You cannot know for sure if anyone else has faith. You and God alone know if you yourself have faith.
What I object to is this "for sure" thing. Like, what the heck does it mean to be "for sure"...? How do you know that all of your senses aren't completely wrong then?
If you are correct (not saying you are), that means that you have sufficient material to explain people's belief in God, not the existence of God. If you connect these two, you are making the ad hominem argument.
I'm not getting it. Assuming we accept occam's razor, that argument has nothing to do with god or anything like that.
We do not agree on #1. We were born with eyes and ears.....that isn't proof that those things will always tell us the truth. What is the reason that we were given those things, indeed?
Yes well, even if they don't you still won't not trust them. Go ahead, walk off that cliff. There's no sure proof that exists right?
First off, other approaches do not have to make predictions that can be tested empirically- that should be clear unless you cannot stop yourself from equating empirically useful with true.
...Why NOT? Seriously, why can't empirically useful be true? In fact, why even bother having the word true when empirically useful already serves all the functionalities of the word true, except for this new little area you've defined for yourself that is true but not empirically useful?
Who's to say they are wrong?
The splatter on the ground. Oh wait, those can't say much of anything can they. The point isn't that they don't exist (people have surely ran into dangerous situations due to hallucinations or bad epistemology). The point is that sophisticated arguers who like making distinctions between "empirically useful" and "truth" like you wouldn't.
--
Eh? You Serious? Easy Mode? How Disgusting!
Only Elementary School Kids should play on Easy Mode.