Atheism does not exist

[Kilgore Trout]

Well maybe there is not reason to do it but theists do it to some extent. With atheism that sort of guessing isn't necessary. It isn't necessary to justify something not existing, the burden of proof is on the person claiming something exists.

More accurately, the burden of proof is on the person making a positive claim, or presenting that a claim is true.

 

[Falvlun]

To sum up, it appears to me that the "justified, true belief" is a good definition for "good knowledge", but not really an accurate definition for how we actually use the word.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

The problem arises because there is no absolute standard for what an acceptable justification is.

Person A claims to know something and gives XYZ to justify it.

Person B claims that the XYZ justifications are not good enough.

Who is right and who is wrong? Do you need justifications for your justifications? It would be an endless spiral of justifications-- which, more often than not, are just more beliefs in and of themselves that are considered to be reliable.

Well, but the mere existence of dispute doesn't imply that the matter is unresolvable. In most cases, what "counts" as an adequate justification is relatively uncontroversial, the question is whether that justification obtains or not. And there is not a "one size fits all" standard for justification- different sorts of claims require different sorts of justification. The fact that the process is fallible is no objection.

And it isn't obvious that the matter leads to an infinite regression; there are some basic beliefs (what epistemologists will refer to as "rock-bottom", or "hinge propositions") which are shared and universal, and more or less beyond question because of their necessity to any language-game whatsoever.

In any case, in the vast majority of cases, the dispute never runs this deep, but can be settled by laying the cards on the table and examing what the evidence is, and what the claim in question is, etc.

I don't think anyone would argue that a good belief, or claim of knowledge, shouldn't be justified. But I think making that a requirement for something to be considered knowledge just bogs down the concept to make it nonsensical.

I don't see why. And as other posters have noticed, leaving it out destroys any distinction between the "lucky guess" and knowledge- a distinction we wish to preserve.

We use the word "knowledge" to simply refer to beliefs which we are certain about. The cause of our certainty is besides the point. Whether the belief is actually true or actually false is also besides the point.

No, we use the word "certain" to refer to beliefs we are certain about. We use the word "knowledge" to refer to beliefs that are supporting by whatever counts as sufficient evidence for that particular domain.

This also really precludes the argument that a "lucky guess" would be considered knowledge, since generally, people don't assign certainty to guesses-- hence the name.

"Usually" isn't going to cut the mustard here... And "lucky guess" is simply a phrase to illustrate the absence of justification- the person making it needn't consider it a guess; a person may have a true belief, and be certain about it, and have it be not justified.

The designation of "knowledge" has less to do with separating "true" beliefs from "false" beliefs or "good (well-supported) beliefs" from "bad (poorly supported)beliefs", than it does with separating beliefs that people have doubts about from those that they don't.

No. Knowledge doesn't preclude the possibility of doubt, in fact, true knowledge usually entails the possibility of doubt. And certainty doesn't preclude the possibility for error. Indeed, distinguishing between certainty and knowledge is one more reason the basis/warrant/justification for a belief must be included in the picture.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

More accurately, the burden of proof is on the person making a positive claim, or presenting that a claim is true.

In a debate, any person making an assertion (whether it be positive or negative- "god does not exist" is an assertion) shoulders a burden of proof for their claim.

Similarly, any person holding a belief shoulders a burden of justification for their belief- atheism doesn't get a free pass simply because it is a meta-position with respect to theism; besides, it doesn't need a free pass- atheism's truth can be established via the falsity of theism.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

In a debate, any person making an assertion (whether it be positive or negative- "god does not exist" is an assertion) shoulders a burden of proof for their claim.

Yep, that's what I just said.

 

[Willamena]

Sure we can. To exist is to be instantiated, and if some X is not instantiated, then it does not exist.

Then nothing failed to be instantiated.

The proposition about X occurs only as the proposition, or as the proposition and something more.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Then nothing failed to be instantiated.

Um, what? All sorts of things fail to be instantiated- "X is the present King of Frace", "X is the round square", "X is the author of Waverly and Moby Dick", "X is the non-material, transcendent creator of the universe", etc.

 

[Willamena]

All sorts of things fail to be instantiated

There cannot be an instance of nothing (the non-existent thing).

To claim that "X is not the King of France" is to claim that the proposition about X is false, not that X is non-existent.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

There cannot be an instance of nothing (the non-existent thing).

Right- thus, failing to be an "instance" is the same as not-existing. not being instantiated=not existing

To claim that "X is not the King of France" is to claim that the proposition about X is false, not non-existent.

The present King of France is non-existent because "X is the present King of France" is not instantiated. There is no object that satisfies the criteria of "being the present King of France".

It looks like you're getting tripped up in the linguistic issue surrounding non-existent objects, you should take a gander at this-

Nonexistent Objects (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

If, by "subjective," you mean "unique to each individual," then yes. That's relative.

That's fine with me, but I'm afraid it may not sit well with our new young friend. Many people mean by 'true' something like 'perfectly congruent with external reality.'

That's what our new young friend seems to be arguing. If the cat is actually on the sofa, then it is true that the cat is on the sofa in a sense transcending individual opinion. If two or twenty people deny that the cat is on the sofa, I doubt that our new young friend will consider for a moment that he himself may be hallucinating the cat. No. It is clearly true that the cat is on the sofa, no matter what other individuals might say... and so our new young friend can safely, transcendently know that the cat is on the sofa.

Some of us are simply beyond error.

It's unique because each of us has composed the world of words by ourselves, with only limited help from others. We put our first word together ("mom") with an associated sensational blob of face without help. We did that. "Me."

And since then, we have each been composing a unqiue database of words, associated images, and abstract ideas. We each analyse the world based on our unique database sets.

I like that, but then wordworld building is my very favorite thing.

 

[Willamena]

Right- thus, failing to be an "instance" is the same as not-existing. not being instantiated=not existing



The present King of France is non-existent because "X is the present King of France" is not instantiated. There is no object that satisfies the criteria of "being the present King of France".

It looks like you're getting tripped up in the linguistic issue surrounding non-existent objects, you should take a gander at this-

Nonexistent Objects (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Existence is not a predicate.


PS: David Hume is the greatest mind of the last 5 Centuries.

 

[Willamena]

That's fine with me, but I'm afraid it may not sit well with our new young friend. Many people mean by 'true' something like 'perfectly congruent with external reality.'

That's what our new young friend seems to be arguing. If the cat is actually on the sofa, then it is true that the cat is on the sofa in a sense transcending individual opinion. If two or twenty people deny that the cat is on the sofa, I doubt that our new young friend will consider for a moment that he himself may be hallucinating the cat. No. It is clearly true that the cat is on the sofa, no matter what other individuals might say... and so our new young friend can safely, transcendently know that the cat is on the sofa.

Some of us are simply beyond error.

It does "transcend individual opinion" by being cast as objectively true. Things unconscious to us can only loosely be claimed by us, for us, or on behalf of us.

I like that, but then wordworld building is my very favorite thing.

Mine too.

 

[Willamena]

Person A claims to know something and gives XYZ to justify it.

Person B claims that the XYZ justifications are not good enough.

Who is right and who is wrong? Do you need justifications for your justifications?

Justification is given for that it is reasonable to believe the claim, not for that the claim be reasonable. It doesn't matter what person B thinks (either about the claim or person A)--person A need only have one instance of justification to be satisfied that belief is reasonable for it to be knowledge. The only 'right' is person A's safisfaction, and there is no 'wrong.'

If person A is satisfied that they have sufficent reason to believe claim X, it can be called knowledge and they don't have to prove that to anyone. To see this, you may conceive a circumstance in which there is no one else to prove it to.

 

[idav]

If I said "dogs do not exist" would I have a burden of proof? Or can I go on my merry way without ever having to support that stance simply because it's a claim of non-existence?

Sure but I'd hope that you wouldn't be so skeptical if I showed pictures and videos of dogs and even a real life dog. Good luck getting such evidence god.

More accurately, the burden of proof is on the person making a positive claim, or presenting that a claim is true.

Ok but how do you expect someone to show proof that something doesn't exist? I suppose atheists shouldn't make such a claim unless they wanna chalk it up to faith.

 

[Falvlun]

Justification is given for that it is reasonable to believe the claim, not for that the claim be reasonable. It doesn't matter what person B thinks (either about the claim or person A)--person A need only have one instance of justification to be satisfied that belief is reasonable for it to be knowledge. The only 'right' is person A's safisfaction, and there is no 'wrong.'

If person A is satisfied that they have sufficent reason to believe claim X, it can be called knowledge and they don't have to prove that to anyone. To see this, you may conceive a circumstance in which there is no one else to prove it to.

This does clear things up a bit.

Though, it does make me wonder why "justification" is required as part of the definition at all, if it could just be anything that the person finds convincing. Doesn't that just make the whole thing boil down to "knowledge is whatever someone is convinced is true"?

What is your take on the "true" part of the definition? This seems to be even harder to quantify. Obviously, knowledge is something someone considers to be true. But the definition "justified, true belief" seems to imply that the claim must actually be true. If that's the case, how is that determined? If it's simply up to the person who is claiming knowledge to decide that it is true, it again just seems pointless to include.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Ok but how do you expect someone to show proof that something doesn't exist? I suppose atheists shouldn't make such a claim unless they wanna chalk it up to faith.

I suppose that applies to atheists who claim that god doesn't exist. For the rest of us atheists who don't make such claims, it doesn't.

 

[Willamena]

Though, it does make me wonder why "justification" is required as part of the definition at all, if it could just be anything that the person finds convincing.

The short answer is, Aristotle thinks too much.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

"Inappropriate"? No, impossible. You cannot know a falsehood.

Goodness. You are deep within it, aren't you. One of those guys who will exclaim, "You didn't really know X! You only thought that you knew X!"

An actual magic believer.

Less smoke and more fire, please.

I will smoke so long as you smoke. I'm an empath, a mirror. Haven't you noticed that yet?

Lol... Normally, one needs to have at least some vague conception of a topic before they try to debate it.

I don't mind. You are at least trying and I respect you for that. No one expects competency in new debaters right off the bat. Always remember that you are among friends. We were once as you are, so we feel compassion for your plight and will not forsake you.

Correction- not "my personal definition", but the nearly universally accepted one in epistemology.

Epistemology is for people who don't know how to think for themselves. So they run and hide in academic epistemology, where they tend to become hopelessly confused about the nature of knowledge.

As we can see exampled even now.

Read the article so you can stop talking out of your *****.

I have no interest in the article. I'm only interested in whether you can actually debate your position with competence and skill. My hope is that when the smoke finally blows away, you'll have something of substance to say about the nature of knowledge.

How would I know? Truth is not decided by consensus.

Please don't say that truth is decided by whatever is actually true. I couldn't bear that.

So how is truth decided then? By you personally, I'm guessing? Whatever you say is true, is true... yes?

Here's a challenge for you: Tell me how truth is decided without using the passive voice. Double-dog dare you.

In order to do that, you cannot form your sentence as I formed my last one. You can't say that 'truth is decided.' Instead, you must say, "The following person or persons decide what is true, using the following procedure."

Triple dog. Your manhood is at stake. Tell me how truth is decided, without using the passive voice.

What I can say is that if A turns out to be true, and the people who believe that A is true have sufficient reason for believing A to be true, then those people know A.

Uh huh. If A turns out to be true. So you mean that God comes down and declares that A is true? And then everyone who chose A can be said to legitimately know A?

If A turns out to be true. Really, don't you have any idea how confused such an idea is?

Who is the ultimate authority who can tell us whether A has turned out to be true?

Simple question. Bet you won't give a simple answer.

I wish I could say the same. Some people have absolutely no self-awareness.

As I say, we are a loving group. Each day that you interact with us, your self-awareness will grow. Sometimes it will hurt, but that's just the nature of developing one's self-awareness. I am so excited for you!

It's sort of embarrassing for me just watching you not only make a fool of yourself, but do so apparently thinking you're "setting me straight" (when you're simply clueless about the topic and not understanding what I'm saying to you)

Oh my!

(Don't worry. I think it's legal to go back years later and delete one's early embarrassing posts. You can still get past this.)

 

[ArtieE]

Ok but how do you expect someone to show proof that something doesn't exist? I suppose atheists shouldn't make such a claim unless they wanna chalk it up to faith.

Nothing to do with faith. In a court of law a person is innocent until proven guilty. If somebody claims God is guilty of existing he has to provide sufficient evidence. If he doesn't, God is not guilty of existing. Strong atheists simply draw the conclusion that since there is no convincing evidence for the existence of God, one has to conclude that He doesn't exist. No need for them to provide evidence for non-existence.

 

[McBell]

It doesn't.

Guessing = not a good method.

How does experience make a guess not a guess?