You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Does God Exist?
- Thread starter lixluke
- Start date
It is not necessary for an individual to provide anything acceptable to anybody in order to arrive at a conclusion for themselves.No. Person A needs to provide acceptable proof, to the other person -YOU above. Otherwise anyone could run around making whatever spurious claims they can imagine.
And also to themselves, Person A, otherwise they are delusional. As in, I believe in X, even though I have no idea why.
If Person-A arrives to the conclusion about a matter, then Person-A had a specific basis for compelling him to arrive at that conclusion. Whether Person-B accepts Person-A's basis or thinks Person-A is delusional does, it doesn't change the fact that Person-A has arrived at a t/f conclusion on the matter. It does not mean that Person-A does not know why he arrived at a conclusion.
You might think Person-A is delusional, and Person-A might think you are delusional. Either way, is irrelevant. What is relevant is an individual's position on a matter. Either the individual arrived at a conclusion of true or false, or the individual has not arrived at a conclusion on the matter. There is nothing else relevant to a relationship between observer and a matter.
Here is what is relevant in a relationship between observer and a proposition:
1. Did the observer arrive at a conclusion?
2. Did the observer conclude the proposition to be true or false?
3. Is the proposition true or false? (Is the observer correct or incorrect?)
That is all that is relevant. Notice that the basis of justification has no relevance. Nor does observer relationship to other observers. The reason is that regardless of the observer's basis, the observer did indeed arrive at a conclusion. Regardless of the basis or anything, the observer's conclusion is either correct or incorrect.
Lix,
" is YOUR personal material valid/strong enough to compel YOU to conclude that X is true.
Again, you are claiming that if the person has not abided by what YOU consider to be acceptable, does that meant the person has not concluded that X is true?
In other words:
PERSON A: My position is that X is true. (I have arrived at the conclusion that X is true.)
YOU: You have no proof, therefore, you are not of the position that X is true. (You have not arrived at the conclusion that X is true.)"
That is the point.
I have no problem accepting your belief in God or lack of belief.
Because it is merely your belief. If you claim to KNOW than I would ask for proof.
I don't believe because there is a lack of evidence for me to justify a belief in the idea. However, I have stated many times that I can't prove there is no god.
If you claim to KNOW there is a god, then provide proof.
Whether or not a person came to a conclusion of why they personally believe or don't believe is irrelevant. Being able to prove and therefore call it knowledge is a different matter, one that requires proof.
"Here is what is relevant in a relationship between observer and a proposition:
1. Did the observer arrive at a conclusion?"
either way the conclusion is a belief without evidence to justify it as knowledge.
2. Did the observer conclude the proposition to be true or false?
You tell me. In the case of God does everybody only claim a yes or no, based on your poll it looks like some can not or will not put themselves in the true or false category.
3. Is the proposition true or false? (Is the observer correct or incorrect?)"
The only way to know that is to justify it with evidence and information that clearly proves that. Ultimately whether you guessed at it or not the truth will be the truth in the end but you can't call a guess knowledge. That is a difference between guesses and knowledge.
A better way would be for you to ask somebody a question that you know the answer to, something that is knowledge specific, maybe to your area of expertise. Give them 4 choices, if they admit don't know the answer ask them to guess. If they guess right, did their own prior statement they don't know the answer mean they had knowledge afterall ? Answer me that.
Still waiting for your answer, do you believe A, B or C. 6TH TIME NOW.
I have answered you, please do so in kind.
" is YOUR personal material valid/strong enough to compel YOU to conclude that X is true.
Again, you are claiming that if the person has not abided by what YOU consider to be acceptable, does that meant the person has not concluded that X is true?
In other words:
PERSON A: My position is that X is true. (I have arrived at the conclusion that X is true.)
YOU: You have no proof, therefore, you are not of the position that X is true. (You have not arrived at the conclusion that X is true.)"
That is the point.
I have no problem accepting your belief in God or lack of belief.
Because it is merely your belief. If you claim to KNOW than I would ask for proof.
I don't believe because there is a lack of evidence for me to justify a belief in the idea. However, I have stated many times that I can't prove there is no god.
If you claim to KNOW there is a god, then provide proof.
Whether or not a person came to a conclusion of why they personally believe or don't believe is irrelevant. Being able to prove and therefore call it knowledge is a different matter, one that requires proof.
"Here is what is relevant in a relationship between observer and a proposition:
1. Did the observer arrive at a conclusion?"
either way the conclusion is a belief without evidence to justify it as knowledge.
2. Did the observer conclude the proposition to be true or false?
You tell me. In the case of God does everybody only claim a yes or no, based on your poll it looks like some can not or will not put themselves in the true or false category.
3. Is the proposition true or false? (Is the observer correct or incorrect?)"
The only way to know that is to justify it with evidence and information that clearly proves that. Ultimately whether you guessed at it or not the truth will be the truth in the end but you can't call a guess knowledge. That is a difference between guesses and knowledge.
A better way would be for you to ask somebody a question that you know the answer to, something that is knowledge specific, maybe to your area of expertise. Give them 4 choices, if they admit don't know the answer ask them to guess. If they guess right, did their own prior statement they don't know the answer mean they had knowledge afterall ? Answer me that.
Still waiting for your answer, do you believe A, B or C. 6TH TIME NOW.
I have answered you, please do so in kind.
To the, as of now, 6 people who voted for "A" could you please post evidence for your claim.
Many Thanks,
Michael
Since part of "A" states "God does exist" Then you are correct, they are claiming to KNOW.
So indeed, please come forth with the evidence as Michael requested.
My apologies, the intent of A and B IMO is only asking for belief.
The use of the word "to my knowledge" is wording that was not intended to claim they know, only that their experience and beliefs leads them to come to the conclusion they have, which is their belief.
If however anyone is claiming to KNOW that god exists, then I agree with and second Michaels request.
The use of the word "to my knowledge" is wording that was not intended to claim they know, only that their experience and beliefs leads them to come to the conclusion they have, which is their belief.
If however anyone is claiming to KNOW that god exists, then I agree with and second Michaels request.
Lix,
Nonsense.
Saying I know and saying I believe are not the same thing.
"A person's own individual experience/beliefs are the only thing that can lead the person to a conclusion."
A conclusion of why they believe ? or a conclusion as in the answer ?
If the latter then you are claiming to KNOW, then you have proof. Provide it please.
I am not going to get the answer to what you believe A, B or C am I ?
Nonsense.
Saying I know and saying I believe are not the same thing.
"A person's own individual experience/beliefs are the only thing that can lead the person to a conclusion."
A conclusion of why they believe ? or a conclusion as in the answer ?
If the latter then you are claiming to KNOW, then you have proof. Provide it please.
I am not going to get the answer to what you believe A, B or C am I ?
A conclusion that X is true is a claim to know X is true.
"I know X is true" = "Hello. X is true." = "To my knowledge X is true."
"To my knowledge" is a phrase that does not need to be statement as it is automatic in every proposition anybody makes. If a person states their proposition, then that conclusion is based only on their scope of everything they have concluded as true.
This is a fact that your presumptions overlook. The exact same scrutiny for every matter must be applied accorss the board. Wheter it is an apple in your hand, or existence of God. There is no purpose in using different rules of scrutiny for different matters. Scientific method applies to everything no matter what the question in nature.
"I know X is true" = "Hello. X is true." = "To my knowledge X is true."
"To my knowledge" is a phrase that does not need to be statement as it is automatic in every proposition anybody makes. If a person states their proposition, then that conclusion is based only on their scope of everything they have concluded as true.
This is a fact that your presumptions overlook. The exact same scrutiny for every matter must be applied accorss the board. Wheter it is an apple in your hand, or existence of God. There is no purpose in using different rules of scrutiny for different matters. Scientific method applies to everything no matter what the question in nature.
lixluke, to help me better understand you / your argument, please have the courtesy to answer me these questions:That is all that is relevant. Notice that the basis of justification has no relevance. Nor does observer relationship to other observers. The reason is that regardless of the observer's basis, the observer did indeed arrive at a conclusion. Regardless of the basis or anything, the observer's conclusion is either correct or incorrect.[/FONT]
(a) as far as you are aware, is "I guessed the answer" considered justification? Yes or No, please.
(b) if someone says "1 + 1 = 2 therefore I have brown hair", is this to be considered justification for the belief of having brown hair? Yes or No, please.
Yes. If you don't understand what I've been trying to get accross for a long time, is that you cannot presume anything.lixluke, to help me better understand you / your argument, please have the courtesy to answer me these questions:
(a) as far as you are aware, is "I guessed the answer" considered justification? Yes or No, please.
(b) if someone says "1 + 1 = 2 therefore I have brown hair", is this to be considered justification for the belief of having brown hair? Yes or No, please.
1+1=2.
There is an apple in my hand.
Earth is round.
The tooth fairy exists.
Every person has a set of everything they have concluded to be true in their entire life. This is called "Scope of Belief". This set and only this set allows the person to arrive at conclusions about all matters. If the person has not arrived at a conclusion on a matter, that is fine. If the person has arrived at a conclusion on a matter, it is because a person is compelled to that conclusion based on their set. Does that make sense?
Any item/material a individual claims they used to compel them to arrive at a conclusion is "justification". Evidence/proof/verification or whatever you want to call it. This is any basis no matter what that comepls a person to arrive at a conclusion. Does that make sense?
This basis, known as Justification, has no relevance to whether or not something is true. If something is true, it not because somebody arrived at a conclusion using a popularly accepted basis (because of popular justification). It is true regardless of somebody arriving at a conclusion using a popularly accpeted basis (popular justification).
Furthermore, if something is true, and you are compelled to conclude it is true as a result of whatever material that compelled you, then you have knowledge. It doesn't matter if next man or popular crew approves of the method you used.
Moreover, if something is not true, and you are compelled to conclude it is true as a result of whatever material that compelled you, then you have misconception. It doesn't matter if next man or popular crew approves of the method you used.
A conclusion that X is true is a claim to know X is true.
"I know X is true" = "Hello. X is true." = "To my knowledge X is true."
"To my knowledge" is a phrase that does not need to be statement as it is automatic in every proposition anybody makes. If a person states their proposition, then that conclusion is based only on their scope of everything they have concluded as true.
This is a fact that your presumptions overlook. The exact same scrutiny for every matter must be applied accorss the board. Wheter it is an apple in your hand, or existence of God. There is no purpose in using different rules of scrutiny for different matters. Scientific method applies to everything no matter what the question in nature.
When someone says, "to my knowledge" they are simply saying, as far as I know, it specifically is not claiming to know absolutely, otherwise they would say "it is common knowledge" or "it is well known".
So if you are then saying in your questions A and B that "to MY knowledge" is the same claim as "I know" is the same as "I believe" then you misunderstand the meanings of words and words have meaning.
So if you claim they are all the same, then you are claiming no only that you believe but also that you know.
So once again, can you please answer the question A, B or C ? for the 7th time.
"Popular knowledge" is the same thing as "to my knowledge". Every claim a person makes can only exists as far as they know/to the extent of their understanding. This is called, Scope of Belief (The set of everything that the individual has concluded to be true).When someone says, "to my knowledge" they are simply saying, as far as I know, it specifically is not claiming to know absolutely, otherwise they would say "it is common knowledge" or "it is well known".
So if you are then saying in your questions A and B that "to MY knowledge" is the same claim as "I know" is the same as "I believe" then you misunderstand the meanings of words and words have meaning.
So if you claim they are all the same, then you are claiming no only that you believe but also that you know.
So once again, can you please answer the question A, B or C ? for the 7th time.
They can claim "It is popular knowledge" that X is true. Either way, they have concluded that X is true. And that conclusion can only be based on their Scope.
"Popular knowledge" is the same thing as "to my knowledge". Every claim a person makes can only exists as far as they know/to the extent of their understanding. This is called, Scope of Belief.
They can claim "It is popular knowledge" that X is true. Either way, they have concluded that X is true. And that conclusion can only be based on their Scope.
Bullshit.
Just because you don't have knowledge on a subject does not mean that it is not common knowledge to those who have knowledge on the subject.
You obviously have this idea that you can make up whatever crap you want and call it "your conclusion of what is true". This makes you an idiot.
If you stood up in a room full of doctors and claimed that you have concluded that you can just use faith that your arm will be re-attached if it is cut off, you would be laughed out of the room.
If you stood up in a room full of auto engineers and stated my gasoline car will keep running even though the gas tank is empty, you would be laughed out of the room.
They can't claim this is popular knowledge, because it obviously is not.
Last edited:
Are you presuming that popular makes something true. If the popular crew states that the Earth is flat, then the Earth is flat? If the popular crew uses all justification acceptable by the popular crew to conlude that the Earth is flat, then it is true that the earth is flat?
Do you have any problem with the fact that there is an observer? Observer has a scope of everything that the observer consider to be true. Observer is provided with input. Observer arrives to conclusions of what is true and not true based on their scope, and their input. Is there anything you do not get about this?
Do you have any problem with the fact that there is an observer? Observer has a scope of everything that the observer consider to be true. Observer is provided with input. Observer arrives to conclusions of what is true and not true based on their scope, and their input. Is there anything you do not get about this?
Either way, a claim that something is popular knowledge is only relevant to those who consider popular knowledge as justification. This is simply nothing more than your idea of justification that leads you to conclusion. Your precious "popular knowledge" does not make anything true/false. It does not make your conclusions correct/incorrect.Bullshit.
Just because you don't have knowledge on a subject does not mean that it is not common knowledge to those who have knowledge on the subject.
You obviously have this idea that you can make up whatever crap you want and call it "your conclusion of what is true". This makes you an idiot.
If you stood up in a room full of doctors and claimed that you have concluded that you can just use faith that your arm will be re-attached if it is cut off, you would be laughed out of the room.
If you stood up in a room full of auto engineers and stated my gasoline car will keep running even though the gas tank is empty, you would be laughed out of the room.
They can't claim this is popular knowledge, because it obviously is not.
"Are you presuming that popular makes something true."
NO
"Do you have any problem with the fact that there is an observer? Observer has a scope of everything that the observer consider to be true. Observer is provided with input. Observer arrives to conclusions of what is true and not true based on their scope, and their input. Is there anything you do not get about this?"
No but you do. Because you previously have claimed there is no need for an observer for it to be true.
However, if an observer experiences something that they know to be true based on their direct experience. Than it may be, but to prove it others to make it justified to be considered common knowledge is another matter, which unless they can prove it then it remains only their own experience. Others would only call it their belief.
NO
"Do you have any problem with the fact that there is an observer? Observer has a scope of everything that the observer consider to be true. Observer is provided with input. Observer arrives to conclusions of what is true and not true based on their scope, and their input. Is there anything you do not get about this?"
No but you do. Because you previously have claimed there is no need for an observer for it to be true.
However, if an observer experiences something that they know to be true based on their direct experience. Than it may be, but to prove it others to make it justified to be considered common knowledge is another matter, which unless they can prove it then it remains only their own experience. Others would only call it their belief.
Either way, a claim that something is popular knowledge is only relevant to those who consider popular knowledge as justification. This is simply nothing more than your idea of justification that leads you to conclusion. Your precious "popular knowledge" does not make anything true/false. It does not make your conclusions correct/incorrect.
Doesn't make any sense.
It just means you are claiming that in order for something to be true, it needs valid material reviewed and approved by the popular crew. IWO: Based on your scope of everything you conclude to be true, you as an individual consider something to be true based on your standards stated in the sentance above.
Everybody has a basis for what it takes to lead (compel) them to take the position that something is true. The standards you state regarding [popular crew approval that are able to show you proof acceptable by your] is what leads you to arrive at the conclusion that something is true. That is your personal basis of justification.
While you rummage around claiming [popular crew approval that are able to show you proof acceptable by your] means something is true, and therefore knowledge. This is not the case. The only factor in every case regarding every matter that you conclude to be true is that you found the material acceptable enought to compel you to take a position. All based on the scope of everything your subjective knowledge (belief).
There is no need for an observer for something to be true. Observers can only arrive at conclusions about what is true or not true. They may be correct or incorrect. You as an observer have your own set of criteria for compelling you to arrive at a conclusion that something is true. You as an observer will call that knowledge. You as an observer will consider knowledge to be anything you concluded to be true based on your criteria.
Everybody has a basis for what it takes to lead (compel) them to take the position that something is true. The standards you state regarding [popular crew approval that are able to show you proof acceptable by your] is what leads you to arrive at the conclusion that something is true. That is your personal basis of justification.
While you rummage around claiming [popular crew approval that are able to show you proof acceptable by your] means something is true, and therefore knowledge. This is not the case. The only factor in every case regarding every matter that you conclude to be true is that you found the material acceptable enought to compel you to take a position. All based on the scope of everything your subjective knowledge (belief).
There is no need for an observer for something to be true. Observers can only arrive at conclusions about what is true or not true. They may be correct or incorrect. You as an observer have your own set of criteria for compelling you to arrive at a conclusion that something is true. You as an observer will call that knowledge. You as an observer will consider knowledge to be anything you concluded to be true based on your criteria.
It just means you are claiming that in order for something to be true, it needs valid material reviewed and approved by the popular crew. IWO: Based on your scope of everything you conclude to be true, you as an individual consider something to be true based on your standards stated in the sentance above.
Everybody has a basis for what it takes to lead (compel) them to take the position that something is true. The standards you state regarding [popular crew approval that are able to show you proof acceptable by your] is what leads you to arrive at the conclusion that something is true. That is your personal basis of justification.
While you rummage around claiming [popular crew approval that are able to show you proof acceptable by your] means something is true, and therefore knowledge. This is not the case. The only factor in every case regarding every matter that you conclude to be true is that you found the material acceptable enought to compel you to take a position. All based on the scope of everything your subjective knowledge (belief).
There is no need for an observer for something to be true. Observers can only arrive at conclusions about what is true or not true. They may be correct or incorrect. You as an observer have your own set of criteria for compelling you to arrive at a conclusion that something is true. You as an observer will call that knowledge. You as an observer will consider knowledge to be anything you concluded to be true based on your criteria.
There are not two or more separate realities. If there are we can not see them. Interdimensional etc is unknown and unproveabale at this time.
What is reality is reality, so we can apply the standards of scientific inquiry to any claim, if it does not past the tests it is not valid from a consensus standpoint. It may be valid but has yet to be proven by the consensus to justify calling it knowledge.
An thanks for that, otherwise we would have nothing we could build on. Gasoline power cars could run without gas and arms would re-attach themselves via thought and of course the cars would not run and arms would not be re-attached.
It's because of those standards that it works. Without it, with your idea of whatever you conclude to be true in your own mind, it would cease to function.
As far as an observer goes, I have always agreed that the planet would still be here, volcanoes would erupt, etc etc with or without us, but then would never know they were occuring would we.