Trust is EARNED, faith is given.

When you asked what I meant by non literal, I mean that this is at best a colloquial use of the words. As the literal definition of the word 'faith' (in the most common use) is 'to completely trust'. I was not pointing out you were wrong, just that this is an interpretation of these words - not necessarily the literal dictionary translation.

If it only works 50% of the time for just the believer its not reliable or repeatable.

Agreed, but I was saying that is what the believer would counter claim. They perceive subjective truths as objective truths, so I was suggesting a believer would get (objectively 50%) results and assert that 1 out of every 2 is reliable (not because the probability means it is, but because it means they get answered prayers).

E.g. They will pray 4 times today, and get 2 prayers answered. Their logic ignores probability and tells them 2 prayers answered is proof. Their subjective evidence only needs validation (probability is sculpted with their bias anyway), they could have had 2/8 prayers answered, but that is still proof of two answered prayers.

THIS IS ALL COMPLETE CONJECTURE. But it works functionally as an example of how a believer will reply to an objective trust problem (like the wife example given in the video).

The reason I mentioned this was because by doing this - it creates a decoy argument about probability, which is a deflection of the fact they compared an objective analysis with a subjective analysis.

And if you bite on the probability (or degrees of accuracy) argument, they could point out that prayer can be almost 100% answerable (You could pray for a million things that have a near 100% probability). And this could be objectively repeated and proven, despite it's stupidity. They could also make this an argument that faith is earned in the same way as science.

This doesn't mean your points are not true, but they might fall into the illogical circle jerks that religious philosophy likes to use to manipulate your position.

So, the rest of your points are all equally valid and circle around the same things mentioned above.

The problem is subjectivity vs objectivity. Subjectively, a person can be morally relative, this means that truth can mean different things to them depending on how they perceive them.

Objectively, however, truth is not relative.

But, the problem lies in the nature that humans can only view things subjectively. Science (objectivity), and to a lesser extent Religion (divinity) are ways to try and bridge that gap. Science being far superior in accuracy.

So how you view it subjectively depends on how closely your method of analysis represents the objective fact. As the scientific process show a much higher accuracy, it can be assumed that someone using this process to understand something is more valid than another method.

Both are fundamentally incomplete. But one is more incomplete. But both have degrees of accuracy. While Religion's method of reasoning is mainly done from analysis of their own subjective bias, Science seeks to rid analysis of all bias.

So while it may be true that someone using the scientific method can:

never arrive at " it was my god/my religion that is responsible for this prayer being awnsered"

It is also true that someone using the religious method can arrive at it. Just not with the scientific method.