Question about "faith"

[John 6IX Breezy]

He has [religious] faith that the story is true.

That's not what faith is for.

[Sal]

Ok, so you believe that (X) exists.

Let's pick one thing that you believe (X) can do.
Because if it can't do anything, then it's indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist.

You trust that (X) can do this one thing.

How do we test for that ?
How do we test that (X) is doing this thing you believe it can do ?

Faith can't pass an acid test. That's not how faith functions, or what it does.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Faith can't pass an acid test. That's not how faith functions, or what it does.

I agree; it's contradictory to both trust and doubt a given proposition simultaneously. Situations that require trust cannot be tested by definition. If your workplace has ever done the "trust fall" team-building exercise, your decision to fall back depends on the merit of your coworkers. No test can determine whether or not they will catch you. And any test that could determine that, eliminates the trust factor from the exercise.

If you guys think it is never reasonable to trust that is entirely up to you. As long as it is understood that faith and trust are synonymous. And that faith is for trusting God, not for believing he exists.

[Sal]

The irony in all this is that to give up faith, you have to do something your faith cannot do. Trusting your senses and faculties more than faith is able to reveal. Quite a frightening exercise in self-determination and trusting in yourself, I'm sure.

[Rahn127]

Ok, so you believe that (X) exists.

Let's pick one thing that you believe (X) can do.
Because if it can't do anything, then it's indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist.

You trust that (X) can do this one thing.

How do we test for that ?
How do we test that (X) is doing this thing you believe it can do ?

Faith can't pass an acid test. That's not how faith functions, or what it does.

This in no way addresses my question and has nothing to do with faith.

If you believe that something exists, then name one thing that it does.

My question is how we test that it's doing that thing ?

I believe this ball exists.
This ball bounces
I can demonstrate the ball and it's ability to bounce.

Do you understand the questions I'm asking ?
If you believe that a god exists, name something this god does.
Now demonstrate that this god is doing that thing.

[Sal]

Faith can't pass an acid test. That's not how faith functions, or what it does.

This in no way addresses my question and has nothing to do with faith.

I know.

It's theists who think faith and belief are comparable in some esoteric manner, without ascribing faith and belief to the same phenomenon in minds (although John seems to be using them interchangeably). In essence, it's either two distinct qualia or an epistemic contradiction (more accurately an epistemic paradox). The reason I think this way is described and explored in great detail in a Stanford publication:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemic-paradoxes/

Any such demonstration of the veracity of belief misses the point theists are making about faith.

If you believe that something exists, then name one thing that it does.

My question is how we test that it's doing that thing ?

I believe this ball exists.
This ball bounces
I can demonstrate the ball and it's ability to bounce.

Do you understand the questions I'm asking ?
If you believe that a god exists, name something this god does.
Now demonstrate that this god is doing that thing.

You're preaching to the choir. I agree on a "connection" between an instance of existence and the properties of such an instance of existence. Theists usually do not apply this to the supernatural. That's how their faith escapes detection for irregularities when compared to reality (I know the existence of a ball. I've observed the ball bounce. I can demonstrate that the ball has a property tied with it; the balls property of bouncing. Now do that with faith.)

For theist, there are impositions against testing their faith - it's part of the mind virus that is religion, which directs their thinking behavior, and its memetic evolution - in the same manner any paradox is internally unresolvable by definition. But paradoxes are nothing more than logical hurdles which any constructed sentence so easily demonstrates; "This sentence is a lie.", "I am a married bachelor.", or my current favorite, the epistemic paradox: "Next week there will be a surprise test."

[The Grand Nudger]

I think the Bible more precisely falls into the divine category. By that I mean it isn't an independent resource whose propositions you must trust in order to believe God exists. You have to first be convinced of it's legitimacy before you have faith in it. Keep in mind Scripture is the Word of God for the Christian. As such, God is the proposer, Scripture is the proposition, and faith emerges from that:

"Faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." (1 Timothy 1:4)

But I'm sure there are individuals who read scripture and it appeals to their reason; it is self-evident in that sense. As for people's experiences, I suspect it is a spectrum. Ranging from those who believe they have had direct interaction with the divine, down to those who simply found religion to work in their personal life, it gives positive results.

You already trust it before you have faith?  Sounds like faith and trust might not be the same thing.

Incorrect.

b-mine 

Incorrect..... how...? I think you'll find that many, most, or all of us can understand the use of the word trust when we're convinced of somethings legitimacy. We don't all have faith in those things, though. I'm convinced of the us governments legitimacy - for example. You probably are as well. Neither of us would describe our trust, so described, in the us government being legitimate as equivalent to your faith in christ or in the contents of magic book, I suspect.

They're allowed to be different things, and they keep turning out to be different things when you describe them. Being a different thing doesn't make faith a bad thing.

[Angrboda]

Do these people who came to belief through experience, etc, have first-hand observation of the divine, or do they trust or have faith in others, such as the authors of the bible?

I think the Bible more precisely falls into the divine category. By that I mean it isn't an independent resource whose propositions you must trust in order to believe God exists. You have to first be convinced of it's legitimacy before you have faith in it. Keep in mind Scripture is the Word of God for the Christian. As such, God is the proposer, Scripture is the proposition, and faith emerges from that:

"Faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." (1 Timothy 1:4)

But I'm sure there are individuals who read scripture and it appeals to their reason; it is self-evident in that sense. As for people's experiences, I suspect it is a spectrum. Ranging from those who believe they have had direct interaction with the divine, down to those who simply found religion to work in their personal life, it gives positive results.

I think you're getting the cart before the horse. Perhaps you can clarify. If the person believes the bible to be the word of God then they already believe in God, so that's not a relevant case. However, if they already believe in God prior to experiencing the writings, and have no direct experience with the divine, then what are they basing that faith upon? That case is interesting, but not what I was asking about. I was specifically addressing the more common scenario wherein one lacks any direct experience of the divine, and therefore knows only of God through the writings of others, and perhaps some private speculation. What is their faith/trust based upon?

[John 6IX Breezy]

I think you'll find that many, most, or all of us can understand the use of the word trust when we're convinced of somethings legitimacy.

If you think my sentence: "You have to first be convinced of it's legitimacy before you have faith in it."

Means this: "You already trust it before you have faith?"

Then you misunderstand the use of the word trust.

[downbeatplumb]

Read the story. They expressed abandonment at Moses' absence, not a sense of insufficient evidence. To the contrary, they built the calf to make sense of that evidence and thus referred to it as the god who took them out of Egypt lol:

"Come, make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don’t know what has happened to him [...] Then they said, 'these are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt” (Exodus 32:1).

So what you are saying is that those people only had Moses word that it was Yahweh that did those things and it took a massacre to get them back believing! I find this as being they were forced into Moses beliefs by force and had insufficient cause to actually believe them selves that is  was Yahweh!

Seems very suspect to me.

(by the way I think the exodus is entirely made up)