| MTZehvor said: I'd say the problems lie in your definitions, as...well, really, I can't find anything that supports a definition of faith as "Belief in something one cannot observe or reasonably conclude." EDIT: As a side note, if you leave the definition faith as is, then there's hardly a debate to be had, as you've simply created a tautology. Reasonability requires...well, reason, and if faith is, by definition, absent of reason, then obviously it must be unreasonable. |
I did explicitly state that I would be using the Biblical definition, since that is the type of faith that is use as an epistemology.
"Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." (Hebrews 11:1)
However, the definition you offered is actually identical. Here's why...
Faith - firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
Proof - evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
Substitution:
Faith - firm belief in something for which there is no evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact of truth of a statement
(OP definition) Faith - Belief in something one cannot observe or reasonably conclude.
Therefore, when you say:
"I have plenty of reasons as to why I think this, such as Houston generally sucking and KC's defense being set up almost specifically to foil Houston's offense. I am quite confident in KC winning, and I would argue it's a very reasonable belief, but in the end, it is still something I cannot prove, therefore it is faith."
You are completely mistaken as to what faith is.
It is not defined as a tautology, it is demonstrated to be a tautology by modus tollens. All of logic/maths is based upon tautology, that's how they function.







