Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[Falvlun]

It can't be since I can say "I don't believe gods exist and at the same time I don't believe gods don't exist."

If you say "I believe X" then also saying "I do not believe not-X" is a tautology.

The reverse is not: "I do not believe not-X" does not necessarily mean "I believe X".

We aren't talking about X and not-X. We are talking about X (belief god exists), not-X (no belief god exists), Y (belief god doesn't exist), not-Y (no belief god doesn't exist). I am not required to be X or Y. So I say I don't believe god exists (not-X) and I don't believe gods don't exist (not-Y).

Right. We agree that the third position exists.

 

[ArtieE]

Right. We agree that the third position exists.

There are two positions. X and Y. I haven't taken any of them. Hence I don't believe gods exist and I don't believe gods don't exist. I haven't decided which position to take if any. I am so far positionless.

 

[Falvlun]

There are two positions. X and Y. I haven't taken any of them. Hence I don't believe gods exist and I don't believe gods don't exist. I haven't decided which position to take if any. I am so far positionless.

Again, we agree.

 

[Curious George]

A person can say "I believe god exists" and another person can say "I know god exists because He talks to me every day". Does the second person have belief or knowledge? I haven't answered the rest haven't yet figured out what it means.

Knowledge is belief. But that aside both people believe.

 

[Curious George]

The concept of partial knowledge is useful when considering justified belief. Justified belief is not always an is or isn't proposition. Consider a weather forecast. If it rained 85 of the last 100 times that a particular cloud pattern appeared, we might say that there is an 85% chance of rain when we see it again.

And if we get another 85 rainfalls following the next 100 appearances of this cloud pattern, we have confirmed that we have useful albeit partial knowledge.

Technically, if we embrace the concept of philosophical doubt, by which I mean doubt that is understood but not felt, all knowledge beyond "I think therefore I am" becomes partial knowledge, and even that has come under fire: Is Your 'Self' Just an Illusion?

Still, we can ignore very small degrees of doubt and claim certitude above a certain degree of confidence.

Interesting. But if you unpack what you just said, what knowledge are you claiming in you example, even if it is only partially justified?

 

[Willamena]

The same difference as if I said "I believe in you" or "I believe in your existence".

So none.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Interesting. But if you unpack what you just said, what knowledge are you claiming in you example, even if it is only partially justified?

I'm not sure how to answer you. I guess that I'm claiming that I know something in terms of its likelihood.

 

[Willamena]

Personally I don't believe gods exist. I don't believe gods don't exist either. I just haven't decided so I believe neither. According to you I don't exist yet here I am...

There is nothing in the word "tautology" that implies that you don't exist.

 

[Willamena]

What does it mean that a belief is true? Does it mean that what is believed is actually true? How would you determine that?

It means that what is believed in is actually true, yes. You don't have to determine it, its correctness has nothing to do with you.

 

[Curious George]

I'm not sure how to answer you. I guess that I'm claiming that I know something in terms of its likelihood.

But assuming that likelihood is both true and justified, how is this partial knowledge? When you say that you know it is going to rain, I can see how you are trying to frame that as partial knowledge, but it is not knowledge. What you can and would know is only the likelihood and that is not partial. That is complete regardless of whether we are discussing the 15% of the time that it does not rain or the 85% of the time that it does.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

I fall for it all the time.

Your first line was funny.

But when you say “they are using such arguments on Theists” --- what are you referring to? Thanks.

Emotional blackmail:
some aTheists will often use aTheism against the Theist as a means to asserting themselves.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

But assuming that likelihood is both true and justified, how is this partial knowledge? When you say that you know it is going to rain, I can see how you are trying to frame that as partial knowledge, but it is not knowledge. What you can and would know is only the likelihood and that is not partial. That is complete regardless of whether we are discussing the 15% of the time that it does not rain or the 85% of the time that it does.

It's not important what we call such an understanding. I simply want language that reflects that sometimes, our knowledge is only statistical, and other times much more firm.

I've already conceded that all knowledge is at least a bit tentative, and that therefore technically, it can all be called partial.

But I want to distinguish between highly reliable knowledge and that which is helpful, but much less certain. I'm pretty sure that the sun will cease to be visible in a few hours, but less so that the sky will be clear enough to see the stars when that happens. It's about 10% likely that the stars will not be visible, but about 0% likely that the sun will be visible.

Since I know more about the coming darkness than the starlight, I call the latter partial knowledge.

 

[Curious George]

It's not important what we call such an understanding. I simply want language that reflects that sometimes, our knowledge is only statistical, and other times much more firm.

I've already conceded that all knowledge is at least a bit tentative, and that therefore technically, it can all be called partial.

But I want to distinguish between highly reliable knowledge and that which is helpful, but much less certain. I'm pretty sure that the sun will cease to be visible in a few hours, but less so that the sky will be clear enough to see the stars when that happens. It's about 10% likely that the stars will not be visible, but about 0% likely that the sun will be visible.

Since I know more about the coming darkness than the starlight, I call the latter partial knowledge.

You are discussing different things. Discussing what will be is different than discussing what is.

 

[gnostic]

Knowledge is belief. But that aside both people believe.

That's not necessarily true, George.

Knowledge can indeed often lead to belief.

Belief, on the other hand, don't require knowledge. It can, but knowledge is not essential to "believing".

And there are differences between "knowing" and "believing".

Belief can fall under two categories:

1. Justified belief
2. Unjustified belief

Justified belief can be questioned and tested, hence knowledge.

Unjustified belief relies on conviction without evidences, in another word, it is called FAITH. That's what believing in unjustified belief is: faith.

You can believe in gods and demons, heaven and hell, in miracles and the afterlife, but all of these rely on faith-based belief, and such a belief is more akin to wishes, fantasies and superstitions.

Knowledge on the other hand, rely not on just belief and faith alone.

Knowledge, real knowledge, like those acquired in science, can be questioned and tested, and depending on if the tests are successful or unsuccessful, the knowledge is either verified or refuted.

This is why in science, you don't perform one test only. You test a statement (theory or hypothesis) as many times as you can and as rigorously as you can, and you would allow for other scientists to independently test your statement as many times as they can (peer review).

More the tests you have performed, the more certain you can be if your statement can be verified or refuted.

I think religious people, particularly creationism forget that science is not about "absolute" because any statement (be they "theory" or untested "hypothesis") can be questioned, challenged and tested again. And that the x-number of tests determined if the statement is probable true (verified) or probable false (refuted).

Science is about probability, not about it being "absolute".

There is another reason why for performing so many tests, is too weed out any error or any anomaly. For instance, the error could be possibly be a faulty measuring device, like multimeter that won't calibrate properly.

New evidences can make existing theory obsolete.

When it come to dealing with astronomy, Newton's theory on motions of bodies and on gravity become dated and almost obsolete, especially with objects or particles that can approach the speed of light. This is where Einstein's theory on General Relativity comes in handy, replacing Newton's theory.

Newton's theory is also useless in object smaller than the atom, where quantum particles required different understanding of how they work.

So Relativity and Quantum Physics challenged classical physics, like Newton's theory on gravity and motion.

That's not to say Newton's theory is now obsolete; it isn't. Newton's theory just have limitations, and of no use in space or in the quantum world of quarks, leptons or Higgs bosons.

Can you test a god? Can you test resurrection?

 

[Curious George]

That's not necessarily true, George.

Knowledge can indeed often lead to belief.

Belief, on the other hand, don't require knowledge. It can, but knowledge is not essential to "believing".

And there are differences between "knowing" and "believing".

Belief can fall under two categories:

1. Justified belief
2. Unjustified belief

I agree that knowledge does not = belief just as pit bull does not = dog.

Knowledge is a type of belief. I never said that knowledge was essential to belief, rather I tried to convey that knowledge is a type of belief.

 

[McBell]

I agree that knowledge does not = belief just as pit bull does not = dog.

Knowledge is a type of belief. I never said that knowledge was essential to belief, rather I tried to convey that knowledge is a type of belief.

I am confused.
What pit bull is not a dog?

 

[Curious George]

Knowledge, real knowledge, like those acquired in science, can be questioned and tested, and depending on if the tests are successful or unsuccessful, the knowledge is either verified or refuted.

This is why in science, you don't perform one test only. You test a statement (theory or hypothesis) as many times as you can and as rigorously as you can, and you would allow for other scientists to independently test your statement as many times as they can (peer review).

More the tests you have performed, the more certain you can be if your statement can be verified or refuted.

I think religious people, particularly creationism forget that science is not about "absolute" because any statement (be they "theory" or untested "hypothesis") can be questioned, challenged and tested again. And that the x-number of tests determined if the statement is probable true (verified) or probable false (refuted).

Science is about probability, not about it being "absolute".

There is another reason why for performing so many tests, is too weed out any error or any anomaly. For instance, the error could be possibly be a faulty measuring device, like multimeter that won't calibrate properly.

New evidences can make existing theory obsolete.

When it come to dealing with astronomy, Newton's theory on motions of bodies and on gravity become dated and almost obsolete, especially with objects or particles that can approach the speed of light. This is where Einstein's theory on General Relativity comes in handy, replacing Newton's theory.

Newton's theory is also useless in object smaller than the atom, where quantum particles required different understanding of how they work.

So Relativity and Quantum Physics challenged classical physics, like Newton's theory on gravity and motion.

That's not to say Newton's theory is now obsolete; it isn't. Newton's theory just have limitations, and of no use in space or in the quantum world of quarks, leptons or Higgs bosons.

Can you test a god? Can you test resurrection?

The rest of this is a discussion on how knowledge is based on evidence from empirical studies. I do not agree that this is necessarily the case.

 

[Curious George]

I am confused.
What pit bull is not a dog?

What knowledge is not belief

 

[McBell]

What knowledge is not belief

That does not answer my question.

 

[Curious George]

That does not answer my question.

It should. My earlier statement that knowledge is belief could lead some to believe they were equal. This must be the case if they turn them around and say that knowledge is not essential to belief. As I never made such a claim. The term "is" does not mean equal. However I can understand how someone could assume that. If I say 2+2=4 then I can just as well say 4=2+2. This is not the case with the term is. If I say a pit bull is a dog I am not saying pit bull =dog such that dog=pit bull. For while all pit bulls are dogs, not all dogs are pit bulls.

Do you follow now?