Evidence for god? Convince me! [CHALLENGE]

[Angrboda]

I've always been rather skeptical of the definition of Christian faith as "trust in something that has proved itself reliable." In the first place, trust is a relationship between two agents, because only agents have the will which allows them to betray that trust. Saying you "trust" in the ability of a chair to hold you up is using the term figuratively, because the trust can't be broken by the chair failing; either it will or it won't. Saying that's the same as trust in God is equivocation, because it's using the word 'trust' in a different sense. So for you to have trust in Jesus or God, this implies that they are agents, just like you. You must believe them to exist as agents before you can place trust in them. I think it's at this point that MFM'S point about evidence versus good evidence enters in. Most people who come to believe in God do so on the basis of non-physical evidence which we likely wouldn't accept for any other being or agent with the characteristics of God. So belief precedes trust, and that belief is based on evidences which are not tangible. For a child coming to God, I think the situation is different. For the child, their parents and peers saying that something is so is good evidence for it being so, at least while they are young. Where that leaves the mature person who comes to faith after reaching maturity other than, at least originally, coming to believe, first, without having seen evidence. Perhaps later, trust may develop; but originally, there is belief before trust. Thus the definition of faith as trust may be something that comes after, but belief is original, and blind.