Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-08-2015, 12:58 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(11-08-2015 12:48 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  No, that's why I used the OJ example. I don't know that he's guilty, and I also don't believe that he's guilty (I don't want to have false beliefs, I only want to believe things that I know), but if a magic all-knowing genie had a gun to my head and said I had to respond with the correct answer, I would guess guilty.


Suppose there wasn't a gun to you head, I ask you without any intimidation of force, would you guess that OJ was guilty, what would your response be? That you don't have enough information to guess one way or the other?

If you would still guess, guilty. Why guilty as opposed to not-guilty?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2015, 01:01 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
Why is it so hard to understand that belief does not equal knowledge. Kierkegaard might be the best example of an agnostic theist: "If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe." If I can know God there is no reason to believe. Precisely because I cannot know God is why I have to believe.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
11-08-2015, 01:04 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(11-08-2015 01:01 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Why is it so hard to understand that belief does not equal knowledge. Kierkegaard might be the best example of an agnostic theist: "If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe." If I can know God there is no reason to believe. Precisely because I cannot know God is why I have to believe.

Because that's contrary to his argument.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kingschosen's post
11-08-2015, 01:11 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
knowledge = belief that is justified and true
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2015, 01:12 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(11-08-2015 01:01 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Why is it so hard to understand that belief does not equal knowledge. Kierkegaard might be the best example of an agnostic theist: "If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe." If I can know God there is no reason to believe. Precisely because I cannot know God is why I have to believe.

1000 x this. Matt Finney seems to have his own private definition of "belief" that does not match the way anyone else uses the word.

And KC -- talk to Free. He claims to be a gnostic atheist. I think he's blowing smoke, but he does make that claim.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
11-08-2015, 01:16 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(11-08-2015 01:11 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  knowledge = belief that is justified and true

Still ignoring the omniscient thing, eh?

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2015, 01:17 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(11-08-2015 01:12 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(11-08-2015 01:01 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Why is it so hard to understand that belief does not equal knowledge. Kierkegaard might be the best example of an agnostic theist: "If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe." If I can know God there is no reason to believe. Precisely because I cannot know God is why I have to believe.

1000 x this. Matt Finney seems to have his own private definition of "belief" that does not match the way anyone else uses the word.

And KC -- talk to Free. He claims to be a gnostic atheist. I think he's blowing smoke, but he does make that claim.

I know. I've had this discussion with him. He just redefines knowledge to actually equal belief. Whatevs.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2015, 01:24 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(11-08-2015 01:17 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(11-08-2015 01:12 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  1000 x this. Matt Finney seems to have his own private definition of "belief" that does not match the way anyone else uses the word.

And KC -- talk to Free. He claims to be a gnostic atheist. I think he's blowing smoke, but he does make that claim.

I know. I've had this discussion with him. He just redefines knowledge to actually equal belief. Whatevs.

Ahh -- exactly the opposite of what Matt Finney is doing here (redefining belief to equal knowledge). Maybe they are the same person?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2015, 01:26 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(11-08-2015 01:24 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(11-08-2015 01:17 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  I know. I've had this discussion with him. He just redefines knowledge to actually equal belief. Whatevs.

Ahh -- exactly the opposite of what Matt Finney is doing here (redefining belief to equal knowledge). Maybe they are the same person?

Maybe. But you wouldn't believe how prevalent that tactic is within the "debate" world.

I mean, the whole God-Rock Paradox is based solely around the disguised premise of redefining "omnipotence".

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2015, 01:26 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(11-08-2015 01:11 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  knowledge = belief that is justified and true

The tripartite analysis of knowledge as justified true belief (JTB) has been shown to be incomplete. There are cases of JTB that do not qualify as cases of knowledge. JTB, therefore, is not sufficient for knowledge. Cases like that — known as Gettier-cases — arise because neither the possession of evidence nor origination in reliable faculties is sufficient for ensuring that a belief is not true merely because of luck. Consider the well-known case of barn-facades: Henry drives through a rural area in which what appear to be barns are, with the exception of just one, mere barn facades. From the road Henry is driving on, these facades look exactly like real barns. Henry happens to be looking at the one and only real barn in the area and believes that there's a barn over there. Henry's belief is justified, according to TK, because Henry's visual experience justifies his belief. According to NTK, his belief is justified because Henry's belief originates in a reliable cognitive process: vision. Yet Henry's belief is plausibly viewed as being true merely because of luck. Had Henry noticed one of the barn-facades instead, he would also have believed that there's a barn over there. There is, therefore, broad agreement among epistemologists that Henry's belief does not qualify as knowledge.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: