18 Sep '16 10:17>
Originally posted by SuzianneNevertheless it is standard English usage to do so - and you do not own English.
Faith in a human being is misdirected and I would never use it in that way.
Originally posted by SuzianneNo, 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.
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.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtDoes the justification, "I believe something because I think it is true" have an obvious flaw in it?
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.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtWhat 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?
This leaves me wondering whether it's possible to justify a religious belief a priori.