I don't care what the communist fags who run the dictionaries say today. Give me one from a dictionary that existed pre-Marx if you want to play the "official definition" game. Preferably pre-enlightenment to see how people who had the strongest faith in God viewed the concept.
Ultimately, though, faith and reason are intrinsically linked. For example, you have faith that tomorrow you won't get hit by a meteor. You have this faith because of your ability to reason about how likely this is. But ultimately, it's possible that you could simply get wiped out by a meteor that everybody missed.
You also have faith in the fact that reality exists, and you aren't just a brain in a jar imagining everything. Or maybe you don't, but then I'd simply question your ability to reason.
Ultimately, you have faith in your philosophical presuppositions that suggest that God isn't required for the universe to exist.
We are made for faith. If you didn't have faith in anything, you wouldn't have faith that the very ground beneath your feet really exists and you would be terrified every step you took of simply falling through the Earth until you reached the center. But you don't fear that because you have faith based on evidence that the ground is solid.
The modern inversion of reality is that our senses are untrustworthy and that our mind is all we can trust. This is delusional. When you see light bending in water, your eyes are lying to you, they are showing you exactly what happens. It's your brain that is limited and unable to comprehend refraction. And our limited brain requires us to have faith because we don't have perfect knowledge and can't know things for certain based on "evidence".
How should I know if existence truly exists? We have an experience of reality that overlaps with others but varies widely. That's all I know. Our brains seem to synthesize a reality overlay based on what we think is there. That is why people believe in the mandela effect. They gloss over the details of life. Certain quirky things like the convention-breaking berenstain spelling catch them off guard because they never noticed it when they were a kid and can't believe it. I try to reduce my assumptions and simply notice what appears to be there as much as possible.
FAITH, noun [Latin fides, fido, to trust; Gr. to persuade, to draw towards any thing, to conciliate; to believe, to obey...
Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting on his authority and veracity, without other evidence; the judgment that what another states or testifies is the truth. I have strong faith or no faith in the testimony of a witness, or in what a historian narrates.
Seeing as you simply ignored all my logical arguments on faith, I'll try a different line of reasoning.
So what? Read number 4 in that link and tell me the problem. To have faith in God is a good thing. To take Him on faith is a great thing. Even greater than when we have hard evidence. And what do you lose by having faith? Nothing that matters, as if you're wrong, nothing really matters anyway.
As for existence, we know it exists because it is consistent for everybody. People misremembering is again a deficit of the mind, not of reality. There is not a shred of evidence on the old spelling of the bears being different, but what the Mandela Effect does is create an unfalsifiable theory that disallows contrary evidence.
I can't prove it used to be spelled a certain way, because if I pull out an old VCR, the Mandela Effect would simply state that the VCR is from the new/current timeline. Or it'd say I'm from the current timeline and the people misremember really got transported between the two. All without evidence it says these things.
This is why open-mindedness is a bad thing. It suggests that we allow total absurdities to pollute our minds for no reason other than some misguided attempt at considering all options. It's freethinking, sure, but at that point, what good does it do you? You need strong walls to protect your mind, a sturdy gate, and then you use reason to decide what to let in.
And again, everything is the same for everyone. These cases of supposed discrepancies are dishonest at best. Every single person who isn't blind can go outside at the same time, and they'll all see the same thing. It's extremely concrete, physical, solid. Go play a virtual reality game if you want an example of the opposite.
The one thing that changes what people notice is their focus, but focus does not change reality. It determines what you experience in your reality, but your reality is ultimately the same as mine, it's just that it's so vast and complex that we can focus on different things for 80 years and never overlap.
If you had evidence with which to reason you would not need faith.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith faith almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof. an unshakable faith in God
I don't care what the communist fags who run the dictionaries say today. Give me one from a dictionary that existed pre-Marx if you want to play the "official definition" game. Preferably pre-enlightenment to see how people who had the strongest faith in God viewed the concept.
Ultimately, though, faith and reason are intrinsically linked. For example, you have faith that tomorrow you won't get hit by a meteor. You have this faith because of your ability to reason about how likely this is. But ultimately, it's possible that you could simply get wiped out by a meteor that everybody missed.
You also have faith in the fact that reality exists, and you aren't just a brain in a jar imagining everything. Or maybe you don't, but then I'd simply question your ability to reason.
Ultimately, you have faith in your philosophical presuppositions that suggest that God isn't required for the universe to exist.
We are made for faith. If you didn't have faith in anything, you wouldn't have faith that the very ground beneath your feet really exists and you would be terrified every step you took of simply falling through the Earth until you reached the center. But you don't fear that because you have faith based on evidence that the ground is solid.
The modern inversion of reality is that our senses are untrustworthy and that our mind is all we can trust. This is delusional. When you see light bending in water, your eyes are lying to you, they are showing you exactly what happens. It's your brain that is limited and unable to comprehend refraction. And our limited brain requires us to have faith because we don't have perfect knowledge and can't know things for certain based on "evidence".
How should I know if existence truly exists? We have an experience of reality that overlaps with others but varies widely. That's all I know. Our brains seem to synthesize a reality overlay based on what we think is there. That is why people believe in the mandela effect. They gloss over the details of life. Certain quirky things like the convention-breaking berenstain spelling catch them off guard because they never noticed it when they were a kid and can't believe it. I try to reduce my assumptions and simply notice what appears to be there as much as possible.
https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/faith
FAITH, noun [Latin fides, fido, to trust; Gr. to persuade, to draw towards any thing, to conciliate; to believe, to obey...
Seeing as you simply ignored all my logical arguments on faith, I'll try a different line of reasoning.
So what? Read number 4 in that link and tell me the problem. To have faith in God is a good thing. To take Him on faith is a great thing. Even greater than when we have hard evidence. And what do you lose by having faith? Nothing that matters, as if you're wrong, nothing really matters anyway.
As for existence, we know it exists because it is consistent for everybody. People misremembering is again a deficit of the mind, not of reality. There is not a shred of evidence on the old spelling of the bears being different, but what the Mandela Effect does is create an unfalsifiable theory that disallows contrary evidence.
I can't prove it used to be spelled a certain way, because if I pull out an old VCR, the Mandela Effect would simply state that the VCR is from the new/current timeline. Or it'd say I'm from the current timeline and the people misremember really got transported between the two. All without evidence it says these things.
This is why open-mindedness is a bad thing. It suggests that we allow total absurdities to pollute our minds for no reason other than some misguided attempt at considering all options. It's freethinking, sure, but at that point, what good does it do you? You need strong walls to protect your mind, a sturdy gate, and then you use reason to decide what to let in.
And again, everything is the same for everyone. These cases of supposed discrepancies are dishonest at best. Every single person who isn't blind can go outside at the same time, and they'll all see the same thing. It's extremely concrete, physical, solid. Go play a virtual reality game if you want an example of the opposite.
The one thing that changes what people notice is their focus, but focus does not change reality. It determines what you experience in your reality, but your reality is ultimately the same as mine, it's just that it's so vast and complex that we can focus on different things for 80 years and never overlap.
I'll try to take a look at this tomorrow. It's late and I have other things I have to do before bed.