> Faith was always described to me as a belief in something that cannot be proven. That is certainly one way to define it. Faith is the sibling/cousin of trust

> Faith was always described to me as a belief in something that cannot be proven. That is certainly one way to define it. Faith is the sibling/cousin of trust as the first two videos go over. If US Census Bureau says the population of the US is 331M, you are trusting them, putting your faith in their methods, that they are getting it right: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States#Population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States#Population > In my experience, however, especially in terms of Christianity, faith is a belief in something that cannot be proven, and - crucially - can be disproven. To put it more clearly, faith detaches a claim from reality, and puts it into a realm above criticism. Most Christians simply have faith / trust that God does exist. Most Christians also trust, have faith, that when they wake up in the morning and reach for the light switch the room will get brighter, and when they turn the faucet water will come out. Some Christians will have understanding of how and why these things happen (and what could be the causes if things stay dark and/or dry). To take your day-to-day knowledge of "faith", or what most people think as "God", is to a certain extent looking at a straw man. Most folks don't have time or energy (and in many cases the intellectual horsepower) to get into the steel man version of the idea. Not many folks are going to bother with analyzing, e.g., Aquinas' argument that God is "ipsum esse subsistens," translated by Bishop Robert Barron as "the shear act of 'to be' itself": the idea of God not simply as a noun but as an action (i.e., verb). Something very different than the Sky Father With a Beard image that most many probably visualize. Further the question of whether, in the case of the Christian God, it is something that can be (dis)proven is completely separate than the definition of "faith". The two books by Edward Feser linked to give proofs—in reason/logic sense, not the proverbial sense of (physical) evidence—for the existence of God. None of which involve any religious texts or revelation. > My disagreement with Aquinas is that the ideas of Christianity that are based in the abstract are expressed as literal fact, even though such "facts" and their origins are deeply contradicted by evidence. There is a name for the inability to criticize Christianity for contradicting with evidence: "faith". The arguments for a {g,G}od (in the general sense) existing are different than those than the argument(s) for any particular God (Christian or otherwise). Aristotle put forward the argument (see the third link) that there must logically be an Unmoved Mover in ~350 BC for example.