What is faith?

[Copper Scroll]

If you're implying that trusting my senses is essentially the same thing as accepting that I exist, I disagree. If I perceive an image that I know is an illusion, by believing that my perceptual processes are deceiving me, I am not denying my own existence. I just have a certain knowledge or understanding about what I perceive to know that it is not true and real. I am more than what I perceive.

The question becomes, if I can be fooled by my senses, how do I know they are not always fooling me? How do I know that we as a society (if a society really does exist) are not suffering some grand illusion or delusion? The answer lies essentially in faith, not "proven fact".

Sure, but once again thinking that way won't lead you anywhere. It's fine to not believe everything you perceive is real, but when it comes to your own existence you have to accept your perceptions as sufficient evidence - proof - of your own existence. If you don't then you'll be stuck forever, unable to take any step in any direction because you can't possibly know if there's anything around you worth believing in.

I'll stress that if the perception of your own existence is the only thing you accept on faith, than logic is based on faith in yourself, not on faith in general as in "faith is required for logic to work". Saying "faith is required" implies that you're going to see things like "it's this way because we have faith in it being so" written in school textbooks, which doesn't happen. Faith exists only at the base of logic as a necessity and is never used anywhere else. Of course, if you don't have faith in your existence then logic is of no use and you may as well forget it.

Once that one thing is settled, you may proceed in your pursuit of knowledge using whatever means you deem worthy of being used, although you'll get very different results depending on your choice. Nowadays it's settled that the scientific method is the most mistake-proof method we have; after all, requiring evidence - together with other important things - before believing in something is the most obvious way to make sure we're not being fooled and we're not fooling ourselves. That's the one reason why you won't find any example of faith being used in logic and why you got stuck with the "you have to have faith in your existence" argument. It's true, if I don't have faith in myself then logic is of no use, but in that case religion is useless too.

Religion requires you to have faith in the existence of mythological entities like a god, souls, miracles, supernatural stuff etc. Believing in such things is not logical because it means accepting something without any evidence and without anything else that is required by the scientific method. Such tall tales must be discarded as folklore and myth. I didn't fail to notice your comment about disbelief in God not leading anywhere but it's incorrect. Disbelief in God simply leads to the absence of God from one's worldview. Belief in God isn't really needed for anything, while belief in self is needed for everything else.

You still seem to be equating trusting my senses with trusting that I exist. They are not the same. I do more than perceive. I remember, I think, I imagine, I act, etc. All these function as "evidence" that I exist.

Further, trusting my senses means more than trusting that I exist. It means trusting that everything I perceive exists too. So I have to go a step beyond accepting my own existence without proof. I have to accept the existence of everything I perceive without proof. In fact, perception is the foundation upon which all empirical proof stands. If my perceptual processes are suspect, all empirical proof is suspect. My perceptual processes have been known to fail and mislead from time to time. I imagine yours have too. The question is Why do you trust them so much that, for you, all truths must be verified by them?

You wrote that the scientific method is the most mistake-proof method we have for gathering knowledge or truths (about the natural world--I presume). But the scientific method can't work until we decide to trust our senses, which requires faith. You wrote that we have to trust our senses but we don't have to trust that God exists. Counterexample: Some variations of some Eastern religions hold that all human experience is an illusion. Adherents to these religions don't trust their senses as means of acquiring truth--and they're fine with that. I trust that these people live lives that are coherent and that make sense to them. So, no, we don't have to trust our senses. We decide or conclude that it makes the most sense to trust them. I have concluded that it makes the most sense to trust that God lives. God's existence is needed for me to live a coherent and sensible life. You have come to another conclusion and, I'll assume, have found coherence therein.

Now, almost by definition, asking for empirical evidence of mythological entities completely misses the point. That is not what the scientific method is for and that is not what myth is for. If the reason why myth means nothing to you is because it has had no scientific empirical verification, then I'm sad for you. Scientific method is about the natural world and how it works. It is a means to acquiring a certain type of truth--not all truth. Myth is about the meaning of human existence, experience, relationships, values, and the like. It is a means to acquiring an almost completely different kind of truth. Reading myth for empirical factuality and nothing else is folly.

[aftwine]

We may present the Gospel, answer you in Truth as best as possible, but ultimately it's your ability to decide if you want to accept Jesus as your Savior and believe in God.

You're free to believe any Muslim or Jew or Hindu or Taoist or Teapot (you get the point)

Of course I am free to believe whatever I want, why would you even mention something as obvious as that? It doesn't even help your case.

I think what you missed is it will not matter to you if we argue day and night for five years about the issue you will see it your way no matter who or what you want to believe.

It's not my case you should be worrying about, you came to these boards either looking for justification not to believe or justivication to believe. It seems you are not statisfied with God at this point, you came here for a reason, a Christian Forum.

Oh by the way the only difference between a Jew and a Christian/Messianic is believing that Jesus is the Messiah. We both believe in Jehovah/Yahweh/God.

[aftwine]

I think what you missed is it will not matter to you if we argue day and night for five years about the issue you will see it your way no matter who or what you want to believe.

It's not my case you should be worrying about, you came to these boards either looking for justification not to believe or justivication to believe. It seems you are not statisfied with God at this point, you came here for a reason, a Christian Forum.

Oh by the way the only difference between a Jew and a Christian/Messianic is believing that Jesus is the Messiah. We both believe in Jehovah/Yahweh/God.

It does matter if we argue and what we say while we argue does matter too. You obviously don't understand the importance of testing your beliefs, which must be why you're defending someone who dropped a "hey this is what I believe, please don't argue, ktnxbye" comment.

I'm not defending there comment.

I responded to what you said about either believing Muslim or Jew both of who don't believe in what Christians do.

BUT pay attention, . . . . . you came to a Christian Forum, w h y ?

to seek the truth

and if you come back with "yes that's exactly what i'm doing trying to find proof for the existance of The Lord of Lords and King of Kings the Creator of the heavens and the earth, is He real?"

then i'll say your not satisfied with the Christian view because like i tell most athiests there's no autographed picture you can dig up of God with the angels vacationing in Hawaii, He can't be seen with your telescope floating through space....but the answers are in His Word and sometimes nonbelievers or Christians might not like His answers.

I want to know what God did before He created us.

I want to know the timeline of the earth and it's ancient history.

I want God to tell me what's going to happen next in my life.

But in due time, through faith and repentance of sin, salvation through Christ, and suffering in His name, and with my last breath I will find myself on the brink of eternity all questions about to be answered, knowing I trusted God being faithful so He would be faithful to me.

[Copper Scroll]

You perceive that you think, you perceive that you imagine, you perceive that you act, etc.

Thought, imagination, action are not functions of the senses.

But what I'm trying to say is that you only have to trust your perceptions as far as they regard your own existence. If you're drunk and perceive the rest of the world is spinning, or if you're normal and perceive there's a ghost behind you you're very welcome to think whatever you want about it. But about existing, you don't really have any choice. I thought I made it quite clear in my post but you seem to think that if you have to accept your perception of self then you have to accept the perception of anything else.

No, I don't think that if I accept my perception of myself then I have to accept my perception of anything else. That's the point. I can accept my own existence without accepting the existence of anything else. I can decide that it makes the most sense for me to regard everything I perceive in "the external world" as a mere projection of the internal world--that everything around me is a product of my own unconscious. If I took this view, logic and science, to me, would be largely ineffective means of determining what is true and what is not.

You keep saying that the only thing I have to accept without "proof" is my own existence in order for logic and science to work. The point I'm trying to make is that in order for logic and science to work, I also have to accept the existence and truth of everything I perceive. I have to trust my senses--not only with regards to myself, but also with regards to everything else... in order for logic and science to even get started.

[LadyGunivere]

Lepeca the reason why I stated it is cause I'm doing the same thing that you are doing dropping your beliefs....but I don't believe in picking a fight.. I just wanted to state my opinion and technically that is what you can do on forums, isn't it? Last time I checked I hadn't done anything wrong. Plus your not the boss of me or my God so why be so mean to someone who wants to express their views? Is there any gaining in it? I believe not and I will not sit here and talk to someone who won't listen to me to begin with and only wants to throw their view upon me. That's simply what I was doing.

[Smalcald]

We may present the Gospel, answer you in Truth as best as possible, but ultimately it's your ability to decide if you want to accept Jesus as your Savior and believe in God.

You're free to believe any Muslim or Jew or Hindu or Taoist or Teapot (you get the point)

Of course I am free to believe whatever I want, why would you even mention something as obvious as that? It doesn't even help your case.

I guess that is the problem for me. I am not trying to make a "case".

I would disagree with some of my brothers and sisters here and go a little more with what Luther said quite clearly; faith is a work of God alone. So it is a different way of knowing, it certainly is not based on evidence, as we understand evidence, God which lets us really hear and take the Gospel to heart bases it on revelation. CS Lewis said that the words of Christ the words of the Gospel had the messy ring of truth to them, that most true things do, and I agree with him. But I realize I have that agreement because the Holy Spirit lets me agree and convicts me of my own sin and helplessness. Of course true agape or disinterested love does not really exist either and also takes faith to go forward with.

But peace to you on your journey, I do think Christ will make Himself known to you at some point, and all we can ask now is that you don

[Copper Scroll]

I would disagree with some of my brothers and sisters here and go a little more with what Luther said quite clearly; faith is a work of God alone. So it is a different way of knowing, it certainly is not based on evidence, as we understand evidence, God which lets us really hear and take the Gospel to heart bases it on revelation. CS Lewis said that the words of Christ the words of the Gospel had the messy ring of truth to them, that most true things do, and I agree with him. But I realize I have that agreement because the Holy Spirit lets me agree and convicts me of my own sin and helplessness. Of course true agape or disinterested love does not really exist either and also takes faith to go forward with.

I can appreciate this, but I have trouble with the notion that faith is the work of God alone. Does it mean that I have not chosen faith at all--that faith has been chosen for me? And, for those who do not have faith in Jesus, does it mean that God has decided not to give them faith--that they couldn't have faith even if they wanted to?

[mrp1948]

This is directed to believers and non-believers:

1. What is your definition of faith?

2. What evidence supports this definition?

3. Do you believe faith is irrational? Why or why not?

Before I had faith I used to say I could not see hear or feel God now that I have faith I see him hear him and see him in everything

[Smalcald]

I would disagree with some of my brothers and sisters here and go a little more with what Luther said quite clearly; faith is a work of God alone. So it is a different way of knowing, it certainly is not based on evidence, as we understand evidence, God which lets us really hear and take the Gospel to heart bases it on revelation. CS Lewis said that the words of Christ the words of the Gospel had the messy ring of truth to them, that most true things do, and I agree with him. But I realize I have that agreement because the Holy Spirit lets me agree and convicts me of my own sin and helplessness. Of course true agape or disinterested love does not really exist either and also takes faith to go forward with.

I can appreciate this, but I have trouble with the notion that faith is the work of God alone. Does it mean that I have not chosen faith at all--that faith has been chosen for me? And, for those who do not have faith in Jesus, does it mean that God has decided not to give them faith--that they couldn't have faith even if they wanted to?

Well like Paul, you could have said forgett it and ran away when the Holy Spirit came to you, but like Pau you did not do that. We have the power to say no.

But I don't want to distract this discussion we can talk about this on the inner court.

Peace.

[Kansasdad]

I wrote this piece a while back. I am not a writer so don