What you stated above is an answer to a question, but not the question I asked.
It's not that I don't understand your answers, sport. You don't understand the question.
In fact, I don't beleve you've understood much of anything I've said on this thread. Take this gem for instance:
Originally Posted by DBT
Faith, by definition, is a belief/conviction held without the support of evidence, hence an unjustified belief.
This may come as a shock to you, but I said the same thing many pages ago. So it's obviously not the answer to a question I would ask, and I find it curious that you feel the need to "enlighten" me on something I've already stipulated.
My question had nothing to do with whether faith is justified. My question was limited to your assertion that faith could be proven wrong due to contradictions among different faiths.
Try answering the question I asked, not the one you want to answer.
It's quite clear that you don't understand explanations, or why definitions are given. I gave the definition of faith, not for your benefit, but to be clear on what I was referring to when I used the word (there being a fair bit of equivocation associated with the word ).
Which happens to relate to your question - If two theories contradict each other, are both negated? - for the reasons given: justification.
If you had paid attention to what I said, you'd understand that if two theories contradict each other, either one is wrong and the other is right, or both may be wrong. That depends on evidence.
