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."
He has a choice whether to believe the document is forged or not.
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.
He still has to have faith that no one has figured out how to forge the ID and that his assessment that the person pictured on the ID is the person standing before him. Governments change the format of IDs (and money) all the time because someone HAS figured out how to replicate the old format. People change their appearance all the time (hair, glasses, beard/no beard, plastic surgery, etc), and bars are not exactly lighted brightly.
It's especially clear when bad things happen to good people through no fault of their own or of other people.
Again, this shows that logic is in the eye of the beholder. It seems illogical to me to assume God is not all good because bad things happen. To you, it appears to be a logical conclusion.
There is logic, and then there is logic twisted by an agenda.
And naturally, the people on each side of an issue think those on the opposing side are the ones twisting logic.
A person of faith must subordinate logic to his faith.
Perhaps, but that would include those who have faith in their position that God does not exist. ;)
If you have faith, everything looks like faith.
So you can prove your position as regards the existence of God without a doubt to anyone? No, of course you can't. Therefore, you have faith, just like everyone else.
I accept Evolution based on the evidence.
You have faith that the interpretations of the evidence given by scientists are correct.
I don't believe in it. I don't have faith in it.
Perhaps your faith is in the scientists, and the belief in evolution is the byproduct of that. But you believe it based on 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.
People may use those things you've listed as they are deciding what they will believe. But ultimately, they choose to have faith in something or someone for whatever reasons they choose.
I think you are covering several different words and concepts with the word "faith."
Perhaps that is what you have chosen to believe. ;)