A lump. That's a new 1 for me.
Some of us can't help but to question knowledge & belief.
What if it bit off his ass?
1111
What exactly is atheism?
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
- Status
A lump. That's a new 1 for me.
Some of us can't help but to question knowledge & belief.
What if it bit off his ass?
1111
Absolutely absurd.
You seem to confuse truth & knowledge. Whatever is true, is true regardless of whether anyone knows, believes or guesses.
Reminds me of the stupid saying "A stopped clock is right twice a day.". Actually, a stopped clock is never right any more than a painting of a clock is right twice a day. If it's stopped, it's not measuring & showing the time. If someone sees a stopped clock showing 11:20 but otherwise doesn't know what time it is & it just happens to be 11:20 at that moment, he still doesn't know what time it is.
Whether a belief not based on evidence is true or not, it's not knowledge. Guesses are not knowledge, regardless of whether they happen to coincide with fact.
It also reminds me of "psychics" who make 200 predictions of which 23 come true. Getting 23 out of 200 isn't being correct 23 times. It's making enough guesses that some will come true but they're still guesses & guesses are not knowledge.
If you truly believe knowledge isn't based on evidence, there's no reason for anyone to participate in this with you. It's a useless futile frustrating farce.
1111
Last edited by a moderator:
Wrong. Knowledge is not based on evidence. Knowledge is only based on truth that is independent of observation. Regardless of any form of evidence, one cannot know something is true if in actuality, it is not true. Evidence is irrelevant as evidence does not make something true in actuality. Something is true in actuality regarless of existence of any observer, and regardless of any observer manifestation of any form of evidence. An observer's only has knowledge if his observation is true in actuality regardless of any form of evidence.
LOGIC HAS RULES
Truth exists independently of observation.
Any conclusion a person arrives to, is done so only within the parameters of that person’s understanding. The sum of each person’s understanding is strictly subjective to that person. Any form of “evidence, proof, or otherwise” that the person uses to arrive at a conclusion is within the parameters of that person’s understanding.
Everything outside of a person’s subjective parameters of understanding is all that a person has not come to a conclusion on. This does not include misconceptions. Anything that a person has come to conclusion on whether correct or incorrect is exists within the parameters of that person's understanding.
A conclusion of truth is a conclusion that something is true in actuality. A conclusion that something is true in actuality does not necessarily mean it is true in actuality.
The matter: “There is a God.”
1. Within the parameters of my understanding, I have concluded that this statement is true in actuality.
2. Within the parameters of my understanding, I have concluded that this statement is false in actuality.
3. This matter exists outside of the parameters of my understanding. I have arrived at no conclusion on the matter.
4. This matter exists outside of the understanding of all man. Thus, no man can arrive at a conclusion on the matter.
lixluke: do you know what the words: "contingent", "conclude", or "belief" mean?
Can you explain how you 'know', or don't know, what the "true" meaning of any of them is? How do you know they are words, for instance? Are there any 'clues', is there any evidence, etc?
But mostly, do you have conclusions (about this post), and can you relate them?
Or perhaps just assume that these words truly are words, even when nobody reads them? WTF does that mean, though?
Can you explain how you 'know', or don't know, what the "true" meaning of any of them is? How do you know they are words, for instance? Are there any 'clues', is there any evidence, etc?
But mostly, do you have conclusions (about this post), and can you relate them?
Or perhaps just assume that these words truly are words, even when nobody reads them? WTF does that mean, though?
Method of arriving to a conclusion is irrelevant of what the conclusion is, and how the conclusion relates to actual truth.
DIAGRAM EXPLANATION: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2095587&postcount=44
Blue represents everything the observer has not come to any conclusion on.
In the case of the existence of God, "I don't know" refers only to blue. Not to blue and red. Somebody who does not know whether or not God exists is simply stating that the matter is not included within the scope of the individual's conclusions represented by yellow.
Irrelevant. Cavliling.
This does sort of fly in the face of all accepted understandings and usages of "knowledge" - most of which are based on the "knowledge is a true and justified belief".
So not just true, which is what you claim, but the need for the belief to be JUSTIFIED.
One can only justify something with evidence.
Otherwise you just have a belief that happens to be true... which we call a GUESS.
Otherwise you would be claiming that people who win the lottery had knowledge that their numbers would come up (afterall, the belief they would win proved correct). This not only defies physics but ignores simple probability.
Hence for something to be considered knowledge it must be JUSTIFIED.
That question is NOT an epistemological question - or if you intend it to be then it is poorly phrased.
An epistemological question would be more like "Is it possible for one to know God?"
An "epistemological" question is, by definition, a question of / about knowledge.
Merely asking someone "Is there a God" does not suggest the question is concerning the epistemological nature of God but rather one of belief.
DIAGRAM EXPLANATION: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2095587&postcount=44
Blue represents everything the observer has not come to any conclusion on.
So Blue is atheism. Thanks.
Irrelevant. Caviling. You have yet to respond to the epistemological questions presented.
No it does not HAVE to be anything but true. In order for something to be knowledge, it only requirement is that it is true in actuality.
Blue is not atheism. Blue is everything that a particular observer has not arrived at a conclusion on. The observer does not know whether there is or isn't a God. Thus, there might be a God. There might not. Atheism implies godlessness which is noot "there might be a God".
Since you are asking for answers to an "epistemological question" you should probably start by posing one. Otherwise you will be unlikely to get an answer as noone can find such a question to answer.
Quote your source for this claim, please, as it flies in the face of 2,000 years of philosophical discourse that began with Plato's "knowledge is a justified true belief." You casually seem to discard the need to justify the belief in order for it to be considered knowledge.
Dear boy, before you reach too far up your pole of arrogance, I fear it is you who lacks the fundamental understanding of the terms you use. You offer no support for your claims other than previous posts you made. Poor.
And you have done a really bad job of it.
My mind hurts from reading your sentences, not from being overwhelmed with information but from having to re-arrange the words in my mind so that it resembles anything other than nonsense.
All irrelevant.
There is no method of measuring certainty. "I don't know" or "uncertainty" is not "having less thatn 100% certainty". This is impossible. Uncertainty is 0% certainty. Any form of certainty in either direction of true or not true is belief.
A person might feel he is 20% certain that God exists. This person can be said to be 80% certain that God does not exist.
There may not be quantifiable measurements of certainty, but there certainly are qualitative measurements like "I'm really, really sure" or "Well I'm pretty sure."
All absurd.
Being 20% certain of something is definitely not being 80% certain of the opposite.
Are you coming up with the most stupid absurd things just to freak people or what?
1111
Where on earth did I start discussing matters of certainty or not???
You seem to be answering questions that aren't asked, and refusing to answer the questions that are.
I get the feeling you are posting messages to improve your post-count more than for any other reason.
- Status