Yes, the bartender makes a choice what he/she will believe about the ID. (The exception, of course, would be if the bartender knew this kid all his life, in which case, the kid is just stupid.)
Same there, but that one is because Christians have chosen to define their deity as being all-good and therefore have to do some logical gymnastics that are unacceptable to many in order to get around the problem of all the troubles in the world.
So it seems logical to you to argue that since people do bad things, God couldn't be all good? That doesn't seem logical to me, but it seems logical to others.
The problem comes from one side using logic and the other using faith.
As has already been shown in this post (and others), logic is in the eye of the beholder.
True, but it does not necessarily involve faith.
What one chooses to accept or reject as evidence is generally based upon what one has decided to place their faith in (God or natural processes or whatever).
Now many people do have preconceived ideas, closed minds and/or a stake in the matter, and therefore won't accept evidence because of the larger implications.
We have all closed our minds around certain ideas. That is not to say we can't chose to later open our minds to something else, but it is a choice to do so. If there is no God, then there is nothing good or bad about opening or closing one's mind. It just is what it is.
Does this mean we have faith that man-made global warming isn't happening?
Yes, just as those who claim it is happening have chosen to have faith that it is.
I think we're looking for ulterior motives, not faith.
A person's ulterior motives, if and when discovered, would reveal something about that person's true faith.
There is no choice involved at all on the part of the bartender. Absolutely zero. The law is he must reject a forged document. Given that, he doesn't choose to believe or not that the hologram on the license is missing. He instead observes that it is missing, compares it to the fact that the hologram should be there, and rejects the license based on the evidence. See? No choice, no belief, no faith.
Well, there could be a choice, but it's more along the lines of whether to accept the $50 bribe to ignore the forged license.
So it seems logical to you to argue that since people do bad things, God couldn't be all good?
It's especially clear when bad things happen to good people through no fault of their own or of other people. They call them "Acts of God" for a reason. And those acts are usually bad.
As has already been shown in this post (and others), logic is in the eye of the beholder.
To an extent. There is logic, and then there is logic twisted by an agenda. A person of faith must subordinate logic to his faith. This is visible in the "creation scientists" who say all evidence must fit their faith, twisted logic is used to eliminate any that doesn't.
What one chooses to accept or reject as evidence is generally based upon what one has decided to place their faith in (God or natural processes or whatever).
If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If you have faith, everything looks like faith. You are projecting.
We have all closed our minds around certain ideas. That is not to say we can't chose to later open our minds to something else, but it is a choice to do so.
It is a choice about whether to honestly look at the evidence. Faith or being closed-minded, or having an agenda or ulterior motive can influence this choice. It is not faith to honestly evaluate and then reject unconvincing evidence.
Yes, just as those who claim it is happening have chosen to have faith that it is.
For some, I'm sure. For others, not. I accept Evolution based on the evidence. I don't believe in it. I don't have faith in it. Others accept global warming based on the evidence. I admit the global warming evidence looks fairly convincing, but the multiple agendas behind it call into question the credibility of the evidence and its presentation to the public. Others don't realize the agendas exist, so they accept the evidence out of ignorance and/or a lack of caution.
Yet others accept global warming only because they're environmentalist whackos who think humans are evil, they get big research grants off of it, they make boatloads of money off the carbon credit scam, or they're someone like Gore who gets to stay famous off of it instead of sliding back into obscurity.
A person's ulterior motives, if and when discovered, would reveal something about that person's true faith.
See what I mean? Everything boils down to faith. There is no concept of rationally looking at evidence, basing opinions on past experience and knowledge, accepting or rejecting things based on credible evidence or lack thereof, without any faith involved. I think you are covering several different words and concepts with the word "faith."