Debate about FAITH

I had a debate with several people about FAITH. Interestingly, the outcomes are totally different. I was not looking for victory not an acknowledgment of defeat of the other side. It was merely some random debate, trying to understand what they understand.

First with my dad ( and mum). Apparently, FAITH is not understood by them whatsoever. And then with my elder sister who had some theology knowledge. She had some understanding, but seems like it is more like an 'empty' understanding.

I told them this argument: If you believe, why need faith to believe? Isn't it a confirm believe when it is truly believed? for believing with faith mean it is an unsure believe. If I believe that there is God, I will say 'I believe that there is GOD'. It is a confirmed and assured believe. However if I say 'By faith, I believe that there is God'. Well, isn't it an unsure believe?

Believe it or not, believing 'by faith' is a trademark. No matter how I argue that believing 'by faith' is not true, people will always disagree. Which mean they support the 50% assurance intead of the totally 100%. I believe in God, and I don't need faith to believe because I know there is God. It is a 100% assured that there is God. If I decided to believe in God 'by faith', I lied to my self, assuring myself that 'there maybe no God at all, but its okay, I will tell myself that there is God even though myself says maybe there is, maybe there is not'.

You need a paradigm shift to understand this argument.