Justification for belief

Originally posted by Suzianne
Faith in a human being is misdirected and I would never use it in that way.

Nevertheless it is standard English usage to do so - and you do not own English.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Confidence and trust in someone is one thing, to call it "faith" is a colloquialism.

Faith is unprovable and unseen. And it is certainly a subjective thing. One can clearly be justified in one's faith (in anything really) without "proving" it (or even be convincing) to another.

No, it's the first definition in the Oxford dictionary as well. Although it states complete trust or confidence, so it's not enough just to have reasonable grounds for thinking something or someone is reliable, it's necessary that one thinks it beyond any possible doubt whatsoever.

I'm mulling over your post above the one I'm replying to. In a coherentist sense I think it's an adequate justification - meaning that it forms part of an sufficiently internally consistent set of beliefs - as opposed to something based on a foundational idea like an argument based on the necessity of prior cause or some such. The problem from my point of view is that what you've presented is a justification based on experience, specifically the Angel event. The distinction I'm making here is between a priori justification and a posteriori which justifications based on experience are. I've had no such experience, so I've got no reason to think anything beyond the material exists, except in the supervenience sense. This leaves me wondering whether it's possible to justify a religious belief a priori.

Originally posted by DeepThought
If I do exist as a simulated being then the nature of my existence is not be what I think it is, but that does not stop me from existing.

twhitehead was not asking for you to prove that your justification is infallible, I assume that is what you mean by "prove a justification", he was asking you to prove that you have a justification at all, which is ...[text shortened]... k for the purposes of this thread we are just requiring that it should not have an obvious flaw.

Does the justification, "I believe something because I think it is true" have an obvious flaw in it?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Does the justification, "I believe something because I think it is true" have an obvious flaw in it?

Yes. It isn't really a proper justification. Its more a tautology. A justification would be an explanation as to why you think it is true.

Originally posted by DeepThought
This leaves me wondering whether it's possible to justify a religious belief a priori.

What about a person who believes that their parents are the best examples of human beings, and they've always taught them to love God and they can see their parents' dedication and respect. Couldn't that 'seal the deal' for them, even before any personal God experience?