[split] a discussion on origins sparked by "The Order of Things"

[CRNDLSM]

][/font]

Wrong.  Faith is believing in something when there is no evidence at all.  None.  Zero.  But yet you still hold a belief despite the lack of evidence.  Further, faith is also used to hold a belief in OPPOSITION to empirical evidence.  Such as chain-smoking Frank Zappa repeatedly denying throughout his life the evidence that supports the fact that regular cigarette smoking has an increased causal risk to cancer (and then died of cancer at 52).

When there is 99% empirical evidence for something, it requires acceptance.  When you have a good reason to accept something, or have evidence for a fact, etc., you GIVE THE REASON.  When you do NOT have a good reason, you assert the “fact” on faith alone and just state that you have faith that it is true.  Because that is ALL you have.

That is the very definition put forth by the bible itself in Hebrews 11:1—"the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”  IOW, just believing in something you hope is true without any empirical evidence that it is.

Someone who knows God exists cannot have faith in It?  That doesn't make sense.  Faith can have evidence for sure.