Faith, Proof, and Evidence (for Christians)?

[Tart]

I wanted to ask other Christians of their opinions of what they believe about "Faith", "Proof", and "Evidence"...

I think I disagree sometimes with other Christians... That is, that "Faith" is belief without proof or evidence... I just dont believe that. However I recognize that Faith in Jesus, as Savior, is certainly an important component of Christianity. That is to say, we make a conscious decision to accept God, and to have Faith in an all powerful, and all knowing God, that He is in control.. But I personally just dont believe that this is based on no evidence, and neither do i believe that there is no proof of it...

Actually I think Faith is a perfect way to sum up righteousness... I dont think it is possible to live faithfully while sinning, as Christians. But the great thing about this is that Faith isnt based on our action, but on Christ... So when we stumble, it isnt a hopeless situation of falling away, but a renewing situation with Christ, and God "who remains faithful"...

But clearly, there is evidence of God... All around us. Many say creation is evidence of God, physics and natural order is evidence of God, many say humanities ability to connect with god, and to rule as like god, is evidence of being made in Gods image. However i think Jesus is the best evidence of God. And even more so, I personally think Jesus is the proof of God.

While I dont think anyone could deny that there is evidence of God, even if they dont believe it. Because "Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion."... Some people might deny there is any proof of God. But isnt "proof" a subjective word? It is suggesting that something is convincing or not, which might be different for different people...

However, what we can say definitively is that, if Jesus really is the Son of God, lived doing many great signs, died in accordance to the scripture for the forgiveness of sins, and was resurrected by God.. If these things are objectively true, despite what anyone person believe about them (whether they believe the evidence or not, it doesnt matter) If Jesus really is the risen Messiah, and the Son of God, in an objective sense, then Christianity is true, and that is despite what people are convinced about as being "proven". And that even goes the other way too. Paul even confessed in 1 Corinthians 15, that if Jesus wasnt really resurrected, then Christianity is a lie and no one should believe it.


But some times I see Christian saying there is no proof, and that faith isnt based on evidence or proof, and things like that... If you believe that, please feel free to elaborate. I just am curious what Christian believe on the subject.

[JehovahsWitness]

I know you are defining faith in terms of what you believe. However, the word doesn't change identity depending on its user.

I'm sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear, I was using the word according to the biblical definition (defined by use and context in scripture) as used by the Paul and first century writers, not popular use; the two sometimes differ. I hope that clears up what we believe and why.

If "faith" in the future is popularly defined by post-modernist freudians as the mad ramblings of delusional religionists, I hope you understand that this will not mean that is how Jesus and the first century believers necessarily used the word. Anyway, I have presented what we believe the word means and the basis for our conclusions. It is not debatable whether that is the what we believe nor indeed where we get this belief from although if you would like to argue that the bible writers did not use the word in the sense i suggest, I would be most interested in your scriptural exposé.

JW

[JehovahsWitness]

"As person learns the relevant information (see above) and shows God he wants to serve Him, God rewards that person with helping that one build solid faith."

... faith is a firm belief in one's own rightness

I don't agree; more importantly it was not what I was trying to communicate.

• I don't think that is faith is a firm belief in one's own rightness. If faith was a believe in one's own rightness, this would place personal ability to be right as the basis or focus of belief. I was trying to communicate (evidently not very successfully) that faith is trusting in God's rightness. To trust that He is never wrong.

... so you have a conviction your faith is rightly placed.

Absolutely, but that doesn't mean I place my faith in myself. Few of us would take a plane unless we were convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt that it was possible to get to our destination alive. So does that conviction mean we will be flying the plane? or are we putting our faith in somebody else? Being convinced your faith in the pilot is not misplaced doesn't translate has having faith in one's "rightness".

... I cannot see any doubt involved which means you have a belief in your own rightness here. If there is another meaning it quite eludes me.

See above.


JW

[marco]

I'm sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear, I was using the word according to the biblical definition (defined by use and context in scripture) as used by the Paul and first century writers, not popular use; the two sometimes differ. I hope that clears up what we believe and why.

It explains but it does not justify your saying that it's wrong to say 'faith needs no proof, else that is gullibility'. Paul may have taken the word and attached a meaning to it that is a contentious extension of the normal definition. In discussion when the word crops up, we must use the normal definition or point out that we are not talking about "faith" but a hybrid of hope and expectation. For example if someone has catholic tastes they may enjoy a variety of things, but need not have any liking for Catholic teaching. A similar misunderstanding might occur there.

Faith as I said carries for me the same meaning as it had for people 2000 years ago. It is not clear that Jesus subscribed to the specialist definition employed by Paul. But in any case, Paul's coinage is an elaboration, a short treatise on what he sees are the extensions of belief. I can't see that Christ's listeners were semantically gifted enough to appreciate Paul's as yet unstated elaboration. There is nothing wrong with people attaching a special meaning to a word; it might be a family secret; but it's wrong to apply this special homely definition when discussing with all and sundry what faith involves and what faith is. I hope you see this.

[marco]

I don't think that is faith is a firm belief in one's own rightness. If faith was a belief in one's own rightness, this would place personal ability to be right as the basis or focus of belief. I was trying to communicate (evidently not very successfully) that faith is trusting in God's rightness. To trust that He is never wrong.

You have successfully communicated what you believe. It's not your communication that is flawed. If several groups each regard their faith as true on the basis that God has infallibly guided them, then only one group, at most, can be right. That means that each one is placing faith in their own rightness. I don't see how anybody can say otherwise. Catholics absolutely and certainly claim what you claim, with the appropriate bits of Scripture to back them up. They have faith. They beieve they are right. The same applies to other religions. And to you. The basis of faith is the belief in one's rightness; that God is with the believer.

Few of us would take a plane unless we were convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt that it was possible to get to our destination alive. So does that conviction mean we will be flying the plane?

Analogies invariably wander away from what is being discussed, as here. Were the believer to suppose he would fly the plane, faith would vanish I think. You miss the point. A, B, C and D all have faith they are being guided by God. They all claim different things. One of them MAY be right but all believe firmly that they are right. That is what I am saying; your pilot example in no way exemplifies or nullifies anything.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 14 by marco]

Then let us agree to disagree; you believe in how you understand what I said, I disagree and bekieve you have drawn an incorrect conclusion. I have done my best to communicate why. What is not debatable is the fact that I do not define faith as "belief in one's own rightness". You have presented your rationale and I find it unconvincing although I accept the sincerity of your beliefs in this regard.


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

In discussion when the word crops up, we must use the normal definition ...

Emphasis MINE

No, you have no right to tell me or anyone what definition must be used and when. It is reasonable however, if one deviates from common or popular useage of a word, to point this out; I failed to do this ( and I apologise) and have rectified that with an added explanation.

I'm more than happy to read you hypothesis as to Paul's use of the word "faith" if you will provide scriptural support for it. If you claim to know what Jesus was thinking when he uttered the word, again I will be more than happy to read the scriptural support for any view you hold. If you would like to present a scriptural word study on the word "faith" I always find those interesting and educational as well.

Regards,

JW

[marco]

If you claim to know what Jesus was thinking when he uttered the word, again I will be more than happy to read the scriptural support for any view you hold.

If Jesus were employing the word in the usual way, no dissertation would be necessary. If someone claims Jesus employed the word in an obscure way, then we would need to justify Christ's unexplained digression from normal usage. When Paul was later in time ruminating on the contents of his belief set he was entitled to enrich and elaborate, for he was describing what he saw in himself, not in his next door neighbour. In the meantime, faith remains the same old faith. If poets say faith is a fiddle which some men play then the Shorter Oxford need not revise its definition. Nor should your new definition threaten anyone.


The faith of Chambers or the Oxford Dictionary certainly needs no proof for it to go outside and declare itself. It needs no proof bit it is wrong to call it gullible, for some pretty clever people have demonstrated faith. The poet Gerard Manley Hopkins, who perplexed me when I was a boy, mixes faith with sprung rhythm and some intriguing sonnets on the grandeur of God. No gullibility there.


Though we agree to disagree I appreciate your sincerity and I am indebted for your quiet insights into your beliefs. Go well.

[Peds nurse]

Faith is indeed believing without evidence; otherwise it amounts to something else.

Hello, my beautiful friend! I am hoping that all things are well!

I would have to disagree a bit. Faith is believing in what we hope for (the things not seen), but that does not mean that there isn't evidence of the very thing that we hope in! I have faith that you are a man of integrity, and will most certainly be an asset to the forum, but this is based on the evidence of your prior posts, and the wonderful way in which you interact with people (the evidence).

What you go on to illustrate in fact shows that faith is a firm belief in one's own rightness. This is shared by members of various religions; Catholics have it, as do Muslims and Jews. Possibly Jehovah's Witnesses and Presbyterians have it as well: a firm conviction that God has revealed himself unerringly to them, and sometimes Only to them. This conviction is often so unshakeable that those who have it would willingly die for it. Given that we have seen people martyred for a belief there is a temptation to say that a belief worth dying for must be true. But they can't all be true though each is characterised by an unproven conviction that there lies truth. I suppose it must be very difficult to escape from such convictions.

I understand what you are saying, and I agree to an extent. We do exhibit faith based on what we believe, whether that is the Bible, or any other text or image. We cannot however, base truth off the faith of another. We will never find truth for ourselves based on the faith of what someone else is experiencing. Faith is personal, and therefore very subjective.

I miss you, my friend! I hope you and your family are well!

[marco]

I would have to disagree a bit. Faith is believing in what we hope for (the things not seen), but that does not mean that there isn't evidence of the very thing that we hope in! I have faith that you are a man of integrity,

Well, nurse, when you construct arguments like that who can counter them? It is nice to see you back even though your replies are quite disarming.

I understand what you are saying, and I agree to an extent. We do exhibit faith based on what we believe, whether that is the Bible, or any other text or image. We cannot however, base truth off the faith of another. We will never find truth for ourselves based on the faith of what someone else is experiencing. Faith is personal, and therefore very subjective.

I suspect it's not the subjective type - which is appealing and is hard to counter - that the big texts mention. I wonder if that subjective stuff can move mountains. I hope you never lose what you have; it is a commodity to be envied.

My best wishes, as always.

[Tart]

Were God interested in our interest then he would easily supply proof that gave us the same satisfaction of proving the angle sum in a triangle is 180 degrees. The existence of things around us, working in conformance with formulae we have found makes us wonder whether there is a designer but does not tell us.


I think that seaching for our finite intellect to define God is met with the same frustration of trying to put a gallon into a pint bottle.

Indeed... The Christian God could make it abundantly clear to anyone, like Paul for example with extraordinary evidence... But does he have to, to everyone? I dont think He does... He could simply chose not to. right?