Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-08-2015, 10:13 AM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(14-08-2015 07:39 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 12:57 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Yes, that is what I'm saying. I know that 2+2=4 in base 10, 2+2=10 in base 4, and 2+2=11 in base 3. These are all facts which follow from one definition of addition (there are others) in different radixes. A statement either follows from the axioms and operators or it doesn't. There is nothing to believe. Not even in the axioms or operators. They are stipulated. The Pythagorean Theorem is another example. I don't believe it, I know it follows in Euclidean geometry. I also know it does not follow in spherical geometry. What's to believe?

I've been considering this and I do agree that it is reasonable to put things that are true by definition into their own category. I don't think it is unreasonable to include that under the broader category of belief though.

I believe things because the evidence supports the conclusion and the strength of the belief is proportional to the strength of the evidence. In the case of something that is true by definition then the formal definition of the system is evidence for the truth of the statement and I can therefore believe it with absolute conviction or that I know it. "Know" is a special case of "believe" like "square" is a special case of "rectangle".

If you are using a philosophical definition of "know" to set apart things that are in this category then we have no disagreement. If you are saying that, using everyday terminology, you don't believe things that you know then I find that as strange a concept as anything else in this thread.

All I'm really saying is JTB does not equal knowledge and knowledge is not a subset of belief because there is knowledge which does not require belief. I don't have a problem with the statement JTB entails knowledge. JTB is sufficient but not necessary for knowledge.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 10:15 AM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
Matt, I fixed your diagram. Now it says what in it was actually meant to say instead of having someone use semantics to take it out of context (aka you).

[Image: ZkmweK2.jpg]

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 10:21 AM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(14-08-2015 07:45 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  For me, it's pointless to talk about knowledge in an absolute sense. As pointed out, because of the matrix problem, we can never know for certain that we have any knowledge at all. I'm interested in what people consider to be knowledge, and I want to encourage people to not believe things they don't consider to be knowledge.

Admit you don't know, admit you have a guess, and move on.

I generally agree, I just accept that there is a point where the evidence is sufficient to believe something is true while admitting that it isn't always possible to be completely certain. I encourage people to not believe things they don't have demonstrable evidence for.

Quote:Either way, I think this has been a useful thread and I thank all of those who have participated.

Agreed. It has made me review a lot of what I believe (Big Grin) and that's always worth the effort.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 10:24 AM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(14-08-2015 10:13 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  All I'm really saying is JTB does not equal knowledge and knowledge is not a subset of belief because there is knowledge which does not require belief. I don't have a problem with the statement JTB entails knowledge. JTB is sufficient but not necessary for knowledge.

And I don't see how you can claim to know something if you don't also believe it.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 02:18 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(14-08-2015 10:15 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Matt, I fixed your diagram. Now it says what in it was actually meant to say instead of having someone use semantics to take it out of context (aka you).

[Image: ZkmweK2.jpg]

Thanks buddy! Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 02:39 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(14-08-2015 02:18 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 10:15 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Matt, I fixed your diagram. Now it says what in it was actually meant to say instead of having someone use semantics to take it out of context (aka you).

[Image: ZkmweK2.jpg]

Thanks buddy! Thumbsup

No problem, Scooter.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 02:50 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(14-08-2015 07:28 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 12:37 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  You said that it is reasonable to believe that god doesn't exist without proof.

No, I didn't. Please show where you think I did.

Below. I'm sure there was probably some miscommunication/misunderstanding going on, but I was trying to point out that it is silly to believe that god doesn't exist (which is very different from not believing that god does exist) with out knowing it to be the case (proof/conclusive evidence), and you responded with "Not at all." It's all good, its hard to keep all of this straight. Big Grin

(13-08-2015 08:32 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 05:52 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  If we define agnostic atheist as someone who does not claim to know whether or not god exists, but believes that god does not exist, then here is the thought process. "I know that I don't have knowledge that god doesn't exist because it is not justified to believe that god doesn't exist. I know that it is not justified to believe that god does not exist, but I believe god does not exist."

That sounds like a whacky position to me and I could only describe it as abandonment of reason.

Not at all. I see no evidence for the existence of any gods (or pixies) and do not believe any exist. However, I do not have proof that they don't exist, so I can't make a knowledge claim.

It is not the abandonment of reason, it is the reasonable position.

Maybe you mistook "I believe god doesn't exist" to be saying "I don't believe that god exists." The importance is that these positions are very different.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 03:11 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(14-08-2015 02:50 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Below. I'm sure there was probably some miscommunication/misunderstanding going on, but I was trying to point out that it is silly to believe that god doesn't exist (which is very different from not believing that god does exist) with out knowing it to be the case (proof/conclusive evidence)

I disagree with this.

I am a gnostic atheist. If a god exists, it is necessarily true that that god's existence can be demonstrated in some way. That is what it means to exist. As of the current time, all the places where we would expect to find evidence of a god's existence have been completely empty of it. The rational conclusion is that there is no god.

There is also the fact that there is no real difference between gods and sufficiently advanced aliens on a conceptual level. There is no reason to consider any such entity discovered a god rather than a particularly impressive alien entity, so I consider the idea incoherent (a position known as "igtheism" or "ignosticism") as well as unsupported.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 03:26 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(14-08-2015 03:11 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 02:50 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Below. I'm sure there was probably some miscommunication/misunderstanding going on, but I was trying to point out that it is silly to believe that god doesn't exist (which is very different from not believing that god does exist) with out knowing it to be the case (proof/conclusive evidence)

I disagree with this.

I am a gnostic atheist. If a god exists, it is necessarily true that that god's existence can be demonstrated in some way. That is what it means to exist. As of the current time, all the places where we would expect to find evidence of a god's existence have been completely empty of it. The rational conclusion is that there is no god.

There is also the fact that there is no real difference between gods and sufficiently advanced aliens on a conceptual level. There is no reason to consider any such entity discovered a god rather than a particularly impressive alien entity, so I consider the idea incoherent (a position known as "igtheism" or "ignosticism") as well as unsupported.

I don't think we necessarily disagree. If you believe that you have conclusive evidence that god's existence is impossible, then concluding no god seems very reasonable to me. Gnostic atheism seems consistent to me, but agnostic atheism (and agnostic theism), or in other words "I don't know, but I believe it anyways," sounds to me like craziness, and at a minimum, abandonment of scientific method.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 03:39 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(14-08-2015 03:26 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  If you believe that you have conclusive evidence that god's existence is impossible

I don't, for the same reason that I don't have conclusive evidence that Harry Potter's existence is impossible.

I still believe that there is no such thing. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence when the absence is where you would need to find evidence.

(14-08-2015 03:26 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Gnostic atheism seems consistent to me, but agnostic atheism (and agnostic theism), or in other words "I don't know, but I believe it anyways," sounds to me like craziness, and at a minimum, abandonment of scientific method.

Quite.

But, really, agnosticism is just a failure to understand what it means to exist. If you can never, under any circumstance, produce any sort of evidence in support of something whatsoever, it is, by definition, false.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: