Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Faiith is real. Faith is Belief in Action.

LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 8:55:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The dictionary says something about faith being religious, but it is much more than that. If I wrtie a check to you as a payment, you believe it is good or you would not accept the check. At least you are giving me the chance that it might be good so you accept the check and take it to the bank to cash it. Untill the check is cashed, you really do not know if it is good. You acted in faith taking the check from me and going to the bank. Your actions in takign the check and going to the bank were acts of faith. The hope was to get the cash. The faith was in the promise of getting the cash.

When we make a verbal agreement with a person, a verbal contract, we expect that person to act in good faith of the agreement.

The Bible puts it eloquently and beautifully spoken this way "Now faith is the substance o fthings hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" Faith is always based on facts. If the facts are faulty, then our faith will cause us to act in ways that cost loss of time. If the check I wrote you was bad and the bank refused to cash it, then your faith was well intended in taking the check from me in spite of the fact that I was unreliable. The hope you had in cashing the check was a false hope because the check was not gauranteed. That's how faith works. We are moved by faith in whatever we believe to be true, whether it is true or not.

When you go to sit down in a chair, you generally do not inspect the chair to see if it is strong enough to hold you. You believe it will hold you because it looks like it will hold you. Maybe you saw others sitting in it before you. Maybe you sat in it before. For whatever reason, you believe the chair is going to hold you before you sit in it. In sitting, you acted in faith, and when the chair actually holds you, your faith is proven true and the hope you had of sitting down and getting off your feet has been fullfilled. The chair looked promising as a place to get off your feet, you hoped to get off your feet, you believed the chair would hold you, and you acted in faith letting your weight fall into the support of the chair.

To believe in evolution, the big bang, abiogenisis, alien seeding of life on earith, or any such things, you have to believe in things you have not seen. You did not see how matter was formed, you did not see how life was formed, you did not see where your conscience came from, and so on. You have beliefs about these things, and you act according to your beliefs. Acting according to belief is faith. You have not seen beyond your own death, so if you believe God is not there you are believing something you really do not know. In your beliefs, you act. In those moments when nobody is looking, and in what you think is the privacy of your imagination since you believe God is not there to see what you are thinking or imagining, you determine for yourself what you are going to do and you believe nobody sees you so you don't have to answer to anybody for what you do. You live your life in faith, believing you do not have to answer to God for anything. The problem is, you really do not know that to be true. No matter how much you believe it, you can't be sure you are right.

Faith is extremely limited if the only thing you beleve is that you exist. You need more faith than that to cash a check. You need more faith than that to drive a car. We all act and die in faith. Where is your faith? Please tell me about your faith. And please don't bother telling me science proves your faith if you say God is not there. I'll have to say you are a fool to believe that.
slo1
Posts: 4,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 9:35:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
There is a lot in here and it probably behooves one to clarify.

Trust or faith does not live in a vacuum. Risk plays a part as well as evidence. Let's use the chair example.

I trust that when I sit on a chair that it will not break and cause an accident. Now gather evidence. If I weight 400 lbs, versus 98 lbs. do I still have that same level of faith? probably not.

If I'm in the US and have a level of confidence that chair manufacturers do a half way decent job and my experience is that I have never sat on one and have it break, am I still in the range of such a huge risk that it can still be called faith or trust?

That is why the word faith is used towards religion and other matters where very little evidence exists.

I think that it is valid to say that believing in abiogenesis requires some faith and there is a lot of facts that need to either be discovered, but when one uses experience and other evidence, is it really on the same level as a religion?

The last thought is then, if everything requires faith and there are competing views that require faith, then it is evident that faith is a major contribute believing in untrue realities. Should not all matters of faith then really be expressed as, " I think so, but I really don't know and am open to other realities as evidence is obtained."

I'm willing to say that about abiogenesis, are you ready to say that about your religion?
slo1
Posts: 4,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 9:40:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Just on that last bit, it should mean something that all major religions do not allow and I don't know response to its tenets. IE: Christianity has one going to hell should they readily admit, "I think Jesus is the savior, but I don't really know".

Since dogmatic belief in the tenets is required, it points to it as a human construct designed to keep people in the faith. It forces on its own dogma when we have already shown faith is a highly unreliable way to uncover the truth.
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 10:18:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 9:35:35 AM, slo1 wrote:
There is a lot in here and it probably behooves one to clarify.

Trust or faith does not live in a vacuum. Risk plays a part as well as evidence. Let's use the chair example.

I trust that when I sit on a chair that it will not break and cause an accident. Now gather evidence. If I weight 400 lbs, versus 98 lbs. do I still have that same level of faith? probably not.

If I'm in the US and have a level of confidence that chair manufacturers do a half way decent job and my experience is that I have never sat on one and have it break, am I still in the range of such a huge risk that it can still be called faith or trust?

That is why the word faith is used towards religion and other matters where very little evidence exists.

I think that it is valid to say that believing in abiogenesis requires some faith and there is a lot of facts that need to either be discovered, but when one uses experience and other evidence, is it really on the same level as a religion?

The last thought is then, if everything requires faith and there are competing views that require faith, then it is evident that faith is a major contribute believing in untrue realities. Should not all matters of faith then really be expressed as, " I think so, but I really don't know and am open to other realities as evidence is obtained."

I'm willing to say that about abiogenesis, are you ready to say that about your religion?

I do not believe in religion. I believe in reality. Look at the check illustration. If I write a check to you, and you take it as payment, you assume I wrote the check in good faith. "In good faith" is a legal term. You are trying to split hairs by using "trust" as different than "faith". If you trust that I have acted in good faith, you have faith that the check is good based on the fact that you have enough trust in me so that you accept the check as payment. The check payment is not reality untill it is cashed.
Your faith in receiving the check before you have proven it good is reality. You acted in faith and that is reality. If the matter was discussed in a court of law, it would have to be noted that you actually took the check from me before you had proven the check was good. You took the check in good faith based on belief that I would not commit a fraudulent act in uttering and publishing. Your faith was good, so you took the check to the bank. You trusted me enough to take the check, so you acted in faith and took it.

I am assuming you believe life emerged out of non-life. If you are admitting that you really don't know if it is true that life emerged out of non-life by accident, you should be looking at evidence which indicates that it is not possible for life to emerge out of non-life. Many scientist reject such evidence because they are afraid their belief that God is not there will be proven wrong. The evidences that life cannot emerge out of non-life far outweigh the hypothesis that it did. Abiogenisis is nothing more than a hypothesis because it cannot be tested to become a theory; in fact, attempts to sucessfully test the hypothesis of abiogenisis have failed miserably due to the impossibility of overcoming the laws of thermodynamics.

Here you pose a good question: ". Should not all matters of faith then really be expressed as, " I think so, but I really don't know and am open to other realities as evidence is obtained." The question is good if you don't really know anything. If you don't believe a rock is hard, you won't believe it will make a bump on your head if somebody hits you with it. You know the rock is hard when it makes a bump on your head. You should have known the rock was hard just by looking at it so that nobody would have to hit you over the head to prove it is hard.

Now you can say it could have been a fake rock, and believing it was hard only be looking at it laying on the ground would have been beleif in an untrue reality.
There is no such thing as an untrue reality. The rock was hard before it hit you on the head, and the rock was hard after it left a bump on your head. What you believed about the rock before it hit you on the head had nothing to do with reality other than the fact that in unbelief, you allowed somebody to hit you over the head with a rock before you would believe it was hard. Again, there is no such thing as an untrue reality.
You can believe in things that are not true. You can believe in things that are not proven. Or you can believe in reality. You can trust in things that are not true. You can trust in things that are not proven. Or you can trust in reality.
Whatever you believe or trust in, you act according to that trust or belief. Faith is acting according to trust or belief. Risk is involved when the thing you trust in has not been proven true before you trusted in it. That is why it took a lump on your head before you believed the rock was hard. You took the risk of ignoring the danger of the possibilitiy that the rock actually was hard. Yes the rock illustration is hypothetical and you are not going to stand there and tell somebody you don't believe the rock is real and you won't believe it is hard if it does not leave a bump on your head when they hit you with it. Regardless of the silliness of the illustration, it does point out how that everything you do, you do in faith of something, whether the thing you are trusting in is reality or your own misguided beliefs.

Again, in answer to your closing question, I believe in reality, not religion. Abiogenisis is a hypothesis that can only be believed and never proved like a rock can be proved to be hard.
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 10:29:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 9:40:18 AM, slo1 wrote:
Just on that last bit, it should mean something that all major religions do not allow and I don't know response to its tenets. IE: Christianity has one going to hell should they readily admit, "I think Jesus is the savior, but I don't really know".

Since dogmatic belief in the tenets is required, it points to it as a human construct designed to keep people in the faith. It forces on its own dogma when we have already shown faith is a highly unreliable way to uncover the truth.

You are going far off from the topic of the Forum. This is about faith. You are going way off on a tangent. This Forum topic is about the reality of faith in action. You are acting in faith when you type a message here believing it will go through the internet and be posted. Try to stay on topic please. Focus on reality here if you can. You have a lot of faith in yourself, don't you? Try to focus on reality please. The topic of the Forum is "Faith is real". Look at how you are acting in faith. You are talking according to your beliefs. Your beliefs may or may not be based in reality. I think your beliefs are based on your own feelings. Correct me if I'm wrong. I believe you are wrong. In fact, I know you are wrong because you don't know what you are talkign about. Sorry. Reality is not kind when you don't want to believe it. Now I expect you to go into a bit of a tirade since you started here with a tirading tangent against Hell, but I i will try to pull you back to the topic of the forum.......Faith is Real, Faith is Belief in Action. (that can be and maybe should be rewordes as "Acting according to what you believe is faith")
slo1
Posts: 4,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 10:42:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 10:18:20 AM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 9/2/2014 9:35:35 AM, slo1 wrote:
There is a lot in here and it probably behooves one to clarify.

Trust or faith does not live in a vacuum. Risk plays a part as well as evidence. Let's use the chair example.

I trust that when I sit on a chair that it will not break and cause an accident. Now gather evidence. If I weight 400 lbs, versus 98 lbs. do I still have that same level of faith? probably not.

If I'm in the US and have a level of confidence that chair manufacturers do a half way decent job and my experience is that I have never sat on one and have it break, am I still in the range of such a huge risk that it can still be called faith or trust?

That is why the word faith is used towards religion and other matters where very little evidence exists.

I think that it is valid to say that believing in abiogenesis requires some faith and there is a lot of facts that need to either be discovered, but when one uses experience and other evidence, is it really on the same level as a religion?

The last thought is then, if everything requires faith and there are competing views that require faith, then it is evident that faith is a major contribute believing in untrue realities. Should not all matters of faith then really be expressed as, " I think so, but I really don't know and am open to other realities as evidence is obtained."

I'm willing to say that about abiogenesis, are you ready to say that about your religion?

I do not believe in religion. I believe in reality. Look at the check illustration. If I write a check to you, and you take it as payment, you assume I wrote the check in good faith. "In good faith" is a legal term. You are trying to split hairs by using "trust" as different than "faith". If you trust that I have acted in good faith, you have faith that the check is good based on the fact that you have enough trust in me so that you accept the check as payment. The check payment is not reality untill it is cashed.
Your faith in receiving the check before you have proven it good is reality. You acted in faith and that is reality. If the matter was discussed in a court of law, it would have to be noted that you actually took the check from me before you had proven the check was good. You took the check in good faith based on belief that I would not commit a fraudulent act in uttering and publishing. Your faith was good, so you took the check to the bank. You trusted me enough to take the check, so you acted in faith and took it.

I am assuming you believe life emerged out of non-life. If you are admitting that you really don't know if it is true that life emerged out of non-life by accident, you should be looking at evidence which indicates that it is not possible for life to emerge out of non-life. Many scientist reject such evidence because they are afraid their belief that God is not there will be proven wrong. The evidences that life cannot emerge out of non-life far outweigh the hypothesis that it did. Abiogenisis is nothing more than a hypothesis because it cannot be tested to become a theory; in fact, attempts to sucessfully test the hypothesis of abiogenisis have failed miserably due to the impossibility of overcoming the laws of thermodynamics.

Here you pose a good question: ". Should not all matters of faith then really be expressed as, " I think so, but I really don't know and am open to other realities as evidence is obtained." The question is good if you don't really know anything. If you don't believe a rock is hard, you won't believe it will make a bump on your head if somebody hits you with it. You know the rock is hard when it makes a bump on your head. You should have known the rock was hard just by looking at it so that nobody would have to hit you over the head to prove it is hard.

Now you can say it could have been a fake rock, and believing it was hard only be looking at it laying on the ground would have been beleif in an untrue reality.
There is no such thing as an untrue reality. The rock was hard before it hit you on the head, and the rock was hard after it left a bump on your head. What you believed about the rock before it hit you on the head had nothing to do with reality other than the fact that in unbelief, you allowed somebody to hit you over the head with a rock before you would believe it was hard. Again, there is no such thing as an untrue reality.
You can believe in things that are not true. You can believe in things that are not proven. Or you can believe in reality. You can trust in things that are not true. You can trust in things that are not proven. Or you can trust in reality.
Whatever you believe or trust in, you act according to that trust or belief. Faith is acting according to trust or belief. Risk is involved when the thing you trust in has not been proven true before you trusted in it. That is why it took a lump on your head before you believed the rock was hard. You took the risk of ignoring the danger of the possibilitiy that the rock actually was hard. Yes the rock illustration is hypothetical and you are not going to stand there and tell somebody you don't believe the rock is real and you won't believe it is hard if it does not leave a bump on your head when they hit you with it. Regardless of the silliness of the illustration, it does point out how that everything you do, you do in faith of something, whether the thing you are trusting in is reality or your own misguided beliefs.

Again, in answer to your closing question, I believe in reality, not religion. Abiogenisis is a hypothesis that can only be believed and never proved like a rock can be proved to be hard.

You missed the main point. I don't just accept any check from any person. There is a risk assessment that happens and if by my experience, knowledge, facts, i determine a person is of high risk and will not accept his check on faith.

All faith is not equal in whether it should be given and all faith should be examined. If we move that model to abiogensis. There is no evidence that proves it is impossible to happen. (Your statement that it breaks the laws of thermodynamics is false and incorrect. If it were true, we could not have clouds forming in the earths atmosphere either)

If over time a full pathway is discovered which shows it is possible then I have more evidence to make a decision on belief in it or not.

In other words, faith in religion is just blind dogma unless one has fully investigated all possibilities without applying previously learned dogma and secondly the individual is willing to change as new information comes out. It is very untypical for religious types to apply that level of scrutiny to their faith. They might do it to determine a subsect of their faith, but rarely outside the major category.

It is really concerning to try to argue all applications of faith and trust are equal.

To sum it up, you have created a paradox. If the application of faith is equal and does not include factual evidence, experience and risk assessments to differentiate the applications of faith then faith can not be a good method to uncover the truth.
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 10:46:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
\faith is a highly unreliable way to uncover the truth.

Ok, this is a good comment to try to keep on topic. Who has shown that faith is an unreliable way to uncover the truth? If you believe the check I wrote to you as payment is good, you act in faith by depositing that check in the bank. Then, the bank uncovers the truth. The check clears the bank and the truth uncoverd is that the check was good, or the check fails to clear and the truth uncovered is that the check was not good or something in the banking system made an error. Untill you know for sure if the check was bad or if the banking system made an error, you have to believe the check as bad because you did not get paid. You have to proceed in faith based on the truth that you have not yet been paid, and investigate further. Unless you know the person who gave you the check is much more relitable than the banking system which is usually very reliable, you are most likely going to persue the person who apparently commited fraud and gave you a bad check, leading you to waste your time believing in things that were not true.

Try to keep on topic here. Ok, so you don't like the idea of burning in Hell. Nobody wants to burn in Hell, and nobody wants you to burn in Hell except maybe people who hate you. If you believe there is no Hell and you are wrong, who's fault is that?
If you believe you are not going to Hell and you do not need to be saved from it and you are wrong, whose fault is that? You do not know that Hell is not real. If you want to believe it is not real, you are free to believe that. You are free to do whatever you want to in the name of Hell because you believe it is not real. You will uncover the truth by acting in faith of what you believe.

I'm having fun. I hope you are too. I believe you may be a bit too serious trying to prove the validity of your beliefs. I trust you believe what you say you believe. I risked believing the way you do. I'm glad I don't believe the way you do anymore. You will act according to your beliefs. Talking or typing and making statements is action. Are you wasting your time acting according to beliefs you cannot prove are based in reality?
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 11:10:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
You missed the main point. I don't just accept any check from any person. There is a risk assessment that happens and if by my experience, knowledge, facts, i determine a person is of high risk and will not accept his check on faith.

All faith is not equal in whether it should be given and all faith should be examined. If we move that model to abiogensis. There is no evidence that proves it is impossible to happen. (Your statement that it breaks the laws of thermodynamics is false and incorrect. If it were true, we could not have clouds forming in the earths atmosphere either)

If over time a full pathway is discovered which shows it is possible then I have more evidence to make a decision on belief in it or not.

In other words, faith in religion is just blind dogma unless one has fully investigated all possibilities without applying previously learned dogma and secondly the individual is willing to change as new information comes out. It is very untypical for religious types to apply that level of scrutiny to their faith. They might do it to determine a subsect of their faith, but rarely outside the major category.

It is really concerning to try to argue all applications of faith and trust are equal.

To sum it up, you have created a paradox. If the application of faith is equal and does not include factual evidence, experience and risk assessments to differentiate the applications of faith then faith can not be a good method to uncover the truth.

Clouds and snowflakes occur because water follows the laws of thermodynamics. Nothing breaks the laws of thermodynamics. Abiogenisis cannot occur under the laws of thermodynamics. If you believe in abiogenisis, you are trying to uncover the truth by faith in something you cannot prove by testing. Fatih in abiogenisis is faith in a hypothesis that has never been proven by any test attempted by any scientist so it can't even come close to rising to being called a theory.

I do not want to go off topic of the forum too much. Faith in Abiogenisis Vs. The Laws of Thermodynamics (which is reality) is a different topic. I'm trying to focus on the reality of faith. If you believe things can happen contrary to the laws of thermodynamics, you are believing in a reality that cannot be proven. If you believe a rock is as soft as a marshmallow and you won't believe the rock is hard untill it leaves a bump on your head, the rock can be proven hard and your faith in what you thought you were right about proven misguided.

No matter how well you know me, you sitll do not know that the check I give you is good untill the bank cashes it. You would not be the first person to be shocked to find out their trust in the good faith of the person writing the check was more unknown risk than you realized, and the bank uncoverd the shocking truth for you when you could not get paid.

You took the check in good faith. So the check was good and you got paid. That's great. You took the check in good faith and your faith was proven to be true after you actted in faith and got the check cashed at the bank. Faith is acting in what you believe.
You are trying to split hairs to say faith is not reality. Faith is reality. When the truth is uncoverd, your faith will be proven to be misguided if the thing or person you trusted in was not what you hoped for when you acted in reality by faith in what you believe.
If the thing or person you trusted in is what you trusted them to be, then your faith is unshakeable and your hope is secure and you know you are acting in reality based on facts. You can't trust what you do not know. You can hope that your trust will be proven to be good. You act in faith believing whatever you believe. If what you believe is not reality, then you really don't know what you are doing. Faith is reality. You act in faith. Your actions are reality.

Let's try to keep on topic here.
slo1
Posts: 4,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 2:26:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 11:10:54 AM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
You missed the main point. I don't just accept any check from any person. There is a risk assessment that happens and if by my experience, knowledge, facts, i determine a person is of high risk and will not accept his check on faith.

All faith is not equal in whether it should be given and all faith should be examined. If we move that model to abiogensis. There is no evidence that proves it is impossible to happen. (Your statement that it breaks the laws of thermodynamics is false and incorrect. If it were true, we could not have clouds forming in the earths atmosphere either)

If over time a full pathway is discovered which shows it is possible then I have more evidence to make a decision on belief in it or not.

In other words, faith in religion is just blind dogma unless one has fully investigated all possibilities without applying previously learned dogma and secondly the individual is willing to change as new information comes out. It is very untypical for religious types to apply that level of scrutiny to their faith. They might do it to determine a subsect of their faith, but rarely outside the major category.

It is really concerning to try to argue all applications of faith and trust are equal.

To sum it up, you have created a paradox. If the application of faith is equal and does not include factual evidence, experience and risk assessments to differentiate the applications of faith then faith can not be a good method to uncover the truth.

Clouds and snowflakes occur because water follows the laws of thermodynamics. Nothing breaks the laws of thermodynamics. Abiogenisis cannot occur under the laws of thermodynamics. If you believe in abiogenisis, you are trying to uncover the truth by faith in something you cannot prove by testing. Fatih in abiogenisis is faith in a hypothesis that has never been proven by any test attempted by any scientist so it can't even come close to rising to being called a theory.

You make nothing but assertions in here and they are all technically wrong with the exception that cloud formation which involves the congregation of water into groups follows the law of thermodynamics and does not violate it.

You somehow found faith in the assertion that abiogenisis violates the laws of thermodynamics. The reality of it is that it doesn't.

Again, your faith is misplaced because you have not done a proper investigation of fact. If you studied the laws you would know that in an open system where energy/matter can come in and out entropy can be reduced rather than increased.

This is a classic example where you took faith in a belief and the reality is that the belief is wrong. It goes back to my main point. Even though we all use faith in our day to day life, the usage of it is not equal. Without evidence, facts, experience, etc it is just a guess. With evidence, facts, experience, etc it becomes a probability with higher odds of being the truth.

I'm probably off topic again, so I'll bow out so you can focus on your original intent.
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 7:05:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 2:26:49 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/2/2014 11:10:54 AM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
You missed the main point. I don't just accept any check from any person. There is a risk assessment that happens and if by my experience, knowledge, facts, i determine a person is of high risk and will not accept his check on faith.

All faith is not equal in whether it should be given and all faith should be examined. If we move that model to abiogensis. There is no evidence that proves it is impossible to happen. (Your statement that it breaks the laws of thermodynamics is false and incorrect. If it were true, we could not have clouds forming in the earths atmosphere either)

If over time a full pathway is discovered which shows it is possible then I have more evidence to make a decision on belief in it or not.

In other words, faith in religion is just blind dogma unless one has fully investigated all possibilities without applying previously learned dogma and secondly the individual is willing to change as new information comes out. It is very untypical for religious types to apply that level of scrutiny to their faith. They might do it to determine a subsect of their faith, but rarely outside the major category.


It is really concerning to try to argue all applications of faith and trust are equal.
To sum it up, you have created a paradox. If the application of faith is equal and does not include factual evidence, experience and risk assessments to differentiate the applications of faith then faith can not be a good method to uncover the truth.

Clouds and snowflakes occur because water follows the laws of thermodynamics. Nothing breaks the laws of thermodynamics. Abiogenisis cannot occur under the laws of thermodynamics. If you believe in abiogenisis, you are trying to uncover the truth by faith in something you cannot prove by testing. Fatih in abiogenisis is faith in a hypothesis that has never been proven by any test attempted by any scientist so it can't even come close to rising to being called a theory.

You make nothing but assertions in here and they are all technically wrong with the exception that cloud formation which involves the congregation of water into groups follows the law of thermodynamics and does not violate it.

You somehow found faith in the assertion that abiogenisis violates the laws of thermodynamics. The reality of it is that it doesn't.

Again, your faith is misplaced because you have not done a proper investigation of fact. If you studied the laws you would know that in an open system where energy/matter can come in and out entropy can be reduced rather than increased.

This is a classic example where you took faith in a belief and the reality is that the belief is wrong. It goes back to my main point. Even though we all use faith in our day to day life, the usage of it is not equal. Without evidence, facts, experience, etc it is just a guess. With evidence, facts, experience, etc it becomes a probability with higher odds of being the truth.

I'm probably off topic again, so I'll bow out so you can focus on your original intent.

Yes you are going off topic. While not ruling out the argument about belief in abiogenisis occuring due to a reversal of the Laws of Thermodynamics (something that never has and never will happened), I will try to keep the focus on the reality of faith. Faith is Belief in Action.

Because you believe in abigenisis, you act according to your belief. Whatever your conlusion is, it is faith no matter what amount of evidences you believe are conlusive enough for you. You are standing on a conclusion and speaking, thinking, and acting according to your beliefs. You have never seen abiogenisis occor, nobody else has seen it, nobody has been able to make it happen, yes somehow you believe it happened. All of your writings here in support of your beliefs are actions. Your writing is your belief in action. You have faith in your own reasoning, so you say it is the best reasoning. You are acting in faith. You are rejecting God as the creator of life so you have to come up with something to believe sufficient for you to rule out God.
What you really are doing is trying to justify yourself, excuse yourself from the things you have done wrong, or failed to do that would have been the right thing to do. Every one of us has done something wrong and/or failed to do the right thing when we should have. Anybody who disagrees with this statement is a liar. If you are past the age of innocence and you are able to read this, you have done something wrong at some time. This is not a blind assertion, it is a fact of reality. Your faith which is in abiogenisis excludes God so you believe you do not have to answer to God for the things you have done wrong. You will act accordingly in public based on your beliefs and you will act accordingly in private based on your beliefs. Faith is acting according to what you believe. The more sure you are that what you believe is true, the more strongly you will be emboldened to act according to your beliefs.

You see? I did not miss your point, and am agreeing with your point, that " : : : : : It is really concerning to try to argue all applications of faith and trust are equal." All applications of faith and trust are not equal. Repeating myself in agreement with you, "The more sure you are that what you believe is true, the more strongly you will be emboldened to act according to your beliefs."

This is why I preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and give my life to and for Him. He gave His life for me. I know He is God and I know without doubt that He is risen from the dead and He is coming back. I know I am going to heaven with my sins forgvien and I know when I see Jesus I will be like Him, forever changed into His perfect likeness and I will never do wrong again from that point on.

If you think my faith is unexamined, you are gravely mistaken. I was like you for most of my life, believing (or at least trying to believe) the same things you believe. It's nothing new. And I acted in faith according to my beliefs. You see, action is reality.
The words you say here are what you are doing when you say them, and it is reality and it is recorded. Your time counts. Every word, every action, every thought, every imagination of every moment of your time counts. That is reality. I have faith in reality. I do not fully trust things I do not know. For all I know, there could be a fissure opening up in the earth underneath me as I speak and the ground could fall underneath me. For all I know, there is an aneurism in my brain ready to burst at any moment. I do not believe tomorrow in this world is certain. I believe in reality, and I act according to my beliefs. Actions are reality, no matter what you believe. Every thing you do is done in faith of something. You believe that when you try to lift your fingers to type, they will respond to your direction. The truth is, they may not. Sooner or later, they most certainly will not. You do not know when that moment will come, so you think ahead of what you are writing in order to frame your thoughts. You are acting in faith believing your fingers will work and hoping they work long enough for you to finish whatever you are trying to say. Faith is belief in action. Whatever you do, even is you sit there doing nothing, doing nothing is what you are doign and it is reality.
Everything you do is in faith of something if you think about it or not. We live by faith. We act according to what we believe. If you think acting according to faith is something to be ashamed of, then you should be ashamed of yourself because you sure do have a lot of faith in yourself, even though you can't remove yourself from your death.