You know God exists. Now thats either true or its not. Your opinion matters.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

You've just left McDonalds clutching a bag with a Texas Stack and large fries. Fresh in your mind, the options you considered.

Put it anywhere you like on the spectrum. But do tell me where on the spectrum that it. Since that part of the spectrum covers a large majority of your day.

Outside of the fact that I don't go to McDonalds, were I to, what I ordered would stay in my short term memory for a day or so and thence evaporate. I don't consider that knowledge, but rather low value information soon to be discarded. From the previously linked post;



We get bombarded with all sorts of sensory information all the time, unless it has some value it doesn't really stick. That my hypothetical trip to the golden arches took place would constitute a rational belief if asked about it shortly after the event. I could probably evidence it with the receipt or even CCTV if sufficiently desperate. Rational beliefs can typically be evidenced.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

When we reject god, is that a choice on our behalf or not?

No.

A choice implies the ability to express will in two directions. I will for God or I will against God. Two options, two will positions.

The biblical position is that our will is nobbled. It is blind to God and therefore cannot choose for God. You cannot choose what you cannot detect.

And so a mechanism that deals with this. Whilst will for and will against something is the classic set up for choice, there is another set of two positions which can be used

Will neutral (doing nothing, not expressing)

Will against (will doing something)

Hence sitting and remaining sitting in a chair (will doing nothing in order to remain in that position). And will doing something and so, standing up from the chair.

2 positions available. 1 act of will

-If we are choosing to reject god, then our not believing in god is an action.

If we will to get out of the chair then the consequences of remaining in the chair won't be obtained.

You need to remove choice (in the classic "two directions for expression of will sense") from your descriptions

-If we have no choice in the rejection of god, then that rejection must be a result of what god is doing.

As you hopefully will see. Only one will expression need be involved. Gods work is to encourage us to remain seated (for if we remain seated we will arrive at end of self). He applies a certain pressure and restraint to hold us in the chair. But we are not forced to stay there. If we will, if we insist beyond the level if restraint he applies, then we can stand up.


I've to head out. I'll get back later.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You misunderstand, I wasn't asking a general philosophical question.
I was asking how do you, antiskeptic, know you, antiskeptic, know something if you, antiskeptic, can't prove it.

I was querying the idea that in order to know something you had to be able to prove it.

Hence my enquiring into all your sole observations - an infinite number of things a day, things that evidence themselves to you. None of which you can prove.

Beliefs?


I'm smiling to myself in the waiting room I believe I am sitting in. There's a sign on the wall which I believe I see. But to know there's a sign there I need to prove it. How do I do that?

Presumably I need the views of a certain amount of other people to concur with my view. Let's say it's four people.

So I've asked 4 other people whether they too see this sign. They do.

But wait, I've just proven there is a sign there using the correlating views of 4 people whose existence I need to prove first. For they are discerned using the precise same apparatus which believes it detects a sign. If I can be error about the sign, I can also be in error about them.

I can't know they exist until I have proven they exist. Just as for the sign.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Mark Hamill wrote: »

When we reject god, is that a choice on our behalf or not?

No.

Therefore god saving us is dependent on something entirely out of our control and completely in him, therefore 100% arbitrary.

The rest of your post is waffle and fallacious analogies. This is not standing up out of a chair. This is accepting god. And we do not choose to reject god. It is a result of god not choosing to save us (by not opening our eyes). So, 100% arbitrary.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

I was querying the idea that in order to know something you had to be able to prove it.

Hence my enquiring into all your sole observations - an infinite number of things a day, things that evidence themselves to you. None of which you can prove.

Beliefs?

If by 'know' you mean hold a rational belief, assuming you hold the belief it then becomes a matter of whether that belief is rational. If it is unevidenced, but it is relates to a commonly occurring event for most of the population, I'd think it rational.

Say you stubbed your toe. Most people have stubbed their toes on multiple occasions throughout the course of their lives and report a broadly similar experience within a given range. Your experience lies within the normal range of similar experience so doesn't demand specific evidence for it to appear rational.

Now say you come into contact with a deity as you claim. Most people haven't come into contact with a deity so your experience is abnormal and thus demands additional supporting evidence to be considered rational.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

I was querying the idea that in order to know something you had to be able to prove it.

Hence my enquiring into all your sole observations - an infinite number of things a day, things that evidence themselves to you. None of which you can prove.

Beliefs?

And I was asking you a direct question, how about you answer one for once?
How do you, antiskeptic, know you, antiskeptic, know something if you, antiskeptic, can't prove it.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Therefore god saving us is dependent on something entirely out of our control and completely in him, therefore 100% arbitrary.

The rest of your post is waffle and fallacious analogies. This is not standing up out of a chair. This is accepting god. And we do not choose to reject god. It is a result of god not choosing to save us (by not opening our eyes). So, 100% arbitrary.

It would help your case if you worked your way down the post and stopped at the first line you disagree with.

Then we could find out whether you are just baling out. Or whether waffle and fallacious. Any old fool can pull that stunt out if the bag.

Refusing to do so is your perogative though.

Draw whatever conclusion you like on a bale out, it matters not to me.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And I was asking you a direct question, how about you answer one for once?
How do you, antiskeptic, know you, antiskeptic, know something if you, antiskeptic, can't prove it.

And I answered. I don't accept the premise that you have to prove something to know something.

And I asked you the same thing. I've set you in a scenario, asked whether belief or knowledge is your position regarding that scenario.

I want to know if you accept your own premise.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

If by 'know' you mean hold a rational belief,

By 'know' I mean what has been said it means here. It is belief until proven.

assuming you hold the belief it then becomes a matter of whether that belief is rational. If it is unevidenced, but it is relates to a commonly occurring event for most of the population, I'd think it rational.

From whence that arbitrary definition of rationality?

Say you stubbed your toe. Most people have stubbed their toes on multiple occasions throughout the course of their lives and report a broadly similar experience within a given range. Your experience lies within the normal range of similar experience so doesn't demand specific evidence for it to appear rational.

I'm not interested in what appears rational to other people. I'm interested what appears rational to me.

A primitive tribesman sees a flying man over his remote island. The man is waving to him (we call it a plane). The tribesman appears irrational when he reports back. Uncommon occurance.

Is he being irrational? Clearly not. A plane flew overhead amd a man waved at him. That he appears irrational to others changes nothing.

Now say you come into contact with a deity as you claim. Most people haven't come into contact with a deity so your experience is abnormal and thus demands additional supporting evidence to be considered rational.

Again, the mixing unto bait and switch. I'm not concerned with what you think about what I say. I'm asking what I should think.

The tribesman should 'believe' he saw a man flying .. because he can't prove it. That should be his position?

As I say, an arbitrary line in the sand being drawn here. Common lone view = consider yourself rational. Uncommon lone view = consider yourself irrational.

This sounds utterly make it up as you go along..

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

It would help your case if you worked your way down the post and stopped at the first line you disagree with.

Then we could find out whether you are just baling out. Or whether waffle and fallacious. Any old fool can pull that stunt out if the bag.

Refusing to do so is your perogative though.

Draw whatever conclusion you like on a bale out, it matters not to me.

I read the whole post and what I quoted was all that was relevant. To repeat:

antiskeptic wrote: »

Mark Hamill wrote: »

When we reject god, is that a choice on our behalf or not?

No.

Therefore god saving us is dependent on something entirely out of our control and completely in him, therefore 100% arbitrary.

The rest of your post is waffle and fallacious analogies. This is not standing up out of a chair. This is accepting god. And we do not choose to reject god. It is a result of god not choosing to save us (by not opening our eyes). So, 100% arbitrary.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

And I answered. I don't accept the premise that you have to prove something to know something.

So how do you know that you know it?

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I read the whole post and what I quoted was all that was relevant. To repeat:

I recall Richard Dawkins saying "I believe in God". I could say that all that is relevant and cite him as a convert. Such quote mining wouldn't be accepted.

And so I don't accept your assessment. Hence the suggestion that you take the first line of the argument you disagree with and we can assess relevancy.

But if you prefer quote mining then fire away.

Next!

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

I recall Richard Dawkins saying "I believe in God". I could say that all that is relevant and cite him as a convert. Such quote mining wouldn't be accepted.

And so I don't accept your assessment. Hence the suggestion that you take the first line of the argument you disagree with and we can assess relevancy.

But if you prefer quote mining then fire away.

Next!

It's not quote mining, as I am not taking you out of context.

I disagree with your whole argument. This is about accepting god. If not accepting god can only be a result of something we do not choose then it is only as a result of something god chooses. Instead of making up more and more analogies, try directly responding to that problem. If god and only god decides if we are to believe in him, then that is a 100% arbitrary decision.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So how do you know that you know it?

Self assessment. Its how anyone knows anything ultimately.

Don't believe me? Then try show me how you know anything that isn't based, ultimately, on self assessment.

So. Tell me something you know and we can quick fire our way down the chain to self assessment

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

By 'know' I mean what has been said it means here. It is belief until proven.

Perhaps you could point out a standard definition of 'know' which reads 'belief until proven'. I'd go with 'be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information' or 'to have knowledge of'.

I'm not interested in what appears rational to other people. I'm interested what appears rational to me.

Clearly. Which is by definition a subjective notion.

A primitive tribesman sees a flying man over his remote island. The man is waving to him (we call it a plane). The tribesman appears irrational when he reports back. Uncommon occurance.

Is he being irrational? Clearly not. A plane flew overhead amd a man waved at him. That he appears irrational to others changes nothing.

Again, the mixing unto bait and switch. I'm not concerned with what you think about what I say. I'm asking what I should think.

The tribesman should 'believe' he saw a man flying .. because he can't prove it. That should be his position?

Human knowledge is dynamic. At a time before basic geodesy was understood, most people thought the world was flat and this was a rational belief. Believing the world to be flat today is an irrational belief as there is ample contrary evidence.

You hypothetical tribesman does indeed appear irrational to his comrades until other people see the plane at which point the evidence suggests otherwise. An actual real world example is that there are plenty of people out there that swear they've had close encounters of the third kind and most people would consider those assertions irrational.

Maybe the little green men will drop in to say hi at some point and these people will be vindicated. Maybe your god will turn a few dodgy atheists into pillars of salt. Until such time as these things happen I'll consider all unevidenced claims in these regards as irrational.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Perhaps you could point out a standard definition of 'know' which reads 'belief until proven'.

Mark. You reading this?

I'd go with 'be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information' or 'to have knowledge of'.

Fair enough. No exclusion of sole observation there though. So this definition might not be of use. We see this quite quickly..

Clearly. Which is by definition a subjective notion.

... the problem crops up. Subjective knowledge?

Human knowledge is dynamic. At a time before basic geodesy was understood, most people thought the world was flat and this was a rational belief.

The belief being rational doesn't depend on many sharing it. If the world gave evidence of being flat to one, then the belief was rational to that one. If to many, to many.

We now have a problematic definition of knowledge (subjective knowledge?). And another term: rational belief.

In your view, was the view (whether of the many or of one) that the earth was flat knowledge?

If not and only rational belief (if different to knowledge), what is knowledge? Bear in mind our current view is subject to being changed. A bit of space time curvature and the world will be square.

The hypothetical tribesman does indeed appear irrational to his comrades until other people see the plane at which point the evidence suggests otherwise.

Appears to others. But is not in fact.

Does he know?

An actual real world example is that there are plenty of people out there that swear they've had close encounters of the third kind and most people would consider those assertions irrational.

The tribesman is rational, the UFO spotters perhaps not. The question isn't what other people think. Its how a person decides for themselves that they are seeing whats there or not.

Until such time as these things happen I'll consider all unevidenced claims in these regards as irrational.

No problem. In the case of a fellow tribesman telling you about flying, waving men you would be incorrect in your considerations. But your are entitled to hold even incorrect views.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It's not quote mining, as I am not taking you out of context.

I disagree with your whole argument.

Yet you are not able to walk through it line by line to find out where it goes wrong?

Assert without evidence / dismissed without evidence springs to mind.

I thereby dismiss your disagreement. Its all piffle and waffle.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Self assessment. Its how anyone knows anything ultimately.

I'd say the reverse is true more often than not.

Don't believe me? Then try show me how you know anything that isn't based, ultimately, on self assessment.

Martial arts was my obsession when I was a bit younger. I competed at European level, picked up some medals and at one point I thought I was pretty good. The 2002 finals in St Petersburg dispelled that illusion as I got chucked around the place like a rag doll by somebody who actually was that good. Empirical testing is needed. We don't allow students to self asses, we examine them, and for good reason. Self belief is not truth and self assessment is prone to lead to self delusion.

One useful understanding of quality has been summed up as 'Say what you do. Do what you say. Be able to prove it'.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

I'd say the reverse is true more often than not.

So, pick something you know and let's see how it traces back to self assessment.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

So, pick something you know and let's see how it traces back to self assessment.

Ok. I know that a geodetic network that I helped develop for a client today is robust and fit for purpose.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Ok. I know that a geodetic network that I helped develop for a client today is robust and fit for purpose.

You start with I. Before we go further, is there a working defintion to be had regarding a key I-related item?


SUBJECTIVE 1 (suggestions discussed thus far have been):

Arising from our personal feeling / emotional departments. From where views, opinions, beliefs that don't necessarily reflect reality. These could reflect reality, but not neccessarily

[e.g. I can hold a view that God exists, but that might not be the reality

I (3rd century proto-scientist) have the gut sense that the world might be round, not flat.]



SUBJECTIVE 2

- a lone observation (arising from any and/or all of our departments).

Regarding S2, we have to decide what to call conclusions arising from observations made by our total being (all departments). Do our conclusions neccessarily reflect reality or do they not?

If 'not/not neccessarily' then that has a consequence.

If necessarily then that has a different consequence.


What do you think?

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

You start with I. Before we go further, is there a working defintion to be had regarding a key I-related item?


SUBJECTIVE 1 (suggestions discussed thus far have been):

Arising from our personal feeling / emotional departments. From where views, opinions, beliefs that don't necessarily reflect reality. These could reflect reality, but not neccessarily

[e.g. I can hold a view that God exists, but that might not be the reality

I (3rd century proto-scientist) have the gut sense that the world might be round, not flat.]



SUBJECTIVE 2

- a lone observation (arising from any and/or all of our departments).

Regarding S2, we have to decide what to call conclusions arising from observations made by our total being (all departments). Do our conclusions neccessarily reflect reality or do they not?

If 'not/not neccessarily' then that has a consequence.

If necessarily then that has a different consequence.


What do you think?

You asked for an example of something I know, the above are unconfirmed suspicions and beliefs. Subjective belief is not knowledge. For example, your proto-scientist suspected the world was round (gut sense), she then may have followed up her gut feeling by looking for evidence to support her gut feeling. Now if she had been a proto-priest rather than a proto-scientist, she could have simply declared the world round and ordered that anyone who said different be burnt at the stake for heresy. :P

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

You asked for an example of something I know, the above are unconfirmed suspicions and beliefs. Subjective belief is not knowledge. For example, your proto-scientist suspected the world was round (gut sense), she then may have followed up her gut feeling by looking for evidence to support her gut feeling. Now if she had been a proto-priest rather than a proto-scientist, she could have simply declared the world round and ordered that anyone who said different be burnt at the stake for heresy. :P

You were asked to partake in defining our terms. I'm not commandeering the space, just trying to agree our terms and making suggestions.

You can make your own suggestions if you don't agree with mine.

But saying what subjective isn't, using another word which has yet to be defined doesn't tell us what subjective is. Anymore than telling someone a car isn't a donkey tells them anything about what a car is.

We will, of course, need to define knowledge. And probably objective. And perhaps other things. But since you start with "I"we might as well unpack that. "I" sits at the centre of subjective afterall.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not commandeering the space, just trying to agree our terms and making suggestions.

Still waiting on how the example I provide of something I know traces back to self assessment, as per your assertion. You might want to deal with that before hoofing off on another tangent.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Still waiting on how the example I provide of something I know traces back to self assessment, as per your assertion. You might want to deal with that before hoofing off on another tangent.

Self-assessment appears to rely on self. And self suggests subjective. You would imagine it necessary we agree what subjective is.

Little point in tracing if you aren't in agreement about the definition of the building blocks being used. We'd immediately hit disagreement.

Tangential is off the point. Definition of building blocks is on point.

Whenever the topic of examining subjective comes up you go all evasive. Leaving the thread and the like. Its like you see where things are going and don't like what you see.

No doubt and immediate circling back of the wagons into 'delusion', relying as you do on a definition of subjective never elaborated upon.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Self-assessment appears to rely on self. And self suggests subjective. You would imagine it necessary we agree what subjective is.

Little point in tracing if you aren't in agreement about the definition of the building blocks being used. We'd immediately hit disagreement.

Tangential is off the point. Definition of building blocks is on point.

Whenever the topic of examining subjective comes up you go all evasive. Leaving the thread and the like. Its like you see where things are going and don't like what you see.

No doubt and immediate circling back of the wagons into 'delusion', relying as you do on a definition of subjective never elaborated upon.

I'm not disputing self-assessment is subjective though. I'm categorically rejecting your previous assertion (below) that self assessment is how we come to know things, and have provided a couple of real world example of this.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Self assessment. Its how anyone knows anything ultimately.

We come to know things, i.e. gain knowledge, primarily through observation, investigation and testing. This is what separates knowledge (as in rational belief) from speculation or even delusion.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

I'm not disputing self-assessment is subjective though. I'm categorically rejecting your previous assertion (below) that self assessment is how we come to know things, and have provided a couple of real world example of this.



We come to know things, i.e. gain knowledge, primarily through observation, investigation and testing. This is what separates knowledge (as in rational belief) from speculation or even delusion.

You don't dispute self assessment is subjective. But until we define subjective you are saying nothing.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

But our tribesmans rational belief about a flying man would qualify as knowledge by that measure.

I provided you with some concrete real life examples that refute your specious assertion. How about dealing with those rather than faffing about with hypothetical tribesman, hypothetical flying men and unevidenced deities?

I see no point building increasingly convoluted arguments on a non-existent base.

robindch

smacl wrote: »

I see no point building increasingly convoluted arguments on a non-existent base.

What else constitutes the majority of religious disputation?

Old Omar had a few words to say on that:

Rubaiyat wrote:

Myself when young did eagerly frequent
doctor and saint, and heard great argument
about it and about: but evermore
came out by the same door as in I went.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

I provided you with some concrete real life examples that refute your specious assertion. How about dealing with those rather than faffing about with hypothetical tribesman, hypothetical flying men and unevidenced deities?

I see no point building increasingly convoluted arguments on a non-existent base.

And I don't see much point in a discussion using terms with no definition. Imagine attempting to build a building using drawings wherein the units of measurement haven't been first defined.