Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-08-2015, 03:02 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(11-08-2015 12:58 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(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?

I would still guess guilty, but I would be very clear in letting you know that I don't have knowledge of this event. I am content in understanding that I'll likely never have knowledge of this event. I also think it would be foolish to hold such a belief.

The reason? There is a lot of evidence that suggests his guilt, perhaps not enough to draw a conclusion, but enough that I would guess him over any other person.

The thing is, if religious people would admit that their god theory is a guess, I would have much less issue with religion, but you and I both know that isn't the case. Many religious people claim 100% certainty about the existence of god.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2015, 03:05 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.

This is useless for me because we all have beliefs. When our beliefs are justified and match reality, we call them knowledge. A person that recognizes is belief doesn't meet the criteria to be called knowledge, then he is admitting to having unjustified beliefs.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2015, 03:05 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(11-08-2015 01:04 PM)kingschosen 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.

Because that's contrary to his argument.

Actually, it's paramount to my argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2015, 03:06 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.

No, I use the same definition as everyone else.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2015, 03:08 PM (This post was last modified: 11-08-2015 03:23 PM by Matt Finney.)
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(11-08-2015 01:16 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(11-08-2015 01:11 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  knowledge = belief that is justified and true

Still ignoring the omniscient thing, eh?

So, do you believe that no one has any knowledge? Except perhaps knowledge of their own existence? Do you think we all know nothing except the fact that we exist?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2015, 03:09 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?

I'm not doing that at all. Knowledge = belief that is justified and true

Same definition as everyone else.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2015, 03:12 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(11-08-2015 01:26 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(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.

Ok, then what is the definition of knowledge?

Does anyone have any knowledge?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2015, 03:14 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(11-08-2015 02:56 PM)Stevil Wrote:  We can prove that a square circle doesn't exist.

That's not "proving" anything. That's creating a paradox. You're redefining a term to make it contrary to what it actually is. A paradox is a thought experiment; nothing more. All your doing is redefining what a circle can be.

A circle is a circle. Nothing more. It can't ever be a square because it's not a circle anymore. It's a paradox to say that square circle doesn't exist because it can't exist based on the definition given to those shapes.

Like I said, this is the entire premise of the God-Rock Paradox.

Quote:We can prove that Newton's theory of gravity doesn't hold in conditions where velocity approaches the speed of light.

that is, in regards to our observable knowledge. We don't know if that holds true in all conditions of the universe. Not knowing the answer =/= proof. You can't truthfully say that this is a law in the entire universe. While it may be very likely that it is a law, you cannot prove it because you cannot show empirical evidence of it in every instance that it may occur in the universe.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2015, 03:16 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(11-08-2015 04:04 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Different disciplines use different definitions but the generally accepted definition in Philosophy is "a justified true belief". Therefore knowledge is a subset of belief.

Not since Gettier.

Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2015, 03:18 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(11-08-2015 02:50 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  You have no idea what you're talking about. A person doesn't have to believe that god doesn't exist to be an atheist, he merely needs to lack a belief that god does exist.

A person doesn't have to believe that god does exist to be a theist, he merely needs to lack a belief that god does not exist.

Again... see how that works? You're weighing one end of the argument unfairly.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: