Atheism does not exist

[Willamena]

Doesn't that just make the whole thing boil down to "knowledge is whatever someone is convinced is true"?

Epistemic justification is a "required" part of the formula because it happens. It is whichever method we use to distinguish belief from knowledge. It's not something we have to seek out, to deliberately make beliefs knowledge--we're going to do it whether we think about it or not. It's a part of us.

I read it in a history book and see it in old photographs that Adolph Hitler had a moustache. Someone mentions it, and the claim of knowledge is evident. But I also read it a historical fiction that Hitler was actually blind and faked his way through the entire conquest of Poland. One is convincing. Why is one more believable? It takes barely a thought to see that one is a fiction book and one is a non-fiction book.

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.

You are correct that in the formula "justified true belief," truth is ontological. We do know ontological truths, from the reality of the solidity of the ground beneath our feet to the abstract addition of two plus two equalling four. Ontological truth isn't a stranger to us. It doesn't need to be "considered" to be true--more often we take it for granted (don't consider it at all).

My take is that it's in us to instinctively and habitually make the truth judgement, and that it never fails to be wrong. I can hear the wails of protest, but hear me out. Truth is "what is" here and now. The relation between epistemology (believing/knowing) and ontology (what is) is integral--you don't have one without the other. We each have a unique data set of knowledge particular to us, stored in memory, and each moment of time, each "take" of the world, presents us with a unique data set of "what is" to know and remember/record. So when you say we must decide if it's true--no, we don't have to. That judgement call is made the moment reality hits us in the face. It's made beneath the surface, where whales reside, and our role is just to become aware of it.

 

[adi2d]

What is truth? What is real? What is belief? Blah blah blah

I thought there was going to be evidence of a god or gods non existence.

I say God could have made us and left us alone to find our way. Any evidence this didn't happen?

 

[idav]

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.

I agree though i doubt anyone would go into court trying to prove something is non-existant, what would be the proof, its not in the courtroom and look at all these pictures its not in. By now by process of elimination god didn't do it yet we can't ever prove it cause he's some invisible subtle force, oh look you just missed him.

 

[idav]

I say God could have made us and left us alone to find our way. Any evidence this didn't happen?

Deism would agree with that. Left us alone I could see but that "made us" not sure what would count as evidence for ID in nature. I see intelligence in nature but design is halfhazordly done.

 

[adi2d]

Deism would agree with that. Left us alone I could see but that "made us" not sure what would count as evidence for ID in nature. I see intelligence in nature but design is halfhazordly done.

Earlier posts have said there was evidence that thiests were wrong and there was evidence of God not existing.

I haven't seen evidence that God is anything more than a concept that some people use in their life but I also haven't ruled out the possibility.

 

[Willamena]

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

No, it is the same as impossibility. There can be an instance of "no" (whatever). "Cannot be" indicates an impossibility.

I've recently been in a discussion where people failed to see that, but I'm quite comfortable with the difference.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Existence is not a predicate.


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

I would tend to agree about your assessment of Hume, but that existence is not a (first-order) predicate isn't really relevant here. To exist is to satisfy or exemplify particular predicates. Which entails worldly effects. Which entails necessary evidence.

The short answer is, Aristotle thinks too much.

???

 

[Enai de a lukal]

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"?

No, certainty is not a part of it, because one could be certain, and nevertheless not know. Just because I am certain I know so-and-so's birthday, and it turns out I did, doesn't mean I actually did know- it still could have been more or less a matter of fortuitous circumstance (suppose I had confused the person in question with someone else, but they just so happened to have the same birthday, for instance)- whereas if I have a justified true belief, that is to say my belief about their birthday is based on evidence that is sufficient to conclude when there birthday is, it certainly appears to be knowledge.

What is your take on the "true" part of the definition? This seems to be even harder to quantify.

Um... What?

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.

Exactly.

If that's the case, how is that determined?

Honestly, do some work here- think about it; how would one determine, for instance, whether someone in fact knows the square root of 12? Or knows the capitol of France? Or how to change a tire?

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.

No, its crucial because if what you purport to know is not actually true, then it is impossible that you could know it. You cannot know a falsehood. This should be extremely obvious.

Look, the whole "justified true belief" thing is probably the least controversial thing about my initial post- getting hung up on this aspect is simply a tangent.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

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.

Well, unless and until you read that, or a similar information source so that you have the basic knowledge about the subject matter required to enter into a discussion thereof, you're going to have to observe from the sidelines.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I agree though i doubt anyone would go into court trying to prove something is non-existant, what would be the proof, its not in the courtroom and look at all these pictures its not in. By now by process of elimination god didn't do it yet we can't ever prove it cause he's some invisible subtle force, oh look you just missed him.

It's not that difficult. Negative results on minimal search parameters- the non-existence of an elephant on my couch can be proved by the absence of squished cushions, elephant-patties, the fact that there's room to sit on my couch, etc.

In other words, as I said at the beginning, the absence of necessary evidence is, necessarily, evidence of absence. Existence entails exemplifying predicates, which entails causing effects in the world, which entails worldly evidence.

 

[ignition]

It's not that difficult. Negative results on minimal search parameters- the non-existence of an elephant on my couch can be proved by the absence of squished cushions, elephant-patties, the fact that there's room to sit on my couch, etc.

In other words, as I said at the beginning, the absence of necessary evidence is, necessarily, evidence of absence. Existence entails exemplifying predicates, which entails causing effects in the world, which entails worldly evidence.

That's true but that statement is largely irrelevant since there can and there is always widespread disagreement as to what constitutes 'necessary evidence'. E.g. for some, the fact that a universe exists is evidence of an intelligent creator, but for others, this isn't a piece of evidence at all.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

That's true but that statement is largely irrelevant since there can and there is always widespread disagreement as to what constitutes 'necessary evidence'. E.g. for some, the fact that a universe exists is evidence of an intelligent creator, but for others, this isn't a piece of evidence at all.

No, not really. Necessary evidence is what is logically entailed by a particular claim. There cannot be disagreement here. If I claim there is an elephant on my couch, this entails, at the very least, certain things, by necessity (hence "necessary")- squished pillows, a lack of room to sit, etc.

 

[idav]

It's not that difficult. Negative results on minimal search parameters- the non-existence of an elephant on my couch can be proved by the absence of squished cushions, elephant-patties, the fact that there's room to sit on my couch, etc.

In other words, as I said at the beginning, the absence of necessary evidence is, necessarily, evidence of absence. Existence entails exemplifying predicates, which entails causing effects in the world, which entails worldly evidence.

What you don't realize is that elephant is real, it just is not detectable by physical means because it is a spiritual elephant that lies outside of space and time and transcends the physical.

 

[ignition]

No, not really. Necessary evidence is what is logically entailed by a particular claim. There cannot be disagreement here.

Well, there is disagreement unfortunately.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Well, unless and until you read that, or a similar information source so that you have the basic knowledge about the subject matter required to enter into a discussion thereof, you're going to have to observe from the sidelines.

Sorry. Believe it or not, I really didn't mean to frighten you with my question. If it's any consolation, the question I asked you -- and which has made you blink so abruptly -- is perhaps the most frightening question in the entire mental universe.

Usually I don't ask it of newbies like you, preferring to let you get at least a few minor battles under your belt first. But you seemed so courageous.

Anyway, here it is again. The Scariest Question in the whole mental universe:

If Jack says that A is true, and Jill says that -A is true, which is true?

If 27% of humans say that the cat is on the couch, and 64% say that the cat is not on the couch, then is it true or false that the cat is on the couch?

Please take my triple-dog dare and save your manhood! Answer my last message.

You'll thank me later. If you answer it, you'll learn a lot about yourself and about truth, and you'll thank me later for pressing you to answer. We'll be best buds one day. I'm sure of that.

 

[Willamena]

If Jack says that A is true, and Jill says that -A is true, which is true?

If 27% of humans say that the cat is on the couch, and 64% say that the cat is not on the couch, then is it true or false that the cat is on the couch?

The problem with this is that these questions do not ask about truth at all. Sorry. If A is true (ontologically speaking), it is true regardless of what either Jack says or what Jill says to us. Both fail to represent truth to us (the audience of your post).

They represent two people throwing their Wordworlds at each other.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The problem with this is that these questions do not ask about truth at all. Sorry. If A is true (ontologically speaking), it is true regardless of what either Jack says or what Jill says to us. Both fail to represent truth to us (the audience of your post).

They represent two people throwing their Wordworlds at each other.

So no person can actually and really know what is true in any sense exterior to themselves?

OK... sounds reasonable to me.

But why do you assume that A is true regardless of human opinion? Maybe God likes to keep a vague universe wherein A is both true and untrue at once?

 

[Willamena]

So no person can actually and really know what is true in any sense exterior to themselves?

:no: That's not the case. There is one person who can... the only person who should matter in questions of truth.

Each of us.

OK... sounds reasonable to me.

But why do you assume that A is true regardless of human opinion? Maybe God likes to keep a vague universe wherein A is both true and untrue at once?

It's not assumptive, it's axiomatic, or definitional if you like.

A is A, and true is true, and Narry the twain is Narry the twain (have you met him?; his 'thing' is having no inbetween, that's his thing, and he does it quite well).

I'm off. Have a good weekend.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

:no: That's not the case. There is one person who can... the only person who should matter in questions of truth.

Each of us.

But if truth is personal, then I'm happy calling truth subjective. I'm not sure that others will go along with that, though. We humans crave certainty. We so want to know that our interior view is an exact match to exterior reality.

It's not assumptive, it's axiomatic, or definitional if you like

We would need to talk about any possible connection between internal, definitional reality (our wordworlds) and the purported exterior reality, I think.

 

[Falvlun]

No, certainty is not a part of it, because one could be certain, and nevertheless not know. Just because I am certain I know so-and-so's birthday, and it turns out I did, doesn't mean I actually did know- it still could have been more or less a matter of fortuitous circumstance (suppose I had confused the person in question with someone else, but they just so happened to have the same birthday, for instance)- whereas if I have a justified true belief, that is to say my belief about their birthday is based on evidence that is sufficient to conclude when there birthday is, it certainly appears to be knowledge.

Um... What?

Exactly.

Honestly, do some work here- think about it; how would one determine, for instance, whether someone in fact knows the square root of 12? Or knows the capitol of France? Or how to change a tire?

You seem to be misunderstanding my point.

I am not talking about what should be considered knowledge, or how you think knowledge should be defined.

I'm simply pointing out how we usually use it, and we simply use the word "knowledge" to refer to things that we believe 100% to be true, those things whose truth we are confident about.

Yes, for something to be considered knowledge, it should be a justified true belief. But that really only perfectly works in some omniscient utopia.

No, its crucial because if what you purport to know is not actually true, then it is impossible that you could know it. You cannot know a falsehood. This should be extremely obvious.

Say we find out 100 years from now that some things really can move faster than light.

But all the evidence right now points to the current knowledge that nothing moves faster than light. That is a basic physics factoid right there. That is something that most people will claim to know-- and it is well justified.

But it turned out to be false.

This is the problem with the "true" criteria. Sure, we want the things we consider knowledge to be true, but the fact is that we often can't know whether it is for certain.

We believe it to be true. We are 100% confident that it is true. And that is what we consider knowledge. Because basically, that's as far as we can go.

Whether it is actually true or not is besides the point.