Is your second definition more in line with the second major definition (trust 2a)? The ‘hope’ (trust), that although evidence seems contrary to prior behavior (or the parent’s wishes that something is so), seems to fit this treatise better.

From the cited dictionary: ‘faith’ is ‘complete trust’ ( faith 2b). The need to say ‘pure’ faith is repetitive.

You’re relying heavily upon Greek philosophies to jump to these assumptions about the state under which you find yourself and interactions you intend to have [e.g. 1 - other people's minds exist, 2 - the universe exists, 3 - (big assumption) our senses work properly, etc.].

I find error with assuming (for trust) that one can equate the ‘mother not lying’ with ‘gravity’. The intent of the ‘mother’ governs whether or not the statement she makes is True or False. Any inconsistency (contradiction) brings ‘trust’ into question. The consistency of ‘gravity’ (and relationship to size of celestial body) can be demonstrated and verified by others.

The assumed finiteness of the realm of Truth is in itself flawed, as we have no assurance that it isn’t infinite. Attempting to bite off a piece of an ‘infinite’ problem still leaves the sampler with partial Truth – and therefore is no better off than when first started.