X is possible has no relevance to anything epistemologically. X abides by 2 possibilities. 1. True 2. False Consider the following statements: "X may or may not be true." "X may or may not be false." "It is possible for X to be true." "It is possible for X to be false." "I acknowledge that X can be true or false." Wow. Woopty doo. Good for you. All of these statements have no functional relevance. Take the tetralemma: 1. X is true. 2. X is false. 3. X is both true and false. 4. X is neither true or false. The only possibiliteis are true and false. This is not in question regardless of belief. This is a logical fundemental. This is why there is no functional relevance to the statement: "I beleive X, but I am open to being wrong." or "I believe X, but I acknowledge the possiblity that I am wrong." The reason is, there is no such thing as concluding X to be true, and not acknowledging that X can only possibly be true or false. Such statements hold no relevance in any matter. If you conclude X is true. If you are presented with anything that compells you to conclude that X is false. You must switch to the antithesis view. You have no choice in the matter. This is called a realization. You completely believed something was true. You realized you were wrong. Now you believe it is false. The only things that hole functional relevance are: 1. I arrived at conclusion X is true. 2. I arrived at conclusion X is false. = I have arrived at conclusion not-X is true. 3. I have not arrived at conclusion.
That one has not arrived at a conclusion is a good enough answer for nearly everybody. It is not as if he does not exist. If this is so then well, he wouldn't exist. This is hamsters point. And using knowledge to back us up (epistemology) we declare that it is very difficult to settle an issue as 100% certain without knowing for sure if something that we are missing in the puzzle already is unware to us. That we do not even know what God is. This appears the most appropriate answer to me. Maybe he does exist "but" I don't know. IMO it gets confusing but usually rests within the person. Sorry by the way - post quality. I am dead tired here.
So you would go for C? BTW, choosing A or B does not mean you are not open to being wrong as it is impossible in any case scenario to not be open to being wrong.
Like I said man. He might exist. Unfortunately, that is all that I know. I was hoping you would come at me with that post, and tell me how he might not.
X must either be true or false. Consider the statement "God does exist": -True -False Then somebody response. "IMO, it may be true or false that God exists." There is no actual relevant funtion to that statement. If in the case somebody concludes that X is true. If that person later finds out that X is false. Then, that person has no choice but to abide by the conclusion that X is false.
Panama City is nice though. That is "most" of what I know. The location is okay but it does not tell me that god does not exist as I am more theistic. Instead I have an awareness of possibility within the range of more theistic, according to you (not having refreshed the page) this is a don't know category. For christs sake though. I actually believe in other alterinatives like what draqon said. I liked that honestly I may have to get my handy dandy thinking cap out. But yeah if your moving to panama there may be a god... Oh no wooooo
Irrelevant. People only have 3 possible choices. -Conclusion that it is true. -Conclusion that it is false. -No conclusion on the matter. Proof in any form or no form of proof irrelevant. What is your point?
or alternatively ..... Whether you believe isn't important because God's here. It's the only way God makes sense. We can find evidence of His existence, we have to rely on reliable ancient texts, without which the world is a fucking mess, and God wouldn't make anything imperfect would he? You'd have to initially believe God actually talked to ancient scribes, and is also equally capable of communicating to any one nowadays who follows in their footsteps. The alternative is to believe things like man and ape shared a common ancestor. There is a lot of other shit one has to believe or accept if you take a disliking to a god. It isn't all going to work and paying your bills.
Lix, "Irrelevant. People only have 3 possible choices. -Conclusion that it is true. -Conclusion that it is false. -No conclusion on the matter." Oh, so I only have 3 choices ? Really. "Proof in any form or no form of proof irrelevant. What is your point?" My point is that any belief in god or lack of belief in god is ultimately unproveable and therefore is a belief. There can be no knowledge about the existence of god because there is no way to apply any evidence and thus justification for the existence of god. Even if one had a personal experience they can not prove it to anyone else. There is no justification for the belief to be considered knowledge. You can't make it that simple. For example, take your choice B. Which you have butchered the use of belief and put it in the same category as knowledge. "God does not exist. (I believe that God does not exist)." These are different. One claims knowledge, the other only belief. I would not say "God does not exist". I would however say that "I believe that God does not exist", they are not the same. There is a subtle difference but it is important. One begs the question, "prove it" the other simply states a belief which does not imply proof is needed because the very statement "I believe" is not saying "I know" Do you not understand this ? If I say I believe it is an indication of what I have come to believe, but I am not saying I know. Simple as that.
This is a stupid question in my opinion, OF COURSE God exists. Now whether he, or maybe even it, is like the JudeoChristian God, an all loving, omniscient, omnipotent old white guy chilling on a cloud judging your every thought and action is where I draw the line. God is more like the spiritual energy of the universe, the reason \(e^{i \pi} + 1 = 0\), which has to exist because we exist, he/it created the universe so that we could exist and get to know and learn about him/it, and marvel at his grand and beautiful creation. Like Carl Sagan said, "We are the Univere's way of knowing itself." Without us, it would be meaningless, like Salvador Dalí painting the Persistence of Memory and keeping it all to himself, never letting it's artistic beauty be revealed.
That is not correct. A belief is a conclusion that something is true. If you conclude that there is a God, you have belief that there is a God. If you are correct, it is knowledge. If you are incorrect, it is misconception. Your ability to demonstrate your conclusion has no effect on 2 things: 1. It has no effect on the fact that you concluded there is a God. 2. It has no effect on the fact that there is a God. Or the fact that there is not a God. There is no purpose for stating I believe X, but I cannot prove it. What does this functionally mean? Are you claiming that X is true, but cannot demonstrate it? Are you claiming that you have not arrived to a conclusion that X is true or false, but you like true better? It follows no logical validity. This is not how knowledge works. I am not over simplifying anything. I am stating logical fact. You have 2 choices in every matter you can possible think of. 1. Arrive at conclusion. 2. Not arrive at conclusion. If #1, then you have 2 possibilities. 1. X is true. 2. X is false. (Not-X is true) This description is in no way an over simplification, but a necessity. See post above: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2110100&postcount=41 Here is another example: FIGURE 1 -Y is true. (Truth in actuality.) -Observer concludes that X is true. (Belief) =Misconception. FIGURE 2 -X is true. (Truth in actuality.) -Observer concludes that X is true. (Belief) =Knowledge. FIGURE 1 EXAMPLE -Rabbit is in your hand. (Truth in actuality.) -Observer concludes that apple is in your hand. (Belief) =Misconception. FIGURE 2 EXAMPLE -Rabbit is in your hand. (Truth in actuality.) -Observer concludes that rabbit is in your hand. (Belief) =Knowledge. In all cases the following are the same: 1. The fact that you can or cannot demonstrate something to others does not make it true or false. 2. The fact that you can or cannot demonstrate something to others does not change the fact that you arrived at a conclusion. 3. If you have not arrived at a conclusion, there is nothing else within the logical function of the matter at hand to describe you. CONSIDER WHAT YOU ARE SAYING: I cannot demonstrate X. Thus, I have not arrived to a conclusion about the matter of X being true or false. I do however lean towards X being true. Is that what you're saying? I am not saying that people do not have such types of characteristic, but there is ultimately no reason or method to represent this in logic. It is not a position in any matter. This holds no weight in any topic. There is no reason for any "ism" or label to be attributed to something that isn't a position. It really isn't anything.
just wanted to add the painting, it's so amazing, read my post then imagine Dalí painting this, and then burning it without showing it to no one. It would be meaningless, and a shame... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The only reason anybody would abide by any other format is because of the fundamental fallacy/realization fallacy. Fundemental Fallacy states that: 1. If a person has arrived at a definite conclusion that X is true, then it is impossible for the person to ever realize that X is false. 2. If it is possible for a person to realize that X is false, the person has not arrived at a definite conclusion that X is true.
Lix, "CONSIDER WHAT YOU ARE SAYING: I cannot demonstrate X. Thus, I have not arrived to a conclusion about the matter of X being true or false. I do however lean towards X being true. Is that what you're saying?" Yes, this is more realistic to how people really think, it is not always black and white until the evidence becomes stronger one way or the other. "I am not saying that people do not have such types of characteristic, but there is ultimately reason or method to represent this in logic" That is where the evidence gathering to the best of our abilities either strengthens or lessens the belief, yet it is still a belief because there is not enough to justify calling it knowledge, (ie I know, I can prove it) "This holds no weight in any topic." It does with the topic of God. Since the topic is not proveable at this point, it holds a lot of weight. If you believe that A or B holds weight simply because you are declaring a either/or position than try to prove it. There are many topics that people have very strong beliefs but can't claim to know, many are trying to prove those things right now so they can get to that stronger position of I know (knowledge) or I was wrong (misconception). If you can agree to this than I think you are seeing more of the big picture and that we are not always capable of putting things in nice little neat organized boxes. Ever try to pack and move ? Bet you had boxes that you marked miscellaneous.
Sheesh. Where to start... Your definitions are confusing, to begin with: "To my knowledge, God does not exist" does not really equate to "I believe that God does not exist". You also seem to think that option C excludes you from option A and B. It doesn't. The default position when one has zero evidence is to work on the basis of non-existence, until such time as evidence presents itself. (I defy you to think of an example where this is not so). But this default position is not the same as having the belief that it doesn't exist. It is a position of agnosticism - through dint of no personal knowledge, not necessarily because you consider it to be unknowable. So - because I have zero knowledge of God, my default position is that God does not exist - but I do not have the belief that God does not exist - I merely have no knowledge with which to believe he does. Therefore... "to my knowledge" (i.e. none) - God does not exist. So I would be option C and B. But I do not have the belief that God does not exist. And as JamesR stated earlier, it is possible to not "know" of something and yet believe in it's existence. This is also where you come up short, and thus confuse your entire position... Knowledge is considered as "a justified true belief". You seem to understand the need for the belief to be true. You fail miserably on what it is for it to be "justified". Justification is NOT merely a method at arriving at a conclusion. Justification needs to be rational (and logical). Thus a guess is NOT justification. And claiming that the sun is hot because today is Thursday is NOT justification for why the sun is hot. Your understanding of "knowledge" can only ever lead to the claimant making a claim of knowledge. For it to be truly "knowledge", the justification has to be rational and logical, as well as the claim being true in actuality. So please understand this. "Justification" is NOT merely how someone arrives at a conclusion, but a method that is rational and logical. They are not saying that they haven't merely arrived at a conclusion, they are saying that they personally have zero knowledge of the matter in hand. This is also agnosticism. They do not go as far as saying that knowledge is impossible - which is your understanding of agnosticism. Your opening post assumes certain definitions that are not widely accepted. You seem to assume that atheism = strong-atheism only, i.e. only those that have the belief that god does not exist. You seem to assume agnosticism = strong-agnosticism only, i.e. that knowledge is impossible. I would certainly urge you to expand your understanding of such matters. Wikipedia is a useful start. Maybe you're carrying both. Not necessarily. IF the observer concludes the rabbit is in your hand because he can see it, and has previous experience of what a rabbit is etc - and can JUSTIFY why he thinks it is a rabbit in the hand... THEN he has knowledge. IF, however, the observer concludes the rabbit is in your hand because it is raining outside, and this is his rationale for making the conclusion, then this IS NOT KNOWLEDGE, as the conclusion is not rationally or logically JUSTIFIED. You singularly fail to see this difference, and why your whole "knowledge = belief that is true in actuality" is flawed.
This is incorrect. For starteres, there can only be 2 possibilities in any matter. It is not an over simplification. It is just how it is. Whether it is existence of God or any matter. Believe X is true or don't know. IOW - Conclude X is true or inconclusion. This is for every single question and matter. Next is presuming what matter is provable, and what is not. Again, this is a belief. If somebody believes something is not provable, it only means that they arrived to the conclusion that a matter is not provable. This likely means that the individual has not arrived to a conclusion on the matter. While others for whatever reason might have arrived on conclusion on the matter at hand. They may conclude that the matter is provable or not. Either way, it holds no relevance. You either arrive at a conclusion or you don't. If you have not arrived at a conclusion on whether or not God exists If you conclude that no man can have knowledge about whether or not God exists. Then, you fall under agnosticism. Your claims about how people think are not claims about possible positions on a matter. You then procede to use the term "evidence", but under what preumption? -A person using scientific method to conclude that X is true can be considered evidence. -A person having a dream to conclude X is true can be considered evidence. Evidence, justification, verification, proof, etc. can all mean anything under the sun. If evidence becomes stronger, than it is knowledge? Absolutely incorrect. If you have not arrived at a conclusion on a matter, whatever it is that becomes strong enough to compell you to arrive at a conclusion on the matter abides by criteria: 1. It only compells you to arrive at a conclusion that the matter is true. (This is belief.) 2. It does not make the matter necessarily true. Despite your conclusion that the matter is true, the matter may be true or false. There is no such thing as a topic that one concludes to be true, but cannot claim to know. If there are many topics in which people have not arrived to a conclusion on, that is fine. That is all that matters in that case. All matters whether it's Santa Clause, God, or an apple right in your hand abide by the exact same format described. Either you arrived to a conclusion on the matter or not. Whatever it is that you claim as evidence/proof/justification/verification is solely your descretion. Go ahead, and use the utmost descretion and scrutiny before arriving at a conclusion. Either way, a conclusion that something is true is a belief. There are many topics in which people are trying to arrive at a conclusion. All using whatever it is they consider to be evidence/proof/justification/verification. Good for them. You are claiming that they have knowledge if they use "evidence" to arrive at a conclusion. This is not possible, and can never be possible. What they have when they use whatever form of evidence is compelling for them is a conclusion about a matter. It is a belief. It is a claim of knowledge. It is not necessarily knowledge. Just becuase somebody uses evidence/proof/justification/verification to arrive at a conclusion, it means they have knowledge? This is impossible becuase every conclusion anybody arrives at (whether they believe in the Tooth Fairy or whatever) is based on some form of what they consider to be evidence/proof/justification/verification.
This is a misconception. And no, Wikipedia is not a start. Garbage articles on the matter are not an option. Starting with justification/evidence/verification/proof or whatever you want to call it. Your description is incorrect. JUSTIFICATION: Anything that the individual deems as a basis for compelling him to arrive at a conclusion on a matter. Whatever it is that the individual deems his basis (justification), it does not make the conclusion correct. It only means that the individual believes his concluison to be correct.
