You said:

What do you mean by a "logical" demonstration of something's existence?

No, it is not "hope". Hope, as stated, is a desire for something to be true and an expectancy of a positive outcome. There is neither here.

If you are seeking to understand you should pay attention to what people say, and not put words in their mouths. Faith and trust are fine words, they don't need to be translated into "hope", "belief", "claim" or "knowledge". Some might use faith to convey those things, I don't. Also faith can certainly be a part of those things, like an engine is part of a car - but that doesn't mean it is those things.

The original comment was in response to:

"You would have to provide a logical demonstration that the concept of God was false."

The basis of my response is that I do not need evidence for something's non-existence. In other words, I do not believe in green men living inside Venus because there is no evidence that they exist.

I do not need evidence that they do not exist.

Make sense?

My fault for misunderstanding. How about this:

If the observable follows from experience, as you say, what experience have you had with faith which allows you to know it to be true?

That doesn't make any sense. I don't know it is true.

However after my leap of faith I can of course support the idea via empirical deduction. Or in plain English, I can show that it works. That doesn't mean it is true. 2+2=4 works, even if I use multiplication instead of addition.

I follow the example you are making and understand the words as they are presented.

However, I do not see an example of the empirical deduction you are using to specifically allow yourself to make a "leap of faith."

Would you mind helping me with that part by "showing that it works." Please be specific.

"Allow myself?" Allowing myself has nothing to do with it. I have faith in that idea, it's not about allowing anything. This is about honesty and acknowledging that the faith is there.

And showing that it works? Here's specific for you: F=ma

So what you are saying, and don't let me put words in your mouth, is the equation F=ma proves the existence of God and your faith?

No, I don't believe in God.

I think one of the reasons these discussions often end up confused is that there isn't actually a univocal definition or understanding of what "faith" means in Christianity.

Probst's definition in the OP is a more or less irreverent presentation of faith as an epistemological category: to accept that P without evidence.

But I don't think that has ever been a sufficient definition for faith as a Christian virtue. I don't think I can provide great references, and my reading is haphazard so you should take what I say with a grain of salt, but it seems to me that especially among the early greek theologians, they began by relating faith to existing epistemological ideas (the greeks already had a low opinion about the value of belief without evidence) but developed the idea from there into something else: that faith is a human faculty that is distinct from the senses and the rational intellect. Or even that faith is that which creates an ontologically real and adualistic communion between the knower and the known. Actually, the development of this understanding of faith isn't even entirely Christian in this period, there is also neoplatonism and the oracles and something of a broad trend towards a more mystical approach in greek culture. In any case, that's one way in which faith is and has been understood more broadly.

It also seems like in the biblical texts, faith also already was certainly more than just about intellectual assent to the truth of a given proposition. If the NT authors wrote that God gives eternal life to anyone "who believes in Him", Jesus also was reported to have said that "not all who say to me in that day, 'Lord, Lord', but those who do the will of my Father in heaven". i.e that faith isn't primarily abstract or intellectual, it's about how life is lived.

Then there is also the point I think tame_deuces is trying to make, which is back to being more about epistemology, and the idea that if the acquisition of knowledge is a rational process, it has to begin somewhere, and the beginning requires making assumptions of some sort, i.e that the external world is real. I don't think this definition of faith is particularly relevant to speaking of faith as a religious virtue, but it's a useful reminder philosophically

I am not sure I said this and I am not sure that I totally follow your question. To believe in something I do require some model or concept or there is no way to frame a question of belief.

Not necessarily. Your initial question addressed the existence of God. I answered with what would be required to cause me to abandon my belief in the existence of God. My answer would not necessarily be the same for all other existence questions that you could pose.

Interesting. Why the difference from God to not God related questions?

To be honest I was mostly messing around because if faith is seen as "pretense/delusion", then what's the point of trying to pretend there is a debate to be had?

Other than that you are correct about the point I was trying to make, which is not only rooted it epistemology, but also in me being a psychologist. I don't think the mechanisms behind religious beliefs are very different from other beliefs.

All that being said there are theists and other religious people who use my barebones version of faith (or something close to it) as well.

Do you believe in the existence of other minds? If so, what is your evidence for this belief?

Of course, I can compare EEG and MRI data from my brain across populations.

I do not believe this line of thinking is a good argument. Which is to say, you are comparing belief in:

An omnipresent god, who has no beginning or end, who created an entire universe, who then sent a son, who is actually himself, to earth to save a population from something they did not themselves do.

With the belief in:

The people I observe in the world are in fact, real.

Easy answer, because people can be reasoned out of their faith.

It is my belief most would be better off living their lives through reason and wonder. Add in the fact that nations who are on the low end of faith based religions fare best in almost every measurable category (Sweden). Nations on the other end of that scale (Iran) are on the bottom of every measurable category.

I did not say that there was a difference between God and not God related questions. I might give the same answer from some not God related questions. All I said was that I would not necessarily give the same answer for any not God question you asked. It would depend on the specifics of the question.

For example, if you asked if I believe that the Earth has been visited by aliens then I would say "No" even though I do not demand a specific proof that that event has never happened. If you asked me to say "No" to the concept that there is intelligent life anywhere in the universe then I would say that you would have to give me a logical demonstration that the concept was invalid. The distinction has nothing to do with God issues. It is the specific nature of the question.

You do realize that your assigning that data relating to electrochemical processes in your brain to your own self-awareness of a mind is a leap of faith?

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that the likelihood of life existing outside our planet is very very high.

Do you feel there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for the existence in God?

No, self-awareness has been studied quite a bit in peer reviewed journals across many species on earth. Awareness is not purely human even. These are realms science has answers for. What I am talking about is you cannot relate these claims with the claims based purely on faith.

Edit: I'd also like to add that this was in response to another statement about believing the "existence of other minds." I was responding to that question directly.

There really isn't. There is some evidence about planets that may be earthlike and such, but the actually mechanism and probability of life generation is speculative. Personally I do not seriously doubt that there is life out there, but as a scientist I try to be very rigorous about what I know and what I just believe.

A difficult question. I have personally been overwhelmed with my own experience with theism such that I am convinced. But I readily acknowledge that none of that is likely to be convincing to you. Somewhat like my own self-awareness. I am totally convinced that it exists, but I completely acknowledge that I cannot convince an intelligent skeptic of that.

I think you should think carefully about the real handle that science has on self-awareness. It may not be as robust as your statements seem to imply.

As OrP has demonstrated, you are not willing to adhere to the limitations you set forth for others, nor do you really have answers for the questions you implicitly claim not being able to answer show lack of credibility. And why is faith delusional any way? If someone had faith in what you claim is real, are they then delusional?

As an atheist I certainly agree that many revealed religions are unreasonable, but the exact same I can say for a whole bunch of non-religious beliefs. Nor does belief in God automatically make something unreasonable: Immanuel Kant's God is one of the most reasoned beliefs in existence.

So why should the goal be to make people atheists or attack faith? Surely the goal must be to rid people of unreasonable beliefs, not go on a polemic crusade.

Can we talk about how you have been overwhelmed in your own experience? Curious how this can get you to believing in God.

I am adhering to my limitations. Which is to say I rely on evidence. Not sure what the issue is here.

Edited to answer: If someone had faith in what you claim is real, are they then delusional? No, they are arriving at the correct answer improperly.

I am not familiar with Immanuel Kant.

The goal is not to create an atheist. The goal is to get people to stop relying on faith and thus then becoming an atheist should fall out of it.