> For whatever reason, God expects trust in Him to come first, and the explanation follows. First believe in him and trust him (faith) and then the explanations that reason and logic can confirm come afterward. God doesn't tend to prove himself to a skeptic, but he does reveal himself to someone trusting in him, and the farther that trust extends, the more God substantiates later. God holds up a little faith with a little justification, which paves the way for more faith and more justification, and so on. In such matters of faith, belief comes before the evidence, instead of the other way around. It is thus that the faith becomes founded: if twenty leaps of faith are made that are later substantiated, is it not rational to make a twenty first leap of faith to trust that something seemingly awry is not?

I hate to always be the one to argue, but I think there's something very wrong with this method. If you already have faith in something, of course you're going to see it happening around you. I'll just use the King Arthur myths as an example. There were *tons* of people way back when that believed the Arthur legands, and I'm sure there are still people today that believe that Arthur was a real person. There are tons of individual sources of the information, all saying basically the same thing. There's impossible magic, but people can believe things like that, assuming they start with faith and first believe that Arthur actually lived. Then they believe that the adventures actually took place. Then they believe the magic, since that's the only way that Arthur could have actually completed the adventures. There are reasons to believe the stories too. You can find a lot of the places that these adventures actually took place, and a lot of the battles that he was said to fight in actually existed, but that doesn't mean that he actually existed. Many of them also talk about the ability to do magic diminishing, so that at the time they were read, it would seem more realistic, since no one could do magic, it just helps to back up their story. *I* almost have faith that I have good luck. Sometimes I pick gambles that have seemingly impossible odds, but I win. And in the back of my mind, I seriously believe that I have good luck. But, logically, I *know* that I don't. I know that I only register the times when I win the impossible odds, because there's nothing special about losing them. Basically what I'm saying is that if you have faith in basically any crazy idea before you have the evidence, there's a pretty high likelyhood that you'll get more faith in it later, because people with faith generally seem to ignore contradictary evidence and only focus on things that proves their faith right. Still, I'm not saying that's neccesarily what's happening here, but I am saying that that system of believing makes me very nervous. Who knows though, I may be wrong and spend eternity suffering in the fiery depths of hell.