Theists, what does faith mean to you?

[Catholic_Lady]

On my first post on here I said that faith isn't this blind thing where you believe just because, or you believe it just because you want to. At least not to me. Having faith is based on having gathered evidence that least you to believe a certain thing.

Yes your just taking personal experience and defining it as faith, my question is why do you need to call it faith, why not just personal experience?

Then we are just arguing semantics.

I've said all along that it is my entire life experiences that lead me to believe as I do.

[Mr.wizard]

Yes your just taking personal experience and defining it as faith, my question is why do you need to call it faith, why not just personal experience?

Then we are just arguing semantics.

I've said all along that it is my entire life experiences that lead me to believe as I do.

I agree it's semantics, faith is becoming one of those religious terms like "god", that means something different to every person who uses it and therefore has become an utterly useless term.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

With all respect, but who are you to say what can and cannot be evidence for me?

There is no evidence for you or evidence for me.There is only evidence. (Thank you Simon.)
The sole purpose of evidence being to prove.
I don't think you are equipped to call your personal experiences evidence to believe in what you believe.
Personal experiences are not evidence,they are simply personal experiences.They do not prove anything.

An example of the distinction between personal experience and evidence:

You can throw a rock in a 45 degree angle and experience that they follow a different trajectory than that of a rock that is thrown in a 90 degree angle.But you haven't proven anything to anyone or to you.
In this case,a proof would involve using physics and mathematics and stuffs.Ask Uncle K.

I'm not sure if my example is correct,if it is in fact incorrect,i hope someone else can provide a correct example.

[Pyrrho]

[Catholic_Lady]

Then we are just arguing semantics.

I've said all along that it is my entire life experiences that lead me to believe as I do.

I agree it's semantics, faith is becoming one of those religious terms like "god", that means something different to every person who uses it and therefore has become an utterly useless term.

I don't see anything wrong with that. There are a lot of words that can take on different meanings to different people. Love, for example, is another one of those words.

[Catholic_Lady]

With all respect, but who are you to say what can and cannot be evidence for me?

There is no evidence for you or evidence for me.There is only evidence. (Thank you Simon.)

If I see a troll in my kitchen, I have seen evidence that trolls exist. If no one else has seen a troll, they have not seen evidence that trolls exist. Therefore, having seen the troll was evidence for me, that trolls exist. But unless someone chooses to believe me, this means nothing to anyone else if they have not seen it themselves.

[Kingpin]

With all respect, but who are you to say what can and cannot be evidence for me?

There is no evidence for you or evidence for me.There is only evidence. (Thank you Simon.)
The sole purpose of evidence being to prove.
I don't think you are equipped to call your personal experiences evidence to believe in what you believe.
Personal experiences are not evidence,they are simply personal experiences.They do not prove anything.

An example of the distinction between personal experience and evidence:

You can throw a rock in a 45 degree angle and experience that they follow a different trajectory than that of a rock that is thrown in a 90 degree angle.But you haven't proven anything to anyone or to you.
In this case,a proof would involve using physics and mathematics and stuffs.Ask Uncle K.

I'm not sure if my example is correct,if it is in fact incorrect,i hope someone else can provide a correct example.

Personal experiences are commonly called anecdotal evidence or soft evidence. Eyewitnesses in a trial for example may all give slightly different accounts of something that happened but it is meaningful in determining something to be true. Its not verifiable or repeatable but it does not mean it is not valuable in helping to determine something to be true beyond reasonable doubt.

[Minimalist]

I wasn't using it as an argument to try to make a convincing case for God's existence to someone else. Just explaining why I personally, have faith.

The whole point of "faith" is that it does not require a reason for the believer.  That's the whole point of it.

[Mr.wizard]

I wasn't using it as an argument to try to make a convincing case for God's existence to someone else. Just explaining why I personally, have faith.

The whole point of "faith" is that it does not require a reason for the believer.  That's the whole point of it.

That was my point as well.

[Catholic_Lady]

I wasn't using it as an argument to try to make a convincing case for God's existence to someone else. Just explaining why I personally, have faith.

The whole point of "faith" is that it does not require a reason for the believer.  That's the whole point of it.

Didn't King explain that this^ particular definition of faith is relatively new, and the word actually originated from something involving truth and evidence?

But then again, this is just a matter of semantics at this point. But that is why Tarty asked us on his OP to explain what faith meant to us. If we say what faith means to us, then I don't see where anyone else can tell us it doesn't mean that lol.