Does God Exist?

[lixluke]

I never said that there were 2 realities. You then continue to claim that you have interpreted the situation correctly. Something is true or false. That is one reality. The observer may conclude it is true. The observer may conclude it is false. Same reality. If observer's conclusion is correct, the observer has knowledge. If incorrect, the observer has misconception.

Regardless of standard used, it is nothing more than an observer arriving at a conclusion about reality.

 

[jpappl]

Lix,

"If observer's conclusion is correct, the observer has knowledge. If incorrect, the observer has misconception."

Bullshit.

Again, if you guess is it knowledge. You never answered any of my question just started in with the same nonsense.

Once again yes or no.

If you know something specific, and ask me a question pertaining to the specific known, and you give me 4 choices, I state " I do not know the answer" and you say guess. I guess and I get the answer correct.

DID I HAVE KNOWLEDGE ?

 

[lixluke]

Yes. What is important is that you believe something is true.

Realistically, if I tell you to gusss something, and you guess something. You mightbe right, but you might not necessarily believe it is true. I tell you to guess randomly, and you just say "B". OK, good, but do you really believe B is the right answer? Again, the point is not the method. What is relevant is that you arrived at the conclusion that something is true. You believe the apple is in your hand. If you are correct, you have knowledge.

In order to arrive to a conclusion that B is true, there has to be something compelling you to be in the state in which you really consider B to be true. This goes for everything you consider to be true.

It is likely that you may see an apple in your hand. You feel it, and smell it, etc. <--This is justification.
You then conclude that it is true that there is an apple in your hand. <--This is a conclusion that something is true.
A justification is anything that compels you to conclude something is true.

 

[jpappl]

Yes. What is important is that you believe something is true.

But in the scenario I painted, I already stated that I don't know the answer.

So lets try again. Because I want to make sure there is no misunderstanding.

I state "I do not know the answer"

You say, just guess.

If I guess the right answer, is that considered knowledge ?

 

[lixluke]

But in the scenario I painted, I already stated that I don't know the answer.

So lets try again. Because I want to make sure there is no misunderstanding.

I state "I do not know the answer"

You say, just guess.

If I guess the right answer, is that considered knowledge ?

In that case no then. When somebody uses the statement "I don't know" it simply means have not arrived at a conclusion regarding the matter. Knowledge is one of 2 possible states of belief. (The other is misconception.)

Justification is anything that compels the observer to arrive at a conclusion. What compels next man may not necessarily compel you. What compels you may not necessarily compel next man. Either way, what is relevant in any matter is your position. Whether or not you arrived at a conclusion on the matter. Everything that you have ever concluded to be true, you must claim as knowledge. Claim it common knowledge if you consider your position commonly accepted.

Is this not clear enough? You either arrive at a conclusion or you do not. Justification is anything that compels you to arrive at a conclusion.

If you have not concluded there is or isn't a God, it is only because you have not arrived at a conclusion on the matter. Cry about it all you want, whether you agree or not, there are people who have concluded there is a God, and who have concluded there is not a God. Their justification is anything that compelled them to arrive at the conclusion. You may consider their justification bollocks, and so are not compelled to take a position. Either way, there is no basis for proclaiming that these people have not arrived at a conclusion on the matter.

 

[jpappl]

In that case no then.

Whew. I was really worried there for a minute.

Justification is anything that compels the observer to arrive at a conclusion. What compels next man may not necessarily compel you. What compels you may not necessarily compel next man. Either way, what is relevant in any matter is your position. Whether or not you arrived at a conclusion on the matter. Everything that you have ever concluded to be true, you must claim as knowledge

I think we are finally getting somewhere. The above is more understandable as to why you keep using the term knowledge in your approach.

People have knowledge of things that can be gathered together to reach a probable conclusion of why they may choose an answer to a question. Those individual pieces of information can be knowledge in themselves.

But until the answer is known, it is still a belief.

So lets modify the previous example and question.

You ask me a question which I do not know the answer to. I state I do not know the answer. You say guess. I have knowledge of parts of the puzzle to arrive at a conclusion but not enough to know the final answer so although I might have some information to help me from my experiences I am not sure, I do not know, so my answer at best is still a guess, the guess has been narrowed.

If I guess at the right answer, and this is important, I want to avoid any misunderstanding.

Did I have knowledge of the final answer ? not of the pieces that helped me choose out of the distinct possibilities. But of the final answer.

 

[lixluke]

But until the answer is known, it is still a belief.

No. I have explained a million times that a belief is a conclusion that something is true. When your justification in whatever form compels you to conclude that something is true, that is your belief. You only have knowledge if your belief is correct. If you believe something that is incorrect, it is not knowledge.

Did I have knowledge of the final answer ? not of the pieces that helped me choose out of the distinct possibilities. But of the final answer.

What do you not get about being compelled to arrive at a conclusion that something is true? Whatever factor or criteria that compels the observer, the observer has either:
A. Arrived at a conclusion.
B. Not arrived at a conclusion.


There is no such thing as belief up until knowledge. Belief is always either knowledge or misconcpetion.

 

[jpappl]

Lix,

Let's try one last time.

Did I have knowledge of the final answer ?

Limit to Yes or No. Please.

 

[lixluke]

Lix,

Let's try one last time.

Did I have knowledge of the final answer ?

Limit to Yes or No. Please.

Let's try this again, I have stated many many times that you either arrive at a conclusion or not.

If you state that it is given that you have not arrived at a conclusion on the matter, what is the purpose of your question? Again, what don't you get about arriving at a conclusion? The observer either arrives at a conclusion or not.

What do you not get about being compelled to arrive at a conclusion that something is true? Whatever factor or criteria that compels the observer, the observer has either:
A. Arrived at a conclusion.
B. Not arrived at a conclusion.

 

[jpappl]

Can you answer the question Yes or No or not ?

 

[lixluke]

Can you answer the question Yes or No or not ?

I've posted the question many times, and you haven not answered. What is your issue? What do you not get about observer arriving to a conclusion?

If you state in advance that the observer has not arrived at a conclusion, what is the purpose of the question. All you do is repeat the same thing over and over without moving forward. Are you going to answer or provide explanation or not?

 

[jpappl]

I've posted the question many times, and you haven not answered.

WTF, I posted the question to you.

I also asked you a total of 7 times to answer A,B of C to your OP and you have yet to answer.

Can you answer it or not ?

Yes or No and while you at it, answer your own poll question for me.

It's not that hard.

 

[lixluke]

WTF, I posted the question to you.

I also asked you a total of 7 times to answer A,B of C to your OP and you have yet to answer.

Can you answer it or not ?

Yes or No and while you at it, answer your own poll question for me.

It's not that hard.

You have not stated a purpose. You have seen my explanation many times, and you ask questions as if you do not get what is being said. Why would state than an individual has not arrived at a conclusion, and then ask if I would consider it knowledge? What purpose do you have for continuing to go in circles.

1. Either somebody has arrived to a conclusion or not.
2. Either that conclusion is correct or incorrect.

Nothing else is in question when determining belief or knowledge. I have no reason to answer circular questions. Especially when you never state your intent. You cannot ask a question, and expect somebody to answer without stating any purpose or intent for anything. What is your purpose? What is your intent. What is it that you do not understand about the explanation?

 

[jpappl]

You are a coward.

 

[Sarkus]

Yes.

I'll stick with this answer - the rest of your response to me was neither asked for nor relevant.

Okay - moving on... you having now agreed that, according to you, if "1+1=2" is your justification for believing the grass is green, then, on the basis that the grass is indeed green (i.e. true in actuality) then you have knowledge.

Please correct me if I'm wrong?

What if someone says "I have no justification for believing the grass is green, but I believe the grass is green." Does this person have knowledge that the grass is green? Yes or no, please.

 

[lixluke]

I'll stick with this answer - the rest of your response to me was neither asked for nor relevant.

Okay - moving on... you having now agreed that, according to you, if "1+1=2" is your justification for believing the grass is green, then, on the basis that the grass is indeed green (i.e. true in actuality) then you have knowledge.

Please correct me if I'm wrong?

What if someone says "I have no justification for believing the grass is green, but I believe the grass is green." Does this person have knowledge that the grass is green? Yes or no, please.

As far as I can understand what you are saying, Yes.

I just want to make sure everybody is on the same page. If somebody has concluded that X is true, it doesn't matter what animal compelled that individual to arrive at that conclusion. The individual is in a state of belief that X is true. Got that so far?

If somebody has concluded that the grass is green, it does not matter what compelled him to the conclusion. Because the grass is green, and he is in the state of claiming that the grass is green, that person has knowledge.

You seem to be on the right track on what I am explaining. You seem to be putting more effort into understanding my explanation as opposed to throwing random comments around without stating intent or purpose. Others do not get this because their presumptions get in the way of discussion.

Typically, your scenario is not something that would lead somebody to conclude that the grass is green. However, if, hypthetically, that were the case, then everything follows accordng to how knowledge works. Anything else?

 

[Bricoleur]

lixluke,
I have a problem with your approach to the argument. That's putting it mildly.
If I went public with some great scientific discovery that seemed improbable (ie. against what the scientific community holds feasible) the obvious, and acceptable way forward is to prove it, validate the claim empirically. Provide the evidence.
To proceed in your way is to sit tight, holding the discovery as self-evident, and demand the scientific community prove it isn't the case. That's just plain arse-about.
To continue asserting that you know the said discovery to be true because you believe it, would have only one outcome. Laughed out of serious consideration, and taken for a crackpot. End of story.
Now cease with the ridiculous "prove me wrong" crap that's wasting electrons and deliver some watertight evidence.

 

[lixluke]

lixluke,
I have a problem with your approach to the argument. That's putting it mildly.
If I went public with some great scientific discovery that seemed improbable (ie. against what the scientific community holds feasible) the obvious, and acceptable way forward is to prove it, validate the claim empirically. Provide the evidence.
To proceed in your way is to sit tight, holding the discovery as self-evident, and demand the scientific community prove it isn't the case. That's just plain arse-about.
To continue asserting that you know the said discovery to be true because you believe it, would have only one outcome. Laughed out of serious consideration, and taken for a crackpot. End of story.
Now cease with the ridiculous "prove me wrong" crap that's wasting electrons and deliver some watertight evidence.

You are wrong because that is totally not what I am saying. I am saying howk knowledge works. You are throwing presumptions into what I am saying. A belief is anything you conclude to be true regardless if you used science or whatever method. If you conclude that X is true, you have the belief that X is true.

If you have a discovery, people will not likely accept it as true unless you prove it scientificaly. Proof/verification/evidence/justification is nothing more than anything that compels an individual to conclude/accept something as true. If however, an individual simply takes your word for it, and concludes X is true, it does not mean that the individual has not concluded something is true.

You discovered that X is true. In every case, a conclusion that something is true is based on the scope of everything you personally have concluded to be true. You show others your basis for arriving at your conclusion. Some might accept it, and agree. Others might not.

The only factor is that, by however means, you have concluded that X is true. If X is true, you have knowledge. If not, you have misconception. In the case of knowledge, it doesn't matter how you arrived at the conclusion. In the case of knowledge, the only things that are relevant is whether or not you arrived at a conclusion, and whether or not the conclusion is correct.

 

[Bricoleur]

You are wrong because that is totally not what I am saying. I am saying howk knowledge works. You are throwing presumptions into what I am saying. A belief is anything you conclude to be true regardless if you used science or whatever method. If you conclude that X is true, you have the belief that X is true.

If you have a discovery, people will not likely accept it as true unless you prove it scientificaly. Proof/verification/evidence/justification is nothing more than anything that compels an individual to conclude/accept something as true. If however, an individual simply takes your word for it, and concludes X is true, it does not mean that the individual has not concluded something is true.

You discovered that X is true. In every case, a conclusion that something is true is based on the scope of everything you personally have concluded to be true. You show others your basis for arriving at your conclusion. Some might accept it, and agree. Others might not.

The only factor is that, by however means, you have concluded that X is true. If X is true, you have knowledge. If not, you have misconception. In the case of knowledge, it doesn't matter how you arrived at the conclusion. In the case of knowledge, the only things that are relevant is whether or not you arrived at a conclusion, and whether or not the conclusion is correct.

Which has to be substantiated

 

[Hapsburg]

I cannot quite answer the thread question, as it assumes monotheism. However, the closest would be A, with emphasis on "To the best of my knowledge" rather than "God(s) exist(s)".