zodiac8 Oct 2005

Firstly, consider that no one has ever spontaneously invented faith from nothing. Ever, in the history of everything.

Secondly, to both you and Dovina, I'd add that faith is holding something to be true DESPITE the evidences of your senses to the contrary. Consider: You don't have FAITH that matter is composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons bound together by unimaginable forces, despite that you have no real evidence for it. You don't have evidence that space is infinitely huge, but holding that to be true isn't what any of us would call FAITH. (nb here-Dovina's quibble involves the expression "take it on faith" and has little to do with what we're talking about.)

People DO, however have FAITH that some part of a person exists beyond the physical body and death, despite that all the evidence points toward dead people being pretty much gone. People have FAITH that the world was made by God one week about 6,000 years ago, despite that there are dinosaur bones apparently millions of years old, records of human existence from tens of thousands of years ago, and all kinds of other evidence for a world billions of years old. Faith's not just holding something to be true without evidence, it's holding it to be true AGAINST evidence.

Sorry to interrupt, but we've had this argument for days before without realizing that vocab/definition problems had us talking about totally different things. Another hint: Don't use the words 'faith' or 'belief' to mean 'holding something to be true'. Use 'holding something to be true'.