(September 19, 2019 at 7:46 pm)chimp3 Wrote:(September 19, 2019 at 7:38 pm)Inqwizitor Wrote: This is a key semantic point, and warrants its own thread (I'm sure you've had many already and I'm reluctant to start another). It is not a complete theory of justification to categorically deny that faith is unsupported by any evidence: there can be either direct evidence via authoritative testimony, and circumstantial evidence, or both. Faith is belief that is unsupported by empirical or logical proof.
I disagree. Authoritative testimony is not evidence. Logical proofs are not evidence. Both need to be supported by evidence. Please, this is the limit to my Philosophical knowledge and if we go deeper into that rabbit hole I will have to go Mad Hatter.
Alright... but just to clarify: the only thing you consider evidence warranting belief is direct and empirical? You're entitled to that; but then on a practical level (and not to get semantically messy) how would you trust someone is telling the truth about a claim?
