God's character

[tackattack]

So what use does the 'faith' have?

If it's based on evidence then isn't it merely trusting in the evidence?

Evidence is never completely conclusive... then it would be beyond evidence, it would be absolute proof.

So if faith in evidence (subjective or not) is proof (seeing as little to no proof is absolute). Then how could there ever be absolute proof of God? My point was there could been proof for God based on subjective evidence. There in lies the usefullness. If you have subjective evidence it's good for subjective proof. If peers get similar subjective evidence and you weed out those that are just agreeing without observation or to prevent rejection, is that also not peer review? So could proof and peer review substantiate a belief in God? Yes, IMO.

@EvF,
1- When the evidence isn't completely conclusive but indicative and you can't eliminate every possible bias or variable, yes.
2- Faith that enough biases have been removed to indicate more truth and reliability then falsity.

1. What biases or variables can you eliminate purely by faith? If anything, it is a method for introducing them.
2. You wouldn't need faith for this, as such a thing ( a claim having very little bias) would be demonstrable.

I still don't understand how you've arrived at this conclusion.

1-purely by reasonable and logical faith based off of a cycle of occurences? lots of variables... especially for usefullness. However the biggest (I'm assuming your point) bias of subjecivity and personal incredulity can't be eliminated completely.

2-It is subjectively demonstratable, which is appropriate for a subjective evidence and subjective proof leading to a personal viewof God. Aside from stepping outside our universe and seeing God (impossibility) this is objective as it can get. It does NOT however limit it's usefullness within this universe to not be able to completely objectify something because of the unattainability of absolute proofs.