnn]

Elguanteloko,

I never implied that humility is only based on that which is not understood through the senses... only that we are less significant than we often think.

Dark energy & matter are NOT completely understood, so it does apply. Yes, we understand that it's not understood, but what is that?? lol

I read your OP again & still, it doesn't sway my perspective that faith is based on hope, not denial... You simply have limited your definition of faith.

It seems you are defining faith as only based on intuition, not logic. I define faith as based on BOTH intuition AND logic.

Sometimes faith depends more on our limited logical view, sometimes intuition - as with your analogy of Indiana Jones... but it's always based on HOPE.

We cannot separate our intuitive part with our brain - they are a package... they work together to help us accomplish our potential.

You mentioned, "if you know something it is a given that you can't have faith in it."

Who knows anything? We think we know, from our limited perspective but it's such a tiny part of an enormous puzzle... so we are constantly exercising faith.

True, sometimes logic conflicts with intuition & we act anyway, which is more of a "work out" in exercising faith.

It seems the logic comes easier than the intuition... except for children. Maybe that's partly why we're commanded to be as children.

I like how you explained blind faith. Jesus is referred to as the "Prince of Peace" - yet also "acquainted with grief."

IMO, that conflict between logic & intuition is anything but peaceful, yet it's the ONLY way of expressing faith & spirituality.

Those who lean on blind faith, tradition, others, logic or science, don't exercise this faith as much.

Edited July 1, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[elguanteloko]

Elguanteloko,

I never implied that humility is only based on that which is not understood through the senses...

No, you didn't say that but you DID say saying what I said was humility. It wasn't. It's a matter of fact.

I read your OP again & still, it doesn't sway my perspective that faith is based on hope, not denial... You simply have limited your definition of faith.

It seems you are defining faith as only based on intuition, not logic. I define faith as based on BOTH intuition AND logic.

I'm not talking about what faith "is based on" so that's where you are getting all this wrong. I'm saying what conditions must be there for it to be faith, NOT where faith originates or why someone may choose to trust in something. I'm saying under what conditions a trust is faith and in what others it isn't.

[HeatherAnn]

No, you didn't say that but you DID say saying what I said was humility. It wasn't. It's a matter of fact.

Let me quote my friend who I'm sure you'd get along with great... lol

"Truth is NOT FACT. Facts are but one possibility of truth. Truth has infinite possiblities."

I'm not talking about what faith "is based on" so that's where you are getting all this wrong. I'm saying what conditions must be there for it to be faith, NOT where faith originates or why someone may choose to trust in something. I'm saying under what conditions a trust is faith and in what others it isn't.

?? "Based on"... "Conditions must be there for" = Same concepts.

You know, it's OK to agree... or maybe you're having faith in what I say by denying it.

[elguanteloko]

Let me quote my friend who I'm sure you'd get along with great... lol

"Truth is NOT FACT. Facts are but one possibility of truth. Truth has infinite possiblities."

To say that truth has infinite possibilities (if this is true) would be a fact. Facts are statements about what is true. Truth can't have any possibility other than 100% since truth is what is, not what can be. Tell your friend he is wrong.

?? "Based on"... "Conditions must be there for" = Same concepts.

"My house is based on concrete and a foundation" is NOT the same as "My house needs X and Y and Z for it to be called a house.

Edited July 1, 2011 by elguanteloko

[HeatherAnn]

To say that truth has infinite possibilities (if this is true) would be a fact. Facts are statements about what is true. Truth can't have any possibility other than 100% since truth is what is, not what can be. Tell your friend he is wrong.

Who decides what is true? Nobody knows what the ultimate 100% truth is!

That is why truth is not fact, but possibilities, which there are an infinite number of.

"My house is based on concrete and a foundation" is NOT the same as "My house needs X and Y and Z for it to be called a house.

So, your point is that... "based" represents just the beginning & "conditions" represent what create the entirity? If so, I can agree with that.

Anyway... let's not get hooked up on words. You know what I meant, but I'll reword it for you...

Faith is "based on the condition" that the one having faith has BOTH the "conditions" of logical awareness AND the ability to experience intuition.

There, happy now?

Edited July 1, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[Mike Richards]

I like to think of faith and knowledge as two ends of a spectrum. Your definition of faith seems to fit very well at the far (faith) end of that spectrum. Taking your example of Indiana Jones, his first step is an act of faith--his only support for believing he won't die by taking that first step is that he's guessed right on the previous test(s) (? I can't remember if the bridge is before or after the spelling game). My question for you is, after taking the first step, were the following steps actions of faith? If he still couldn't see the bridge after the first step, would it still be faith?

If I understand your point correctly (and I'll gladly admit that I might not, since it seems that so many others haven't), then I agree with it being, as I said, the far end of the spectrum. If I know what's going to happen, it's knowledge, not faith. If I have a pretty good idea of what's going to happen, I've moved a little towards faith on the spectrum, but I'm still a lot closer to knowledge. If I've never done it before, but I've seen lots of other people do it, I could be anywhere on the spectrum depending on how much value I put in observing other people. If I've never done it, seen it, or heard much about it, then my attempts to do it are pure faith.

The thing that's confusing about this view (and what I think goes against your position) is that "stronger faith" is really just closer to knowledge and thus less "faithy". I say this because we often hear "my faith was strengthened by this experience". Using the idea of the spectrum, we might say instead, "I was moved a little further from faith and a little closer to knowledge"--but that's odd and we're all more comfortable saying, "my faith was strengthened"

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.

[elguanteloko]

Who decides what is true? Nobody knows what the ultimate 100% truth is!

That is why truth is not fact, but possibilities, which there are an infinite number of.

I think you are confusing "that which is" and "what we know about that which is". We may never get to know THE TRUTH (that which is) but we can infer its existence and it can't change by whether we know it or not (that is, by whether we know about the truth or not). I think this is quite clear. No one is saying someone "decides" that which is, that's silly. No one is saying someone knows what the ultimate 100% truth is. That which is can't be what it is and what it is not. Therefore, it can't be "possibilities" since this implies it is one thing and another one in the same sense at the same time. This is pretty much a contradiction you are saying, Heather.

So, your point is that... "based" represents just the beginning & "conditions" represent what create the entirity?

Faith is a house (let's use this analogy). I'm describing (and defending) the conditions under which that house can be a house. Whether that house is based on nothing at all, on cement, on wood, on paper, on sand... whatever it is based on, it doesn't mean that house isn't a house.

Whether faith is based on logic or on intuition makes no difference to what I'm saying. Pick any of those two and all I've been saying still applies.

If so, I can agree with that.

Anyway... let's not get hooked up on words. You know what I meant, but I'll reword it for you...

Faith is "based on the condition" that the one having faith has BOTH the "conditions" of logical awareness AND the ability to experience intuition.

There, happy now?

This makes no difference to my view.

Edited July 2, 2011 by elguanteloko

[HeatherAnn]

I think you are confusing "that which is" and "what we know about that which is". We may never get to know THE TRUTH (that which is) but we can infer its existence and it can't change by whether we know it or not (that is, by whether we know about the truth or not). I think this is quite clear. No one is saying someone "decides" that which is, that's silly. No one is saying someone knows what the ultimate 100% truth is. That which is can't be what it is and what it is not. Therefore, it can't be "possibilities" since this implies it is one thing and another one in the same sense at the same time. This is pretty much a contradiction you are saying, Heather.

I'm actually pointing out that "that which is" is "what we think that which is."

When we refer to faith, we refer to all of us non-omnipotent beings, who are much less aware than we'd like to pretend, having faith in relation to truth, which we are relatively clueless about.

It's mind-boggling - yet it's theorized that the 10th dimension (which subatomical particles are made of) involves all possibilites of all possible universes...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY_ZgAvXsuw

Truth is that which has influence, which varies from here to the infinities of space. In each moment, exists many possibilites - which are influenced by choice, so truth is ever-changing, depending on perspective. The more perspectives, the more truthful - like the analogy of blind men being asked to describe one little section of an elephant, just based on feeling. Not until they exchange notes, can they get an idea of the full picture & realize what it really was they were feeling.

Faith is a house (let's use this analogy). I'm describing (and defending) the conditions under which that house can be a house. Whether that house is based on nothing at all, on cement, on wood, on paper, on sand... whatever it is based on, it doesn't mean that house isn't a house.

Whether faith is based on logic or on intuition makes no difference to what I'm saying. Pick any of those two and all I've been saying still applies.

Then maybe I misunderstood you.

I thought you believed that to have faith, one must not believe an something is probable, then believe or act anyway (which is basically intuition).

Indiana Jones acted on intuition - so a part of him DID believe, otherwise he wouldn't have acted.

How do you think faith differs from belief, or fear?

[elguanteloko]

I'm actually pointing out that "that which is" is "what we think that which is."

I know this is what you mean when you speak of truth but you are, again, confusing what is and what we know about what is. Let's say you and I see the same ruler in front of us but we don't know how much its length is, and let's say you think it is 45 cm and I think it is 55 cm. Is the ruler's length 45 cm AND 55 cm? It may APPEAR to you that it is 45 cm and APPEAR to me that it is 55 cm... but IS THE RULER 45 AND 55 cm both at the same time?

Sounds rather contradictory if you ask me.

That we can both go and take the actual measure (let's say 50 cm) and both agree that it was 50 cm doesn't mean it was BEFORE 45 cm (for you) but now the ruler changed to 50 cm and that it was ALSO 55 cm (for me) and now it changed to 50 cm. That is, it would have shrunken and extended at the same time. You don't get a contradiction more clear than that.

Then maybe I misunderstood you.

I thought you believed that to have faith, one must not believe an something is probable, then believe or act anyway (which is basically intuition).

Oh, not at all! The option you trust on can be the second most likely option you see and that would still be faith.

How do you think faith differs from belief, or fear?

All faith is belief but not all belief is faith. Knowledge is a type of belief but knowledge isn't faith, for example.

Fear? I don't know about that one. I think here you might be wanting to know how faith originates (why someone would be impelled to have faith), but I can't attempt to answer that question now and neither do I think I have the answer.

Edited July 2, 2011 by elguanteloko

[HeatherAnn]

I know this is what you mean when you speak of truth but you are, again, confusing what is and what we know about what is. Let's say you and I see the same ruler in front of us but we don't know how much its length is, and let's say you think it is 45 cm and I think it is 55 cm. Is the ruler's length 45 cm AND 55 cm? It may APPEAR to you that it is 45 cm and APPEAR to me that it is 55 cm... but IS THE RULER 45 AND 55 cm both at the same time?

No, if we're using the same measuring system.

Yes, if we're not.

Oh, not at all! The option you trust on can be the second most likely option you see and that would still be faith.

Doesn't "second most likely" mean "second most logical"?

All faith is belief but not all belief is faith. Knowledge is a type of belief but knowledge isn't faith, for example.

That makes sense. So, faith is more active than just belief... or it involves more - like intuition & maybe action.

Fear? I don't know about that one. I think here you might be wanting to know how faith originates (why someone would be impelled to have faith), but I can't attempt to answer that question now and neither do I think I have the answer.

You don't know about fear?? ha j/k

Yeah, I do wonder a lot about peoples' motives... especially why someone is inspired to have faith.

I think it's because love is our motivation & purpose - even those who seem "unloving" by standard definition.

Love is not just hugs, nice compliments & kissing someone's petunias.

IMO, Love is hoping & striving for what (we think) is best - through faith (trial & error)...

Which is most effective when both intellect & intuition are combined.

I too, don't think I can specifically answer the question as to what is best, or reasons for having faith - each person & circumstance is different. But we're trying to answer & live it!

Edited July 2, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[elguanteloko]

I want to first respond to this part of your comment:

My question for you is, after taking the first step, were the following steps actions of faith? If he still couldn't see the bridge after the first step, would it still be faith?

I think it would be diminishing according to my definition since it would seem that the chances of a bridge actually being there increase with each step for the same reason that a theory that is tested over and over again and proves victorious (though NEVER 'true' in the strict sense of the word) would appear to be more and more likely to be true and, therefore, would require less trust to follow it.

I like to think of faith and knowledge as two ends of a spectrum. Your definition of faith seems to fit very well at the far (faith) end of that spectrum. Taking your example of Indiana Jones, his first step is an act of faith--his only support for believing he won't die by taking that first step is that he's guessed right on the previous test(s) (? I can't remember if the bridge is before or after the spelling game).

If I understand your point correctly (and I'll gladly admit that I might not, since it seems that so many others haven't), then I agree with it being, as I said, the far end of the spectrum. If I know what's going to happen, it's knowledge, not faith. If I have a pretty good idea of what's going to happen, I've moved a little towards faith on the spectrum, but I'm still a lot closer to knowledge. If I've never done it before, but I've seen lots of other people do it, I could be anywhere on the spectrum depending on how much value I put in observing other people. If I've never done it, seen it, or heard much about it, then my attempts to do it are pure faith.

The thing that's confusing about this view (and what I think goes against your position) is that "stronger faith" is really just closer to knowledge and thus less "faithy". I say this because we often hear "my faith was strengthened by this experience". Using the idea of the spectrum, we might say instead, "I was moved a little further from faith and a little closer to knowledge"--but that's odd and we're all more comfortable saying, "my faith was strengthened"

about this other part... I have to agree; this is a very strong objection which I gladly accept.

That my definition of faith doesn't account for "growing faith" except in a very superficial level is something that seems clear. I take "greater faith" to mean the greater trust it takes to believe in that which you see as less likely. The less likely you see it, the more faith it requires to believe. However, as you correctly point out, the scriptures also speak of growing in faith but that can't happen under my definition unless you start seeing the object of your trust as less and less likely, which is something the scriptures don't support and actually use faith in a much broader sense. What I describe is faith but that is not all faith is. I didn't think about this fact that (now and thanks to you) seems rather obvious. No one brought it up and I didn't think about it. Thanks for making me "see the light".

So, I now accept faith as trust or confidence (NOT knowledge) that something is. I don't think I will have a problem with using this definition but, obviously, only in religious contexts.

Now, for all those that may be thinking that this makes science on par with religion or that religion is more valid than atheists think it is, you are wrong. Not all faith is equal in the same sense that not all beliefs are equal. Some can be quite ridiculous. If you have faith that your computer is a unicorn in disguise, I think we can all agree in that this belief is ludicrous. Now, we may someday (let's imagine) have evidence (though not to give us knowledge) through some tests that your computer is a unicorn in disguise!.. but that doesn't mean believing things like this are on par with and without evidence. Then, only some beliefs are faith, not all (knowledge is a belief but it isn't faith). Beliefs and faith can be silly and not as justified as other "faiths" and other beliefs.

Edited July 2, 2011 by elguanteloko

[HeatherAnn]

Does faith have actual influence?

If so, does it extend beyond the one having faith... & if so how?

IE: If I pray & fast for someone without them knowing, do my faithful efforts help them?

How does faith work in relation to other influences?

IE: If someone has faith enough to move mountains, yet is not healed... was it their faith or other influences that failed?

Edited July 2, 2011 by HeatherAnn