-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheists: What if?
- Thread starter savagewind
- Start date
P = It's raining today. (when it is raining today).
Good. Let's suppose that it is true that it is raining outside.
How do you gain knowledge that it is indeed the case that it is raining outside? And once you did that, what makes you absolutely certain that your knowledge correspond to the truth?
Ciao
- viole
Simple. Knowledge is that it's raining outside. The proposition that is true is knowledge.
Because truth informs knowledge. Knowledge is belief that is true and justified.
I think we should not confuse ontology with epistemology. The proposition that it is raining outside is ontological. It exists a state of affairs so that it is raining outside. Epistemology deals with how we come to the knowledge that P is indeed true.
Suppose I tell you that it is not raining outside. In other words, ~P = "it is not raining outside" is true and therefore knowledge.
Now what?
Ciao
- viole
Ontology and epistemology are two sides of the same coin. There is no existence without knowledge, or knowledge without existence. And the inference and the prediction, no matter how lovely they may be, can never be true, in my book, except loosely.
~P isn't P. Approximations, guesses (no matter how informed), and probability have only approximate truth value.
I don't see how. Consider the proposition P = "the dinosaurs existed". This is an ontological claim.
I can think of at least two epistemologies that allow us to know whether P is true:
1) The evidence is in the fossil record, among other things, therefore P is true
2) the fossil record has been created by an invisible spirit that tries to fools us, therefore P is not true
Which one do you choose? And how can you be certain to have chosen the right one?
Well, you can't be dead sure. Nobody can. But nobody (well, almost) would refute to claim knowledge about the actual existence of dinosaurs and declare humble agnosticism about the dinosaurs, just because someone postulates invisible spirits that possibly defeat them.
Ergo, justified knowledge can be present even without absolute certainty. And this depends strongly on the epistemology we use. There is always a defeater of certainty, no matter how weird. As long it is logically possible, it counts.
The consequence is that agnosticism about God or supernatural things is not justified. If it were, we should be agnostic about basically everything else.
~P, in formal logic, is the negation of P (proposition). And P is the negation of ~P (also a proposition). It is not related to probability.
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
The question makes no sense. Such proof cannot exist. It is asking for proof of that which is beyond proof, 'proof' being a function of Reason and Logic as applied to the phenomenal world. The moment you attempt to prove God's existence, 'God' is dead. You may as well try to capture the wind in a box. In a nutshell, here is the problem of proof:
from: Myth and Ritual in Christianity, by Alan Watts
Last edited:
Gomeza
Member
You may want to re-read the post beginning this thread, the ability to hide such evidence is implied in the question asked ("Would you hide it?"). That said, the notion of being able to provide undeniable proof of the existence of God is at best facetious, considering that it has eluded humankind since the dawn of our existence.
Renascibilitas
New Member
Catholics what if you witnessed undeniable proof that Mormons were right? Mormon's what if you witnessed that Jehovah Witness's and the watchtower society were undeniably correct. Than what?
Renascibilitas
New Member
Perhaps but maybe no time travel is needed. We might find some gold plates now if we keep digging. Negative nancy are we? When is the last time you set out digging holes and having relations with all the attractive people god commanded?
That said my point is atheists what if, Catholics and mormons what if? What if tomorrow we find out Muslims turn out to be right? Will you convert?
NulliuSINverba
Active Member
How would I know that the "proof" was undeniable? Exactly what sort of "proof" are you daydreaming about?
I'm not. It was a question for discussion. This is a discussion forum.
Thruve
Sheppard for the Die Hard
I think its clear that if there was proof, none of us would hide it.
I find it so amusing that so many couldn't say No, they wouldn't hide it.
Why bother beating around the bush on this one when theres no point.
To those that did, you simply don't want god to exist. Its understandable, but theres a difference between knowing/not knowing, and you -> Not wanting to know.
I find it so amusing that so many couldn't say No, they wouldn't hide it.
Why bother beating around the bush on this one when theres no point.
To those that did, you simply don't want god to exist. Its understandable, but theres a difference between knowing/not knowing, and you -> Not wanting to know.
Last edited: