Ah, yes, Tercel, the scientist, has spoken. Are you just doing this to make me laugh?

rodahi

Shall we look up a dictionary? The two relevant meanings of "faith" according to dictionary.com are:
You seem to be using as your definition of faith only point 2. If that is your definition then what you have said is true. But 1 is also a definition, so in fact you are wrong in saying that faith is nothing more than 2. If in a future discussion you wish to limit the definition of faith to 2 then I suggest you do this at the beginning of the discussion. As the dictionary definition stands, faith 1 can include evidence: Thus you are incorrect not me.

Let me illustrate with an example. My frind and I (who are for the sake of the example exceedingly good at maths) solve a maths problem and both get the same answer. Because we normally get problems right and we both got the same answer we have faith that our answer is correct. This faith is both rational and based on evidence.
Unfortunately for us it turns out that we both got the question wrong - the evidence we based our faith on was faulty. But our faith itself was still based on what we believed to be good evidence. Whether someone else believed the evidence right or wrong or whether it truly is right or wrong, is clearly irrelevant to the question of whether we consciously based our faith on what we believed to be evidence.
Now, say I believed that there is good evidence for the resurrection and I therefore decide to have faith in God. I am basing my faith on what I percieve as evidence. Rodahi what you or others think of that evidence or whether the evidence is true or false is actually beside the point.

And thus:
Would you kindly stop repeating "faith is not evidence"? I haven't argued that it is and I don't plan to.

Perhaps from my above example you now understand. But my point is that a person's faith is very often grounded in what that person perceives as evidence, and whether you or anyone else agrees with the evidence or not is irrelevant.

I really don't think you have any right to make objective declarations when they are at odds with the subjective declarations with such a large number of people. As you would say:
This is your opinion.
It truly is your opinion, so please stop declaring it as if it is a universal truth.

[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tercel:
[b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by rodahi:
Tercel: Sure some people have faith and then try and get evidence to support their faith, but at least as many people get their faith because of evidence they see.

Rodahi: You are incorrect. Faith is only required in the absence of evidence.

Tercel: Shall we look up a dictionary? The two relevant meanings of "faith" according to dictionary.com are:

Quote:

faith n. 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.</font>

You seem to be using as your definition of faith only point 2. If that is your definition then what you have said is true. But 1 is also a definition, so in fact you are wrong in saying that faith is nothing more than 2.

No, Tercel, you are still incorrect. The dictionary states that "faith" is "belief." Belief is not evidence, nor is faith.

Tercel: If in a future discussion you wish to limit the definition of faith to 2 then I suggest you do this at the beginning of the discussion. As the dictionary definition stands, faith 1 can include evidence: Thus you are incorrect not me.

No, Tercel. Faith is not evidence. Faith is belief. Thus, you are incorrect, not I.

[QUOTE]Tercel: If you don't think what they take as evidence is up to scratch then THAT'S YOUR PROBLEM.

Rodahi: No, Tercel, it is YOUR PROBLEM. Faith is not evidence.

Tercel: Let me illustrate with an example. My frind and I (who are for the sake of the example exceedingly good at maths) solve a maths problem and both get the same answer. Because we normally get problems right and we both got the same answer we have faith that our answer is correct. This faith is both rational and based on evidence.
Unfortunately for us it turns out that we both got the question wrong - the evidence we based our faith on was faulty. But our faith itself was still based on what we believed to be good evidence. Whether someone else believed the evidence right or wrong or whether it truly is right or wrong, is clearly irrelevant to the question of whether we consciously based our faith on what we believed to be evidence.
Now, say I believed that there is good evidence for the resurrection and I therefore decide to have faith in God. I am basing my faith on what I percieve as evidence. Rodahi what you or others think of that evidence or whether the evidence is true or false is actually beside the point.

You don't seem to understand the difference between belief (or conviction) and evidence. Look up the word "evidence" and see what your dictionary says.

Tercel: It still is 'evidence' if they see it as such, and whether you choose to do so or not is completely irrelevant.

Rodahi: Again, Tercel, faith is not evidence, regardless of what you believe

Tercel: Would you kindly stop repeating "faith is not evidence"?

I can't, Tercel. I am compelled to be logical.

Tercel: I haven't argued that it is and I don't plan to.

Good.

[QUOTE]Tercel: Faith and evidence will always be close together whether you like the evidence or not.

Rodahi: You aren't making much sense here, whether you like it or not.

Tercel: Perhaps from my above example you now understand.

No, your example did not magically turn faith or belief into evidence.

Tercel: But my point is that a person's faith is very often grounded in what that person perceives as evidence, and whether you or anyone else agrees with the evidence or not is irrelevant.

There is no empirical evidence suggesting the existence of the supernatural. Whether or not you or anyone else agrees with this statement is irrelevant.

[QUOTE]rodahi: There is no empirical evidence to suggest the existence of any god.

Tercel: Again you really mean: "There is no empirical evidence that I know of and agree with to suggest the existence of any god". Plenty of other people in the world think there is evidence to suggest the existence of a God.

Rodahi: No, Tercel, what I really mean is, there is no empirical evidence to suggest the existence of any god.

Tercel: I really don't think you have any right to make objective declarations when they are at odds with the subjective declarations with such a large number of people.

You have every right to think what you wish, Tercel. Be that as it may, "subjective declarations" don't really demonstrate the existence of the supernatural. Subjective declarations demonstate that, well, er, subjective declarations exist.

Tercel: As you would say:
This is your opinion.
It truly is your opinion, so please stop declaring it as if it is a universal truth.

It is a universal truth. If you think not, then prove me wrong, Tercel.

rodahi

Rodahi, I am getting very sick of this very fast. You continually respond that "faith is not evidence" or "faith is believe not evidence". While these statements are true, the question under discussion is not whether faith is evidence. The entire point of this discussion was your statement "And faith has nothing to do with evidence!" and my subsequent disagreement with this. The opinion I have been expressing is that faith is very often related to or based upon what one sees as evidence. So your continued responses that "faith is not evidence" are pointless because they assert something not in issue here.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tercel:
Rodahi, I am getting very sick of this very fast.

Perhaps it will sink in at some point. Faith is not evidence!

rodahi