Evidence for Believing

[Inqwizitor]

.....exactly.

Checkmate? 

The church is really not doing well these days if it's adherents think god is reducible.

"God" is not a helpful word here. There is something that is absolutely simple. That's where our reasoning should begin, if we're consistent; not in a brute fact. The brute fact may be the limit of our physical powers of observation; we have no logical reason to declare that it's the limit of existence.

---

You should be careful what exactly is a fact and what contradicting fact means.    For example, belief in ghosts might legitimately be called superstition, but exactly how do ghosts contradict known facts?

You said faith contradicts known facts. I said that faith must be consistent with known facts, or else it's superstition. I don't know if every single belief in ghosts or a ghost is superstitious, or whether superstition must contradict known facts to be considered superstition (or legitimately be called as such).
[/quote]

Also, how is heresay relative to the observer anymore than an observation of a fact is relative to the observer?

Heresy is contradicting some proposition of faith, so it's relative to the faith of the believer. A heresy cannot be observed. Compare with a superstition that contradicts known facts, objectively considered.
[/quote]

How is "superrational truth" not dependent upon the holder of the faith of superrational truth being you?   If you were me, I would dispense with that faith and dismiss superrational truth as overbearing flimflam - a superstitious worship of ego and intuition.

That's the same thing as saying all faith is superstition. We disagree about that, at least conceptually. I accept the possibility that some truth may be beyond my natural reasoning ability, or beyond the natural reasoning ability of any human being.

What exactly is "superrational truth"?

Objective reality beyond the scope or range of reasoning. Accurate intuition is another kind of superrational assent.

Does really wishing an assumption to be true and seeing all sorts of flowers and rainbows when you think of those assumptions being true makes it "truth"?

Wishful thinking is not faith. "What's the difference?" Wishful thinking is based on imagination, not revelation. "What's the difference?" Revelation is superrational truth communicated by a supernatural cause. "How do you know there is a supernatural cause?" I'm convinced by the cosmological argument.

If they are essentially nothing more than assumptions, than is the fact you chose to enloften them with the word "truth" a an act of delibrate contradiction against the fact that they are no more certain to be true than any assumption which does not contradict facts that are known today, but may yet turn out to contradict facts that would be found tomorrow?

Deliberate contradiction? It's a sincere belief that something is true but beyond my reasoning ability. Subjectively, it's similar to trust in an authority. Objectively, it's based on the possibility of revelation.