I really like these kinds of discussions, it actually gives me faith in humanity that we can all work together and live together by respecting each other inorder to save the world.

In Christianity faith consists of both* - belief based on rational evaluation of evidence, and belief based on "blind faith" (your will to believe something, your hope, your attitude).

*meaning that faith is both reasonable and "unreasonable".

I'm aware of the status on the Nyack house, that last bit was a joke. My belief in ghosts and spirits comes from personal experience and the fact that it's deeply entwined with my family. 

You keep repeating that there isn't a definition, but I supplied it directly from the Bible. In what way is this not a definition?

Yes, actually I can just arbitrarily assign meaning to words. I have to explicitly state what I mean when I say faith and that's the definition offered. It doesn't nullify other meanings of faith, it just isolates it to a singular definition to be used in argumentation. In other words, it is simply irrelevant if what you mean by faith is different from what I mean by faith because it's MY argument.

I see the confusion now. While you can proctor equations which are not tautological, solving such equations is reliant upon tautological rules, identity, noncontradiction, excluded middle term, and modus ponens / modus tollens.

"To reference other examples, there are contradictions (the opposite of tautologies), there's simplifications, predicate logic, etc."

Simplifications are based upon tautology. Predicate logic is a type of logic, which operates under these same rules of inference...just like modal logic, again just fundamentally incorrect. 

Please don't just type words you think apply when they so clearly do not support your point at all.

I'm surprised that this thread had this many posts already but then again, this is about religion....

If you had to browbeat someone into seeing that faith is reasonable, you're just proving the opposite.

Better to have a place here to speak, than in the outside world to be damned by those who care not for rational debate. 

The spread of religion across the globe had little to do with respect for ones faith but the need to force it upon others so future generations would follow without question.

Christianity is purely based on faith. There is no rational evidence of what it claims. There is a reason why faith is called blind, because you have to turn off your rational mind. This is why when you are being courted by a missionary that they plead for you to open up your heart. Why? Because the mind is not what they are appealing to. Its the emotions. Historically speaking science and Christianity have been at odds for the longest (even though some scientists were christians). Involving yourself in science against the word of the church in the old days was considered heresey.

I don't see how this topic still exists.

Many scientists believe in god. No one cares.

They have ACTUAL OBSERVABLE SCIENCE IN FRONT OF THEM. We can discuss something we can't physically see later. How about we first solve cancer. Church won't help us do that

First you have to understand what Christianity and christians claim, what internally is the claim. Does Christianity claim that it is based on faith, as in blind faith? Yes, undeniably it does! Very much so. But it also claims that faith is to some extent based on rational thought.

It's another issue then whether that rational thought, that rational attitude, leads to discovery of truth. But you can't deny that the attitude is there. While "blind faith" is more important, it's not the only basis for Christian belief, some of it is also based on rational thought, logical reasoning and search for evidence.

There's a lot of Christian apologists who use sophisticated philosophical arguments to prove the existence of God. I'm sure you have seen at least some of the debates on YouTube between Christian apologists and atheist philosophers, and they cover a broad area of topics, including philosophical arguments.

Christians talk about general revelation and special revelation, where the first means that the creation itself, our world, testifies about God, physically and morally (special revelation is where God revealed himself as Yahweh to the Jewish people and through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus). The Apostle Paul claims that nature testifies about God, that you can see traces of God in nature, and he claims that human moral, every human's understanding about good and evil is ingrained by God and thus proof of God.

Also, many Christian apologists argue that the Bible is quite pro science and has inspired people to study nature. In fact there's a lot of myths about Christianity's relationship with science, like you say, that it has been at odds with science for the longest, which simply isn't true.

For example, modern science was born in Christian Europe. If you look at the world's cultures where science and innovation historically has been strongest, it's in Christian cultures. All of the famous historical scientists up until the time of Darwin where Christians. Why is that? Is it just coincidence? No. For example it is said that the whole scientific mindset, that the world is governed by laws and allows itself to be studied, is also rooted in Christianity and that this way of thinking got a boost historically thanks to Christianity. It's not fair to say that Christianity is at odds with science.