*[I believe] Atheism is an absurd worldview

[outhouse]

How, exactly?

Good luck if you think they will corner their selves with an actual straight answer LOL

They know they are on the low road creating their own metal hoops they expect everyone else to jump through. Problem is they are the only ones tripping.

 

[Gambit]

.
Factually false. There is no faith at all knowing 1 + 1 = 2 NONE at all

It can also be logically demonstrated that a necessary being must be inferred in order to account for a world of contingent beings. That qualifies as knowledge (your objections not withstanding).

 

[outhouse]

It can also be logically demonstrated that a necessary being must be inferred in order to account for a world of contingent beings

No it cannot.

Its why you have not, nor cannot, do so

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It can also be logically demonstrated that a necessary being must be inferred in order to account for a world of contingent beings.

Please demonstrate this.

 

[Gambit]

Please demonstrate this.

I already have in a previous thread.

 

[Willamena]

It can also be logically demonstrated that a necessary being must be inferred in order to account for a world of contingent beings. That qualifies as knowledge (your objections not withstanding).

Isn't inference automatically disqualified from being knowledge? It's of the nature of prediction.

 

[Gambit]

Isn't inference automatically disqualified from being knowledge? It's of the nature of prediction.

You can make a logical inference.

 

[Desert Snake]

Isn't inference automatically disqualified from being knowledge? It's of the nature of prediction.

Semantics tend to be the problem with these words. Inference is what we have, ''knowledge'', is just a subjective word used as a description.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

I don't mind your choice of language, I even find it slightly amusing.

My explanation that a justified true belief must be a belief that is justified and true, was designed to show that I was not saying a belief must be justified and true in order to be believed. As was posited as my assertion by the poster to whom I had replied.

However, I have also had to make similar statements to clarify that I did not intend a justified true belief to mean a belief that is truly held, and justified.

Language can be tricky, and even when one thinks they are clear, they are not necessarily so. That you chose to quote me, out of context, remarking on such "wisdom" made me laugh. That I replied with an equally esoteric quip likely did nothing to remedy the situation. But, my point was sometimes one must break something down in a very basic way in order to avoid misunderstanding.

Oh no... it was in context. Have the courage to wear the stain you produced.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Isn't inference automatically disqualified from being knowledge? It's of the nature of prediction.

If I reference 2+2 to infer an easy and obvious answer of 4, then it is more a common knowledge I am using for the inference.

 

[Curious George]

Oh no... it was in context. Have the courage to wear the stain you produced.

lol, what colorful rhetoric. Luckily, the quote and to whom I referred are available to actually see. So, we have me responding to someone claiming that my assertion had not made sense. I start with a sentence that separates the parts of justified true belief, and continue down a list of points that I am asserting in order to clear up confusion.

You take the first part, ignore the rest, and can produce nothing but rhetoric. I have content, you have ad hominem. Methinks, you are having trouble following. The text is available for all to see.

But, here is my quote [stain]. Happily worn by me.

No, a belief has to be justified and true to be a justified true belief. One can believe something that is neither justified or true, but even this requires a justified true belief from which to start. Justified true belief is knowledge, hence all belief must start with a justified true belief. Even beliefs that are not true or justified must rely on a justified true belief. You cannot get to anything except experience, but that experience cannot even be ordered without knowledge.

By ordered I mean accommodated and assimilated, processed and analyzed. None of your experiences can be organized without a system by which to organize them any organizational system will at least require the a priori knowledge that A=A.

 

[Willamena]

You can make a logical inference.

You can make a prediction.

 

[Willamena]

Semantics tend to be the problem with these words. Inference is what we have, ''knowledge'', is just a subjective word used as a description.

Isn't "inference" a description?

 

[Willamena]

If I reference 2+2 to infer an easy and obvious answer of 4, then it is more a common knowledge I am using for the inference.

But that isn't an example of inference. Or logic. We learn maths from rote.

An example of inference is: the sun will rise tomorrow.

 

[Desert Snake]

Isn't "inference" a description?

It's a description, like knowledge. But the word ''knowledge'', is what goofs people. They think it means an objective fact, as opposed to what they are describing their inferences as. Atheists, for example, constantly goof their beliefs, for a false or arbitrary position of ''knowledge'', as you know; hence they create a fictional scenario where there atheism takes on a different property from what they have inferred. We're on the same page, I believe....just discussing word usage.

 

[Willamena]

It's a description, like knowledge. But the word ''knowledge'', is what goofs people. They think it means an objective fact, as opposed to what they are describing their inferences as. Atheists, for example, constantly goof their beliefs, for a false or arbitrary position of ''knowledge'', as you know; hence they create a fictional scenario where there atheism takes on a different property from what they have inferred. We're on the same page, I believe....just discussing word usage.

What does knowledge mean, then?

 

[Desert Snake]

What does knowledge mean, then?

It is what we think we know. This can be, from what we have inferred, but, not necessarily.

 

[Willamena]

It is what we think we know. This can be, from what we have inferred, but, not necessarily.

Isn't belief what we think we know (as opposed to what we do know)?

 

[Desert Snake]

Isn't belief what we think we know (as opposed to what we do know)?

The word belief covers any manner of what we think we ''know'', because people employ different evidence, different formulas, etc, in order to arrive at their 'beliefs'/
Beliefs are not an opposition to ''knowledge'', they describe what we have figured to be ''facts, etc.

//So, ''belief'', can be something that we think we have proof for, or not; any manner of evidence, etc. Used as a description, it does not indicate anything beyond what we are adhering to as 'fact'.

 

[Willamena]

The word belief covers any manner of what we think we ''know'', because people employ different evidence, different formulas, etc, in order to arrive at their 'beliefs'/
Beliefs are not an opposition to ''knowledge'', they describe what we have figured to be ''facts, etc.

//So, ''belief'', can be something that we think we have proof for, or not; any manner of evidence, etc. Used as a description, it does not indicate anything beyond what we are adhering to as 'fact'.

So is knowledge determined by how you perceive people use it, or how you use it?