(January 10, 2019 at 4:17 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:(January 10, 2019 at 4:13 pm)unfogged Wrote: Reasoning is only valid when fed true premises; faith is believing something that you can not reason your way to.
Knowledge, in any meaningful use of the term, must be based on evidence.
Evidence, not proofs, but that's no better than saying it would be hard to believe in oompa-loompas if you don't believe there is a Willy Wonka. You can't base "knowledge" on something that you can't show actually exists. You can only get as far as belief with faith.
The reasoning can be completely valid but unless it is based on demonstrably true premises there can be no justifiable conclusion. Faith can lead you to a true conclusion but you have no way to evaluate that.
Which makes it a failed epistemology since it can't justify any conclusion it reaches.
I have confidence based on decades of experience in that situation. Using faith as a synonym for trust or confidence while also using it to justify believe in supernatural agents is an equivocation fallacy. They are not at all the same thing.
There is no such thing as justified faith.
That is very disingenuous. We do operate intuitively but some intuition is based on experience and demonstrable facts and the conclusions can be justified if you take the time to review them consciously. Other times, as in the belief in the supernatural, it can feel compelling but when you examine it there is no substance there. If I find that I have believed something based on intuition without being able to rationally justify it then I stop believing.
You seem to have a fair amount of faith in your explanations. Why do you assume them to be correct?
Why do you assume you are correct? Please do not tell everyone reading this you think others of other god claims/religions don't think they are correct.
