I find your attempt to use reason, or rather the lack of it, to discredit the validity of the Christian faith both laughable and rather sad. You possess no original ideas; this is evident in your rehashing of old debunked ideas, which (it would seem) you mostly get from that simpleton Richard Dawkins. Mr Kaapanda, have you not heard?
Like the foolish man who built his house on the sand, you have built your argument (second paragraph) on the foolish braying of a man who, when asked for the full title of the origin of the species, could not even provide it – and yet he is an evolutionary biologist?
Mr Kaapanda, your hero – namely Mr Richard Dawkins – although very passionate in his beliefs – is as misguided and ignorant as yourself. The blind leading the blind.
But now to get the heart of the matter, you stated that the religious definition of faith is a trust in religious doctrines or teachings based on spiritual convictions rather than proof. Why do you assume that spiritual convictions cannot be based on logic?
If you do not know what I am talking about please refer to an article by Satoshi Kanazawa, who argued: “Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists.” I must also object to your claim that Tom Price argues that faith is independent of reason. Please provide a reference to substantiate your claim.
On the contrary Tom Price states: “…The Bible knows nothing of a bold leap-in-the-dark faith, a hope-against-hope faith, a faith with no evidence. Rather, if the evidence doesn’t correspond to the hope, then the faith is in vain, as even Paul has said…So in conclusion, faith is not a kind of religious hoping that you do in spite of the facts. In fact, faith is a kind of knowing that results in doing, a knowing that is so passionately and intelligently faithful to Jesus Christ…”
You also addressed the question on “What exactly does faith establish?”. Our particular faith in Christ Jesus establishes the basis of our morality – the doctrine of our faith, as described by Jesus Christ (in the four gospels), establishes/provides the reason of our existence.
Why do you assume that one may not be persuaded by means of reason that GOD exists? And if by means of personal experience one reasonably concludes that God must exist, how then can one not believe that God is omnipresent?
Hugh Ross, who grew up in an atheist home and yet by means of reason, reasoned that God must exist and that the only true God is the Judaeo – Christian God.
You also stated: “The validity or warrant of faith or a belief depends on the strength of the evidence on which the belief is based, with a Christian God that is believed to be omnipresent (present everywhere), by logic and reason neither the premises nor the conclusion are true or reasonable because there is no material evidence produced so to say God is omnipresent…”
Your claim that God could not possibly be true because we (the Christians) believe Him to be omnipresent, is yet another testament to your ignorance of the facts. Mr Kaapanda, are you aware of quantum entanglement? It is the state where two particles separated by great distance are so linked that they share the same existence.