> "Faith," in this case, is the part that is being defined, and "evidence of things not seen" is the definition.

In other words, faith is not proof. *sigh* The distinction between well-founded faith and blind faith is a champion cause of *mine*. But NEITHER imply "proof." Proof is a scientific term, and it REQUIRES, among other things, observation. Another way in which faith and proof are diametrically opposed is that proof works forward, from cause to effect, while faith words backward, from effect to cause.

I am definitely not implying that faith is somehow less substantial than proof, or that faith must be blind faith. (I wouldn't consider "blind faith" faith at all but some form of insanity.) What I am saying is that one does not incorporate the other.

In fact, because God is a person and not a natural phenomenon, it would be sort of futile to *try* to go about verifying God by seeking proof. "Does God exist?" is a question proof could answer God let it be answered in that way, but how underachieving it is to answer just that. What faith can do is provide understanding of God as a person and show how God is, in fact, not only present and active in the world but someone actually worth worship and praise. Draw the analogy to a person. You can prove a person exists by observing him. Yay. What you can't do scientifically is prove how that person is a loving and compassionate person, one that is worth the effort it takes to develop a personal relationship of some sort with.

I shy away from applying the term "faith" to human beings, because human beings are fallible, and faith is too strong a notion of reliance to be applied to anything fallible. (Because "faith" IS as strong or stronger a word than "proof.") But the principle is more or less the same. With the same but greater and more definite sort of reasoning that we determine people are worth trusting and building a relationship with, we can make that same determination about God. That is faith. It is not proof. But it is as or possibly more convincing.