Is our faith based on evidence?

[Spotlite]

So you have no reason to believe what you believe?

Having a reason to believe isn’t the same as basing faith on evidence.

Doubting Thomas comes to mind. I had absolutely zero evidence, I just felt and believed that it was God calling me. I got tons of reasons to believe now. But it’s all based on faith to begin with. Sone of the evidence now still requires faith to connect it to what I believe.

 

[jmh5397]

Would it be fair to say at some point it is, or more accurately, was "blind" faith? Meaning, in the beginning, when we are looking for Christ but haven't quite found him, it takes "blind" faith to believe in what we are searching for is actually real. He hasn't revealed himself in us yet, when we are first looking. My belief is that is by design. <--I have no proof of that, it is just my opinion. I also believe that faith is strengthened by evidence of his works in us and around us.

You asked for examples, here's mine: Will make a long story short... I was a skeptic in high school, like most kids are. A girl I liked was saved and completely changed overnight. I was intrigued, so I started going to church with her. Got nothing from it! Zero, zilch, nada! Or so I thought. Saw other friends get saved and some completely changed while others still did the things I did. That was it, God wasn't real. I continued to talk with the girl but started to distance myself from her. I also continued to search for answers even though I thought I had made my mind up. Flash forward a few months, friend of mine committed suicide. Went to his funeral, listened to the pastor speak, and thought none of it made sense. Got mad like most kids do and questioned everything. Eating corndogs later that night, I questioned God out loud just like I would talk to you. Told Him that I wanted to believe, that I've seen my friends change, You took one of my friends, but for some strange reason "you don't want to speak to me. Why won't you speak to me? Are You really real?"<-------There's your faith. I am talking to an entity that I want to believe in but am not completely sure is there. I heard nothing, felt nothing, and got mad. I took the three empty corndog sticks (don't recall why I was holding all three) and threw them down on the plate. One bounced completely off the plate, the other two landed in the center of the plate and formed a perfect cross. Probably could have measured it and it would have been centered on the plate. <---Evidence!!! Yep!!! Stupid corndogs!!! The rest is History. My mom though I was crazy. My friends thought I was crazy. Heck, I thought I was crazy.

Now can people dismiss this? Sure can. All I can say, is, He surely operates on His time. I do believe, however, that as long as we continue to seek, He will reveal himself.

 

[formula1]

Matthew 13
31 He put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his field. 32 It is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is larger than all the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.”
1 seed is 1-2 mm in size. About 1000 seeds make 8 ounces of mustard. So very, very small!

I would wager to say that all who have come to Christ came with either no belief or almost none. But there was just enough in you to ponder the possibility. It can manage to give that ‘just enough’ to God, well, it becomes everything to you! Having given what little you had to give in the end becomes everything.

Everyone has this within them yet so many cannot give it. It is too much for many to give up, this tiny little thing!

Count yourself blessed beyond measure that somehow you were able to give it for that is why you now know Christ!

Grace is given that no one may boast. Said a little differently, is anyone proud that all you had to give was a mustard seed?

A can only boast in the greatness of Christ Jesus my Lord!

 

[B. White]

Would it be fair to say at some point it is, or more accurately, was "blind" faith? Meaning, in the beginning, when we are looking for Christ but haven't quite found him, it takes "blind" faith to believe in what we are searching for is actually real. He hasn't revealed himself in us yet, when we are first looking. My belief is that is by design. <--I have no proof of that, it is just my opinion. I also believe that faith is strengthened by evidence of his works in us and around us.

I had started typing more in my post above, but deleted it. It fits better here. I said I knew that there was a Creator and can't recall ever really doubting that as a fact, but there is a difference between knowing there is a God and knowing who He is. There is enough evidence in nature for me to have met condition one below.

1. Belief there is a God
2. Belief of who that God is
3. Belief that He will do what he has said he will do

I don't know at what age, but I said "the prayer" and was baptized while young. This was not because of pressure or faith. I think it was because I understood it, but looking back I know there is a big difference between understanding it and real belief.

The situation really doesn't matter, but many years later I remember admitting in my mind that maybe everyone I had been told was not true. What if it wasn't? Like you I verbally said (and probably a little too boldly) who are you? If you are hearing me show me who you are. This was followed by the silence I expected. I decided to read the Bible from beginning to end, instead of depending on bits and pieces and things I had been told. It didn't understand it all, but could see a plan and who God was and it became a thousand times clearer than anything anyone had told me. Lots of well-meaning people had talked about as the people I was reading about as Bible "heroes" when I was a kid, but in reality they were just as messed up as me. Now I understood why some of this was written and I believed it.

I had never seen or heard of this little diagram below, but I went through the same process as I was reading. My conclusion was that Jesus is God and not a good teacher or prophet. That took care of number two above. I was reading over and over where He did what he said He will do. I believe he will continue to do that and not change. That takes care of all three. So while it may seem at the moment when I verbally asked who He was that this was blind faith, I would say not because I still didn't have an answer. I believed number one, so it was not blind faith. I didn't get number two and three nailed down until I could piece together the evidence in his word with my own eyes.

 

[gordon 2]

My personal definition of faith is that it is the active spiritual nurture from the nature of the "all in all" and the I Am who I Am. The evidence for such a faith is in our spiritual lives ( experiences) both individual and corporate. And so faith and nurture is/are different to individuals as individuals and corporate bodies are different one from the other. Faith is therefore synonymous with lived-active spiritual life which can be unseen it being individual and personal. To have faith is to nurture on at least some aspect of the all in all as an essential to life and this activity is the basis or evidence for the proof of faith. The evidence for faith is the active spiritual life. Therefore the first evidence for faith I ever had was from the spiritual lives of my parents. I can say I do not recall not being Christian. My parents were willing to be nurtured by the Holy Spirit and the Church. This their willingness was faith and the life experiences gained for this willingness was sufficient to prove faith was based on experience.

 

[Artfuldodger]

My personal definition of faith is that it is the active spiritual nurture from the nature of the "all in all" and the I Am who I Am. The evidence for such a faith is in our spiritual lives ( experiences) both individual and corporate. And so faith and nurture is/are different to individuals as individuals and corporate bodies are different one from the other. Faith is therefore synonymous with lived-active spiritual life which can be unseen it being individual and personal. To have faith is to nurture on at least some aspect of the all in all as an essential to life and this activity is the basis or evidence for the proof of faith. The evidence for faith is the active spiritual life. Therefore the first evidence for faith I ever had was from the spiritual lives of my parents. I can say I do not recall not being Christian. My parents were willing to be nurtured by the Holy Spirit and the Church. This their willingness was faith and the life experiences gained for this willingness was sufficient to prove faith was based on experience.

That's the evidence of your faith. I'm not sure that is what the op is about. I think he was more leaning towards our belief in God is based on our faith based on evidence and substance.

 

[BanjoPicker]

Background: There were a couple of posts earlier in the week that kinda stuck in my craw so-to-speak. One was from a believer and the other was from an athiest/agnostic, astonishingly both held the same position that our faith isn't based on proof, but is essentially blind faith. This is not the first time I've heard this from believers. It's a fairly commonly held assumption by Christians. I've heard it time and time again, that faith, reeeal faith, true faith, is faith without evidence: How often have your heard, "I'm just gonna step out on faith" implying one is stepping off the edge of an abyss and expecting to not to fall? Anyone ever not heard that?

That's not the definition of faith as I understand it. I don't think that's the picture of faith that any mature Christian lives by. My faith and I hope your faith is based on evidence. If it's not I have to wonder, "Why believe it?"
Hebrews 11:1 specifically states what faith is: "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." "Substance" and "evidence" imply very concrete concepts. It's the exact opposite of acceptance of a truth despite any evidence.

These is my personal opinion on the matter. I may certainly be mistaken, but this is my understanding on the matter based on my own experience and what I have witnessed in every single conversion I have ever witnessed or spoken to people about. I think initially when we are first saved the Holy Spirit impresses upon, reveals, to each of us his presence and verifies the accuracy and the truth of scripture. In short God says to us, I'm here, and this(scripture) is true. I don't think any two of our experiences are alike. I think he gives us individually, exactly what we need at that moment to believe. It's so deeply personal there's no denying it. It makes a deep and indelible impression on the conscience of the individual to the point the person can never deny it's authenticity. In short, the experience is sealed into that persons memory forever. THAT is evidence. THAT is substance. That is Hebrews 11:1. That's my understanding of faith.

One aside. I think a huge mistake we as churches and individuals make is to take our personal experience and say this must be how God does it for everyone else, or the more grave mistake of becoming dogmatic about it and say, "This is how God must do it for everyone else." He's God. He can do it any way he wants from a burning bush, a talking donkey, telling a woman about her husbands over a drink of water, or hanging on a cross and touching the heart of a man hanging beside him. That man was never baptized, never spoke in tongues, never even made a public proclamation of his faith, yet he is the only person on the face of the earth Christ told he would see in Heaven. Maybe it would be wise bear that in mind before we become dogmatic about
what God HAS to do, and how He HAS to do it. Just my opinion. Would love to hear your thoughts.

James 2:14-26 James put it this way: "shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.: That is pretty clear, all men must have this faith to get anything from God.

 

[gordon 2]

That's the evidence of your faith. I'm not sure that is what the op is about. I think he was more leaning towards our belief in God is based on our faith based on evidence and substance.

I know. I know what he's driving at. When it comes out plain it won't be much different then my evidence for faith as we both have personal evidence all to ourselves.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

Would it be fair to say at some point it is, or more accurately, was "blind" faith?

I wouldn't call it "blind" faith. Let me explain and see if it makes any sense. Maybe I can kill a couple of birds with one stone here and not get off track while attempting it. This may pertain to @Spotlite above and also @formula1 but I don't know if I can take it up to their level.

I think a lot of kids can come to believe through their parents. They may not have faith in God personally in that they don't have a relationship with him and haven't any evidence of their newly accepted beliefs, but they have faith in their parents and what they believe because they know their parents love them and only want what's best for them. They do have evidence of that so maybe "proxy" faith is a better term than "blind" faith, because typically we think of blind faith as faith without any evidence what-so-ever. So they respond to the Gospel based on that:trust in their parents faith. I'm thinking @formula1 mustard seed level. As time goes on that faith grows as they personally accumulate more evidence of it, becoming that full grown tree in the parable. Conversely there are many just as in the parable of the seed and the sower who don't accumulate evidence and the faith of their parents is not enough to hold them. They turn away. If asked most will adamantly deny there is any evidence of God and that's true to them. They found none. Why? I have no idea.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

That's the evidence of your faith. I'm not sure that is what the op is about.

It's a very basic question really. Is your, is my, faith based on evidence. I'm not specifying what kind of evidence. Just if asked the question, "Do you have evidence for what you believe?" Would you respond yes or no. It's that simple. This question was prompted by assertions by both atheist/agnostics and believers that we(believers) do not.

 

[Spotlite]

It's a very basic question really. Is your, is my, faith based on evidence. I'm not specifying what kind of evidence. Just if asked the question, "Do you have evidence for what you believe?" Would you respond yes or no. It's that simple. This question was prompted by assertions by both atheist/agnostics and believers that we(believers) do not.

Based on this - I’d say yes.

I guess we are used to “evidence” and automatically assume “prove it to me”.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

I just felt....

That's evidence right there Brother. If you "felt" pain you would believe there was evidence of injury? How is feeling and believing it is God somehow any less of a show of evidence. It's how we reason every important aspect of our lives. Don't sell it short as not being evidence just because it involved God instead of a hammer to your thumb. You would base both as valid evidence based off the feeling.

Just as an aside. There's a congenital condition called Congenital Insensitivity to Pain with Anhydrous. These kids tend not to live very long because they can't feel pain. They can be burning alive and not even know it because to them nothing is out of the ordinary. It's truly as horrible condition. I say that to say this. Don't sell "feeling" short. It may be the one thing that most accounts for us when it says we are made in His image.

 

[jmh5397]

"Do you have evidence for what you believe?" Would you respond yes or no. It's that simple.

I know it wasn't addressed to me but, Yes. The caveat is this: my threshold for evidence isn't going to meet someone else's. Some will require more and some will require much less. Think about my original response. How many on here will laugh that off? Almost everyone! I would have 30 years ago. I was at a time in my life where I could rationalize anything that could be considered a "miracle". Corn dog sticks on a plate, after yelling at God out loud? Nope! That was Him showing out for me and that was all I needed in 1989. Still, I respect someone laughing it off and saying, "that proves nothing". In their reality, it doesn't. For me? His timing was impeccable!

As far as thread #29. I suppose I could agree with what you say IF a child's parents/family followed the Lord to any degree. What about those that aren't raised in a family that has a Christian background? Atheists or other faiths come to mind. Mine didn't. I genuinely was a mocker of ANY faith. Couldn't fathom any sane individual believing in a "great eye in the sky" if you will. Now, it's hard for me to fathom that I was ever on that side of the fence.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

Based on this - I’d say yes.

I guess we are used to “evidence” and automatically assume “prove it to me”.

See post #13.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

What about those that aren't raised in a family that has a Christian background?

I don't know why some get their corn dog sticks and some don't. Maybe everyone get's theirs, but don't respond. Maybe they don't get them.

That brings up another vastly important matter that is related to faith, but needs a separate thread to even begin to scratch at it: trust. On that matter I trust the Lord. Which ever one it is, it's the perfect one.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

James 2:14-26 James put it this way: "shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.: That is pretty clear, all men must have this faith to get anything from God.

@Banjo Picker it's good to see you slumming around with us commoners for a change. Stick around. Pull up a chair. Have a cup of coffee and share your thoughts on the matter.

 

[Israel]

I had started typing more in my post above, but deleted it. It fits better here. I said I knew that there was a Creator and can't recall ever really doubting that as a fact, but there is a difference between knowing there is a God and knowing who He is. There is enough evidence in nature for me to have met condition one below.

1. Belief there is a God
2. Belief of who that God is
3. Belief that He will do what he has said he will do

I don't know at what age, but I said "the prayer" and was baptized while young. This was not because of pressure or faith. I think it was because I understood it, but looking back I know there is a big difference between understanding it and real belief.

The situation really doesn't matter, but many years later I remember admitting in my mind that maybe everyone I had been told was not true. What if it wasn't? Like you I verbally said (and probably a little too boldly) who are you? If you are hearing me show me who you are. This was followed by the silence I expected. I decided to read the Bible from beginning to end, instead of depending on bits and pieces and things I had been told. It didn't understand it all, but could see a plan and who God was and it became a thousand times clearer than anything anyone had told me. Lots of well-meaning people had talked about as the people I was reading about as Bible "heroes" when I was a kid, but in reality they were just as messed up as me. Now I understood why some of this was written and I believed it.

I had never seen or heard of this little diagram below, but I went through the same process as I was reading. My conclusion was that Jesus is God and not a good teacher or prophet. That took care of number two above. I was reading over and over where He did what he said He will do. I believe he will continue to do that and not change. That takes care of all three. So while it may seem at the moment when I verbally asked who He was that this was blind faith, I would say not because I still didn't have an answer. I believed number one, so it was not blind faith. I didn't get number two and three nailed down until I could piece together the evidence in his word with my own eyes.




View attachment 1201823

Is it fair to say in regards to your contentions that to accept a certain dichotomy presented as true (when it is not) is a fault?

Semper goes far in his explanation of what to him is evidenced based, and of personal experience...but which can be found, despite the man's full conviction of the reality of them, unprove-able to another.

Perhaps to say this is often our case (as believers) is moot. We find some frustration...even impossibility to "bring another" into ourselves to know as we know. (Another question could be why is this so...but not for addressing here)

We may try all manner of expression, all attempt at finding some common ground for reference that from there can lead to some commonness of conclusion that we are not in all ridiculous to another, or of no commonality...and even by "their" resistance, which is made by them sounding so reasonable...even find questions rising in ourselves. And I have no doubt every man is just as sincere as he can be. Seriously.

From the man telling me I have inherited the wealth of a Nigerian prince to the man telling me about Jesus Christ. Each is sincere "as he can be".

And I would ask if those matters of sincerity (which are not without consequence, nor to be lightly esteemed) and even are shown as a metric of sorts, but not a metric fit for total conclusion. At least among men and as men of themselves, would esteem. See the Goebbel's family that would rather accept (even run to) death than a world in which Hitler was not alive. Or pilots of planes into twin towers. Sincerity to death is not hard to find in this world...Nazi's/freedom fighters, Colonists/Red Coats, Blue and gray.

But often, is it not(?), in regards to those questions we may sense as said "rising in ourselves", do we not often find the more or most piercing of them...some question of "our sincerity"? Do they doubt I tell the truth? Do they find ulterior motive to what I believe is "my sincerity"? Is my "sincerity" impugned? While they thinking themselves sincere in their appraisals are immune, not knowing they no less convict themselves in that which they so think they can judge as insincere? Or even (oftimes harder to contend in) "am I perceived as stupid?"

Let God be true and every man a liar...we may all agree as true (to whatever extent)...but who "swallows that" for himself? And "force feeding" sounds so very barbaric to the natural senses. But it's an easily enough performed experiment...let a man so appraise his sincerity as "great" enough to therefore judge another's "in it"...and he will find out what force feeding is about. He may encounter one not reliant upon "appearing sincere"...but true.

So, do we find(?) in the matter first mentioned that a false dichotomy often presented (and often commonly accepted, it appears) the fault itself? Who can attach "blind" to faith? Some have no doubt, and most often those without faith at all have set up this as reference. And if we allow for their setting of the field, accept their framing of the matter (by sensual, or even intellectual reference as full disclosure of reason) we are surely not only on a field in which we not only experience inability to prove, but no less a loss in succumbing to that false dichotomy if we accept it. And then we are further motivated (by this sense of loss) to regain a stature we have felt impugned. It in all becoming a zero sum game.

"I have meat to eat you know not of" a man said. Even to those who faithfully followed Him, and who, by their only referencing of food to mean slabs of flesh off dead animals, even plainly displayed their unknowing.

It is not faith as versus a "blind" faith, but a sight which cannot be seen unless it is given. And of course, this will often cause us to appear the even more foolish to what still only sees meat as slabs of flesh off a dead animal. As only reference. Or faith substantiated only by a man's own reason.

Jesus asked "but whom do you say that I am?" Of all the things he could have said to Peter's response (as a man might conceive them) not a one matters but what He did say.

There is only one because to a thing caused...and that by whom is not reliant upon any because for His being.

Jesus told Peter.

It's an interesting thing in these days of reason, I am persuaded a man would much rather submit to be called or thought evil in all casualness than to sense he is having his intellect impugned.

Yet, even Paul dealt with it.

 

[gordon 2]

As long as the idea of man's spiritual nature is held to be a superstition and not a common human faculty along with the sensory and reason and equally used to determine or discover internal truths and outward truths as reason does, that only the physical senses and the rules of logic do provide evidences for the factual in the life experience all evidences of truth that issue from the spiritual life will be discounted as the faculty of false evidence and so invalid. It will be a belief based on the specific faculties admitted and some excluded in the determination of truths. And so truths for faith that issue from spiritual life will be discounted as false by those who deny spiritual life and faith as a uniquely human faculty.

In simpler words if you can't make rhyme or reason of spiritual life or faith, because they don't add up reasonably or physically you will discount it or determine it as an engine of falsehoods-- which is not reasonable by the way.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

As long as the idea of man's spiritual nature is held to be a superstition and not a common human faculty along with the sensory and reason and equally used to determine or discover internal truths and outward truths as reason does, that only the physical senses and the rules of logic do provide evidences for the factual in the life experience all evidences of truth that issue from the spiritual life will be discounted as the faculty of false evidence and so invalid. It will be a belief based on the specific faculties admitted and some excluded in the determination of truths. And so truths for faith that issue from spiritual life will be discounted as false by those who deny spiritual life and faith as a uniquely human faculty.

In simpler words if you can't make rhyme or reason of spiritual life or faith, because they don't add up reasonably or physically you will discount it or determine it as an engine of falsehoods-- which is not reasonable by the way.

People form their beliefs on evidence or lack of evidence. It’s unreasonable to expect someone to believe in something they have no personal evidence of. I’m gonna ask this question and it’s gonna open up an entirely different can of worms, but I’m gonna ask it anyway. Here it is, “How can we, as believers, help bridge that gap for unbelievers who have formed a belief that there is no God based on no personal evidence for Him?” Keep in mind many of these people have tried faith/religion. They jumped through all the hoops everyone said to yet nada, nothing happened. How do we help show God to someone like that?

 

[formula1]

People form their beliefs on evidence or lack of evidence. It’s unreasonable to expect someone to believe in something they have no personal evidence of. I’m gonna ask this question and it’s gonna open up an entirely different can of worms, but I’m gonna ask it anyway. Here it is, “How can we, as believers, help bridge that gap for unbelievers who have formed a belief that there is no God based on no personal evidence for Him?” Keep in mind many of these people have tried faith/religion. They jumped through all the hoops everyone said to yet nada, nothing happened. How do we help show God to someone like that?

Until one is hungry, he will not eat!
Until one is thirsty, he will not drink!

And until God reveals, no one can see!