Atheism does not exist

[Willamena]

Because transcendence entails non-existence. "Transcending" all conditions and relations is non-being.

Transcendence is a relation.

 

[idav]

If you call something knowledge, doesn't that mean you think it's true as a matter of course?

So, what if I say "I know that nothing can travel faster than light". Basically everybody with a rudimentary knowledge of physics knows this. It is well justified and we consider it true.

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

So, then, is it incorrect for me to say right now that I know that nothing can travel faster than light?

The problem with adding "true" as a criteria for something to be considered "knowledge" is that there is no way for us to know what is true or what is not. If "true" is a part of the definition of knowledge, then we would have to abstain from calling anything knowledge since we'd never know for sure whether it is true or not.

Of course, we do not abstain from calling things knowledge. We are content with considering things knowledge that we are certain of, things that we believe are true, due to whatever convincing reasons, evidences, or justifications that we have for it.

So "true" essentially means "justified", making it a superfluous addition to the definition.

And lastly, "knowledge" is a human construct. It represents the things that humans are certain about. I don't understand the belief that the word "knowledge" refers to some "true reality", rather than to, simply, "what humans believe to be consistent with reality".

If anything, that's the reality of this situation.

Truth is objective. You either know the truth or are mistaken. Justification is rationalizing which doesnt make it true but logical. So people can claim to know truth but we dont ever know 100 percent, there is an underlying reality which is 100 percent truth and exists objectively. We can know some of the truths but at some point choices are made without complete certainty, which is fine as we can rationalize so that what we think we know is justified.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

In general, when people have false beliefs, they (mistakenly) believe that they're true.

When you say that someone has a false belief, do you mean "in Penguin's opinion" or do you mean that their belief is false in some objective sense, transcending Penguin's opinion?

If their belief is false in some objective sense, how do we know that Penguin is the ultimate authority who is properly judging that falsity?

 

[Sunstone]

Atheism does not exist. Except when it does.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Atheism does not exist. Except when it does.

Yeah, it depends on who's in the room.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When you say that someone has a false belief, do you mean "in Penguin's opinion" or do you mean that their belief is false in some objective sense, transcending Penguin's opinion?

If their belief is false in some objective sense, how do we know that Penguin is the ultimate authority who is properly judging that falsity?

You don't need to have absolute knowledge to recognize that some beliefs are false. If two people both make mutually exclusive claims, then at least one of them is wrong. We don't need to be able to identify who is wrong or right to recognize that there is one or more incorrect people among them

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You don't need to have absolute knowledge to recognize that some beliefs are false. If two people both make mutually exclusive claims, then at least one of them is wrong. We don't need to be able to identify who is wrong or right to recognize that there is one or more incorrect people among them

I'm OK, for the sake of getting along, with agreeing that A and -A can't both be true.

But I really don't see how the JTB definition can ever be satisfied if we can't distinguish true beliefs from false ones.

 

[idav]

But I really don't see how the JTB definition can ever be satisfied if we can't distinguish true beliefs from false ones.

We can distinguish sometimes but only when we have sufficient data. Like a scientific law vs scientific theory.

 

[Willamena]

We can distinguish sometimes but only when we have sufficient data. Like a scientific law vs scientific theory.

Only one piece of data is sufficient: the true proposition.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

We can distinguish sometimes but only when we have sufficient data. Like a scientific law vs scientific theory.

What if we are hallucinating? Or insane in some other way?

There are guys who know they are the incarnation of Jesus Christ. But JTB defenders have admitted that truth is not dependent upon consensus. So even if 99.9% of humanity believes it's false that the guy is Jesus incarnate, the guy can still know that he is Jesus, can't he?

I mean, maybe it's the 99.9% who are hallucinating and insane.

I often strike myself as having uncanny access to truths which the majority of other humans don't seem to recognize as true.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm OK, for the sake of getting along, with agreeing that A and -A can't both be true.

But I really don't see how the JTB definition can ever be satisfied if we can't distinguish true beliefs from false ones.

Is this the only word that you think is useless unless we can figure out to 100% certainty that it's accurate?

 

[idav]

What if we are hallucinating? Or insane in some other way?

There are guys who know they are the incarnation of Jesus Christ. But JTB defenders have admitted that truth is not dependent upon consensus. So even if 99.9% of humanity believes it's false that the guy is Jesus incarnate, the guy can still know that he is Jesus, can't he?

I mean, maybe it's the 99.9% who are hallucinating and insane.

I often strike myself as having uncanny access to truths which the majority of other humans don't seem to recognize as true.

Because of objective experience and peer confirmation we can tell who is hallucinating and who is seeing objective reality. That isn't to say that maybe the person hallucinating isn't seeing something objective(that others don't have the capacity to see), there could be that 1% chance.

None of that takes away from the point. A theory can be believed and is justified by facts. The facts that support the theory are true but the theory isn't necessarily always true just cause it sometimes works or even if it works most of the time.

 

[idav]

Only one piece of data is sufficient: the true proposition.

Only one piece of data is sufficient to make something believable. A proposition is more like a prediction or guess based on the data.

 

[Willamena]

Only one piece of data is sufficient to make something believable. A proposition is more like a prediction or guess based on the data.

That's a proposal. Different beast.

A proposition is a chunk of the world, an object, which is to say it is the part of the world we refer to, or "mean," when we talk about the world. It's the content of our words.

It's believable, because it's true. There's no real distinction to be made between the true belief and knowledge, that's why we justify our beliefs, to ourselves and to others. It's an issue only when we hold one to be more valuable than the other--I believe that to be an aesthetic issue based on a particular metaphysical image, but that's neither here nor there.

My hand has a minor pain as I type. I usually ignore it, but in searching for an example I became aware of it. That pain is one piece of data, a chunk of the world, that's true. It doesn't require a commitee of consensus or repeated experiences to say that that one instance is true. It only requires that it be the case.

 

[idav]

That's a proposal. Different beast.

A proposition is a chunk of the world, an object, which is to say it is the part of the world we refer to, or "mean," when we talk about the world. It's the content of our words.

It's believable, because it's true. There's no real distinction to be made between the true belief and knowledge, that's why we justify our beliefs, to ourselves and to others. It's an issue only when we hold one to be more valuable than the other--I believe that to be an aesthetic issue based on a particular metaphysical image, but that's neither here nor there.

My hand has a minor pain as I type. I usually ignore it, but in searching for an example I became aware of it. That pain is one piece of data, a chunk of the world, that's true. It doesn't require a commitee of consensus or repeated experiences to say that that one instance is true. It only requires that it be the case.

Ok but a proposition isn't necessarily true and doesn't necessarily have to be believed. I can believe you have pain, you would know better than I, but I might have doubt or perhaps some x-rays because your personal experience is subjective to others.

Now you went with a proposition that is necessarily true but they aren't always like your example. Some facts are very easily verifiable but some are not so much.

A good example is the sun going around the earth. I can propose that and it could seem self evident yet it's wrong. Wrong only in that I'm lacking sufficient data to know that the earth is actually spinning.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Atheism does not exist. Except when it does.

That's when it exists the least. Except for infants.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Is this the only word that you think is useless unless we can figure out to 100% certainty that it's accurate?

Useless? No, it's not useless. It's just a word which fools us into thinking in black and white. Most people see 'true' as a plus sign and 'false' as a negative sign. I work to help them see that life isn't mathematics. Think of me as the Prophet of Ambiguity.

Another word is 'prove'. Many people seem to think of 'prove' in magical terms, just as they think of 'true.' They seem to think that stuff can be proven. But that's nonsense. Stuff can only be proven to a specific human mind. 'Prove' simply means 'convince another human.' Just as 'know' simply means 'have great psychological certainty.'

But if you're arguing that a thing can be called 'true' even if we only kinda sorta think it might be so, then I'm cool with that. Spread the word!

It means that according to the JTB definition, we can know something if we think it's justified and if we think it's more likely true than not true -- which is a fine way to think of knowledge, I think.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Because of objective experience and peer confirmation we can tell who is hallucinating and who is seeing objective reality.

So you disagree with the others about truth being determined by consensus?

The majority decides what is true?

 

[Willamena]

Ok but a proposition isn't necessarily true and doesn't necessarily have to be believed. I can believe you have pain, you would know better than I, but I might have doubt or perhaps some x-rays because your personal experience is subjective to others.

Now you went with a proposition that is necessarily true but they aren't always like your example. Some facts are very easily verifiable but some are not so much.

You don't automatically believe that I have pain, because that pain is a chunk of the world that has been presented to you only in words that I've spoken (keyed) to you. But that second chunk, the fact that I've said words to you, you'd believe that because it's been your immediate experience.

A hypothetical proposition can be false, usually as demonstration, but trust me, all the chunks of the world that you actually believe are 'true'.

Belief follows truth like a moth to a flame, or like a magnetic bar to North.

A good example is the sun going around the earth. I can propose that and it could seem self evident yet it's wrong. Wrong only in that I'm lacking sufficient data to know that the earth is actually spinning.

A firm grasp of relativity reveals the truth in any set of circumstances.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Truth is objective. You either know the truth or are mistaken.

Exactly. Truth must be person-invariant or it is not truth.

Justification is rationalizing which doesnt make it true but logical.

No, we aren't talking about "justification" in the colloquial sense- and maybe thats the source of the confusion on the part of so many posters here. We're talking about epistemic warrant, and "justification" is a technical term that means something slightly different from what it means in colloquial usage. Here's a basic (and limited) intro/overview of epistemic justification;

Theory of justification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

***

Transcendence is a relation.

No. Transcendence is the absence of any and all worldly relations or conditions. In other words, the absence of necessary features of being/existence.