GAFreeman on Faith

Hello; The Georgia Freeman and ASA here to discuss faith.

I like to start with definitions of what I am going to discuss:
Faith: In the context of this discussion I am referring to Faith defined as: a belief that is not based on proof. The word faith is often used as a synonym for hope,[4] trust,[5] or belief.[6]

Belief: an opinion or conviction:
for example a belief that the earth is flat. 2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief. 3. Confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents. 4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith

Proof: Objective evidence is any documented fact or other information or record, quantitative or qualitative, pertaining to the quality of an item or activity, based on observations, measurements or tests which can be verified.

Verify means to have physical sense evidence identified and reviewed by multiple people with them coming to the same conclusion. Physical evidence identified with the senses and agreed upon by multiple people, or available to be presented as evidence.

Fact: Event, item of information, or state of affairs existing, observed, or known to have happened, and which is confirmed or validated to such an extent that it is considered 'reality.

Principle one: the one who makes a claim must show facts to prove their claim. They are making a positive claim and therefor the claimant must be the one to prove it to be true or it is unproven and holds no truth.

Principle two: You cannot prove a negative. There is no proof of a negative. If I say I did not break it. I can never prove that I did not break the glass. I can only prove positive facts. For example. I can prove that the glass is broken. I can prove that it was whole at some point and someone saw it. I can prove I was with someone earlier and it was whole. I can find out if anyone saw it whole after I left. I can find out if anyone saw it break. I can ultimately prove who broke it by tracking down positive evidence. I can prove that I was elsewhere or with someone else for example. But I can never prove the negative that I did not do it. For example, I can prove that I was there at three pm with tom and becky, A and B. I claim that I was with A and B at 3pm and at that time all three of us saw it whole and we left. This provides positive verification from independent sources that it was whole at 3pm and I left. Then A returned with D at 4 pm and found it broken. I can also prove that I was still with B at this time and not in the area. So now we have positive independent verification that A and D found it broken at 4pm. So now, we have positive proof that it was broken between 3 and 4 pm and I was not present at that time. This does not prove anything except that it was broken in a certain period and I was not there to break it.

So based on these two principles and the definitions above, here is my position:

In any case of an argument based on faith, the arguer must provide verifiable facts or proof or there is nothing in question. I do not have to disprove any assertion based on faith as I am not making a claim. For example, you can say that there is a pink unicorn that I must worship because you have a book that says so. I ask what evidence you have that pink unicorn is in existence with special powers that I must worship. One may say I have an old book that is a collection of articles collected over time that says it exists. This does not work as it is called circular reasoning. One cannot say that I believe in something because a book says so and then use that book as evidence of its existence. I do not have to argue against it if one does not present any more evidence than this.

From my perspective, I can say that I have no evidence of the pink unicorns existence and therefor I simply disregard the idea. If one says, please prove this false: by principle, I cannot prove a negative. I cannot prove that I don’t see the pink unicorn; I can’t prove that it exists as it is based on faith. So, it is not my job or responsibility to disprove it, it is a self-defeating claim without any evidence. I can prove positives such as the fact that I cannot touch it, that it cannot stop me from doing anything, that I cannot film it, capture it, but I cannot prove it does not exist, nor do I have to. If you make the claim, you must prove existence or I can simply disregard the false and baseless claim.

So, faith is acceptable to me as a simple evaluation of facts. For example; I am positive the sun will come up tomorrow, I have faith in this. My faith/belief/opinion is based on the fact that the sun has made the same motion through the sky every 24 hours since I became aware of the sun. My personal experience allows me to believe based on evidence that the earth, moon and sun will interact in approximately the same way tomorrow as it has today. I can test this. I can believe, pray, ask that the sun not rise tomorrow and have great convictions that it won’t and will this effect the sun in any way? I can have faith that I can breath water, that I can fly with my wings, that I can procreate. I can also test these ideas and determine if my beliefs or opinions are true.

Faith as a belief in a pink unicorn is also fine. But I insist that it be called what it really is; an opinion or belief without any supporting evidence and therefor no one needs to refute it. It is self evidently untrue. If it helps someone in any way then that is fine but it is immoral to threaten children or anyone with the promise of future punishment for not believing the in the pink unicorn.

Logical problem of Evil

The originator of the logical problem of evil has been cited as the Greek philosopher Epicurus,[11] and this argument may be schematized as follows:

1. If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist.
   This argument is of the form modus tollens, and is logically valid if its premises are true, the conclusion follows of necessity. However, it is unclear precisely how the existence of an all-powerful and perfectly good God guarantees the non-existence of evil. Also, it is unclear whether the first premise is true. To show that it is plausible, subsequent versions tend to expand on this premise, such as this modern example:[2]
4. God exists.
5. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
6. An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
7. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented.
8. An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
9. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
10. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists.
11. Evil exists (logical contradiction).
12. Therefore, either god does not exist, or god is not omni-benevolent, omniscient, or omnipotent or god is evil. So, either god is not all loving, knowing and powerful, therefore not the god promised in the bible. Or god is these things and is simply evil and immoral.

Conclusion:

Having Faith in anything is simply a personal preference or decision and is fine. However, it is immoral to use faith in any mysticism as the basis for anything such as rules or law. Faith must be treated as simply a personal choice that is personal to each individual. One should never make a claim of any type based on faith. This is self defeating.