Agnostic Theism?

Again, so an atheist can know that God exist even though he doesn't believe that God exist? So it's possible that right now you know that God exist?

 

If belief is a result of, not a prerequisite for, knowing, then nobody suggested your above proposal. On the other hand, is this what you're proposing?

That anyone can form a belief about God's existence, without even knowing what God is? That it's possible for babies, or anyone else who has never heard of God, to believe that God does, or doesn't, exist? That it'd be possible for you to form a belief about X, without knowing what X is, first?

X = ?

Show me how you can form a belief about X. I'll tell you what X =, after you've formed your belief.


Peace

 

If belief is, as you put it, the result of knowing, then belief is not a necessary condition of knowledge. Thus, an atheist can know that God exist eventhough he doesn't believe it. This follows logically from what you're saying. One can know X without believing X. In this case X is the propostion "God exist."

But let's set the record straight: Can one know X without believing X? If so, how do you escape what logically follows, namely, that an atheist can know X (that God exist) without believing X (that God exist)?

Or perhaps he does know what God is, he just doesn't have any beliefs about what God is. Again, it follows logically from what you're affirming since one may very well know X (what God is) without having beliefs about X (what God is). So given what you've affirmed, it is possible for an atheist to know both what God is, and that God exist, eventhough he has no beliefs about such. Futhermore, it is possible for an atheist to know that theological non-cognitivism is false, eventhough he doesn't believe such to be the case.

Yes, given what you say that is. It is possible for you to know all manner of things without having any beliefs about them.

 

You're equating X to (God exists). We have to assume that things can exist, to even debate God's existence. The truth, about whether things can or can't exist, isn't part of that particular debate. It is about whether a specific being exists. Existence, in the equation, is a given. It is God, that's not a given. So, the question, IMO, should be...does X (God) exist? Not...does X (God exist)?

X = ?

You did not show me how you can form a belief about whether X is true, or false, without knowing what X is.

If X is true, then I'll name the formula Theos (God). If X is false, then I'll name the formula Atheos (No God). (Formula Name) exists.

Please, show me how you can form a belief about X.


Peace

 

Yes, I'm equating "X" to a proposition, and we are talking about propositional knowledge. This is why you saw statements like "S knows that p" When I say "knows X" it's shorthand for "knows that p" and it's less intimidating.

But it really doesn't matter, I mean are you now denying that one can know the proposition "God exist" without believing it? If so, why? I thought you said one can know without believing? If not though, then it matters not what X represents here. Whatever it is, one can know it without believing it, according to you.

No, we must have beliefs about things existing. But this is irrelevant because according to your view, one can both know that things do exist, and that God exist without having any beliefs about such. Right?

But that really doesn't matter. One need not have beliefs about X in order to know X.

"God" is not a proposition, so it makes no sense to say that "S knows that God." S knows that God what? "God exist" is a proposition and , according to you, it is possible that one know that God exist, eventhough he doesn't believe it.

At best you have no beliefs about God, but it matters not; you may very know what God is, without having beliefs about such. Did you not say that one can know without believing? That knowledge is not a special case of belief?

But it is possible that you DO know what X is, given your view. All you're expressing is that you have no BELIEFS about X, but so what? As you yourself affirm, belief isn't a prerequisite for knowledge, thus, that you have no beliefs about what X is does not in any way mean that you don't know what X is.

Why, now, do you keep reverting back to belief? It's not necessary for knowledge right? So who cares what one believes, it has nothing to do with what they know. You can fomulate all sorts of theories and call them ho theos, ton theon, tou thoeu, theo, or whatever other Greek cases of theos you want, but in the end, it has nothing do with what you know, according to your view.

 

A god may exist. [from deductive logic, not religion]

But, as we are positioned in the back lot of a low rent area of the siderial universe.
And we are but small children of the scale of rational species.
We cant yet make any claim to 'knowing' any verification of such a 'god/s'

So all this arguement is what we do to entertain ourselves with other like minded individuals over a bourbon or 5.

An inyeresting topic..
More time however could be spent in undermining the psychosis of religion.
Religion says. 'give me a child of 7 and i will show you the man'
Rational beings would say.
'give me a child of 7 and i will be the child to him by the time he is 14.'
[in complexity of concept only] 7 'more years' and all us oldies can retire
to let the really smart people change the world.

Human society and human beings in general are so stupid and self
centered as to see this potential in children as a threat.

There is supposedly a test created [turing test] that a machine
intelligence must pass to be labled self aware.
Occam proposes most humans could not pass it.
This is not arrogance, it is simply observation.

This all may seem off topic to the thread. But it is not.
If the siderial universe has a purpose, it seems to occam that
this purpose is the production of rational species.

or, to put it another way, god cleared the land. planted the seeds
and sat back on the porch. 14 billion years latter rational beings
look for this prime cause.
'Thank myself' says god. Someone to talk to at last.
But dont mind me. i aint no-one.. just the janitor.

It seems 'noninterventionist direction' is too hard a concept
for most people. They want black and white, theism or atheism.
Those that 'lead' dont believe in black and white
Those that 'get out of the way' dont believe in black and white
Those that follow understand nothing but black and white.

Occam

 

The definition of God is a proposition. That X (God) = A + B + C + D + E..... (all of God's attributes, which change, depending on who's defining X), is a proposition. And, nope, I didn't say that...you did.

You can't know, or believe, a proposition any any which way, if you don't know what is meant by its parts. And, again, I didn't state that. It was you. I already denied making the proposal you keep saying I'm making.

"If belief is a result of, not a prerequisite for, knowing, then nobody suggested your above proposal." ~ Me

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Why did I revert back to belief? Stating that knowing results in believing doesn't imply you can not believe that which you know. In no way.

result: issue or terminate (in a specified way, state, etc.); end; "result in tragedy"

So, if belief is a result of knowing, then no you can't both know and not believe. How can you avoid the end result?

And, as Dejavu was stating, that result is involuntary belief. Knowledge is not a special case of belief. It is a special case of truth. It is a truth, before anything else. Either God exists is true, or God doesn't exist is true. Even if people weren't around, one of those would be true. But, simply believing one is true, doesn't mean you know it's true.

Which brings us to justification. Justification is the part of the equation that forces involuntary belief. But, justification traces itself back to prior held knowledge. e.g. Ancient people knew that the sun appeared in the east and disappeared in the west. That knowledge, by itself, made them believe the sun was travelling around the Earth. Not until someone observed new knowledge, did they form new beliefs. Those new beliefs were the result of new knowledge.

And, you can keep tracing your own prior knowledge, which you use to justify, back to being a baby, when you were a clean slate. Does a baby actually have a belief that X is safe to touch or ingest, or do they simply have no belief about X? And, only when they learn, that X = OUCH! or X = Mmmmm...GOOD!, do beliefs form?


I came in at "belief is not a prerequisite for knowledge".

prerequisite: something that is required in advance

A statement you took issue with. So, I want to know how you can form a belief without any knowledge whatsoever, not even prior knowledge. Please show me. You keep dodging the question and reverting, which the rest of your comments did, to an argument, I never made.

X = ?

Please form a belief about X. I'll tell you what it equals, after you've formed your belief.


Peace

 

Occam:

A what may exist?! We may deduce that a superhuman is a possibility, and
that a highest existing human being is a reality, but what is a god?!

I like this, but the last bit I don't think entirely true.

Isn't agnosticisms failure to direct, to decide, to will, to choose, on a par with theisms failure to prove itself? Is it not a concession to everyone that wishes to hide a meaning in the word 'god' ? A directionless intervention and mediation between the theistic belief in "god" and the atheistic one in "self"?!


I mean, doesn't the agnostic position betray something of being content in not knowing, which is as antithetical to leading, to ruling, as the theistic content in the same?

 

An Atheist knows God doesn't exist?


Peace

 

3DJay:

"The kind [of belief] that is dealt with [in epistemology] as such is where "to believe something" just means to think that it is true — e.g., to believe that the sky is blue is to think that the proposition, "The sky is blue," is true.

Knowledge implies belief....

If someone believes something, he or she thinks that it is true, but he or she may be mistaken. This is not the case with knowledge. For example, suppose that Jeff thinks that a particular bridge is safe, and attempts to cross it; unfortunately, the bridge collapses under his weight. We might say that Jeff believed that the bridge was safe, but that his belief was mistaken. We would not accurately say that he knew that the bridge was safe, because plainly it was not. For something to count as knowledge, it must actually be true....

In Plato's dialogue Theaetetus, Socrates considers a number of theories as to what knowledge is, the last being that knowledge is true belief that has been "given an account of" — meaning explained or defined in some way. According to the theory that knowledge is justified true belief, in order to know that a given proposition is true, one must not only believe the relevant true proposition, but one must also have a good reason for doing so. One implication of this would be that no one would gain knowledge just by believing something that happened to be true. For example, an ill person with no medical training, but a generally optimistic attitude, might believe that she will recover from her illness quickly. Nevertheless, even if this belief turned out to be true, the patient would not have known that she would get well since her belief lacked justification."

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

"The classical definition [of knowledge], found in... Plato[1], has it that in order for there to be knowledge at least three criteria must be fulfilled; that in order to count as knowledge, a statement must be justified, true, and believed."

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge#Defining_knowledge

"According to TK [the traditional theory of knowledge], knowledge that p is, at least approximately, justified true belief (JTB). False propositions cannot be known. Therefore, knowledge requires truth. A proposition S doesn't even believe can't be a proposition that S knows. Therefore, knowledge requires belief. Finally, S's being correct in believing that p might merely be a matter of luck.[2] Therefore, knowledge requires a third element, traditionally identified as justification. Thus we arrive at a tripartite analysis of knowledge as JTB: S knows that p if and only if p is true and S is justified in believing that p. According to this analysis, the three conditions — truth, belief, and justification — are individually necessary and jointly sufficient for knowledge.[3]"

- http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/#JTB

I hope that clears things up. If you disagree with Plato's definition of knowledge, that's one thing. But to say that it's redundant is quite another, because it's plainly false.

 

3DJay:

In this case yes, since by "God" you don't know what you mean!

 

No, he knows what he means, you've just been trying to side step the issue with word games.

 

3DJay will speak for himself on this count Paintballer. As an agnostic, I don't think he pretends to know god.

Everyone means something different by 'god'. It is because god is nothing at all.

 

Is one required to believe X in order to know it? Yes or no? If your answer is "no," then how can you deny the possibility of one knowing that God exist without believing it? If your answer is that we must know what God is, well so what? Again, there would be the possibility of knowing what God is without believing that as well. This is what happens when one argues that knowledge doesn't entail belief.

And, do you understand that my intentions here are not to argue for the existence of God or anything else? Do you understand that we are here debating what knowledge is, not the nature of existence, or on what actually exist? Until you recognize this, you'll continue to drive into irrelevancies such as the one above.

So now explain to me why it is impossible for one to know about it's parts, even though he has no beliefs about such. After all, as you said

So one can know without believing? One can know about a proposition's parts (whatever that means) regardless of whether or not he holds beliefs about such?

I actually suggest that you research the common philosophical use of the term "knowledge" since that is what you're trying to discuss. You should start here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/ I simply don't have the time to continue to go over this.

I never said that you were implying that one can't believe what he knows, only pointing out that you're denying that knowledge entails belief, and this leads to all sorts nonsense.

How do I avoid what end result? It is your assertion that belief is a result of knowing, not mine. I say that knowledge entails belief, that one cannot know X without believing X. I cannot know that it's raining outside unless I also believe it. You're the one claiming that knowing comes before believing. How in the world can I know that it raining outside before I believe that it is raining outside?

I would say that knowledge is warranted true belief. All knowledge entails belief, but not all belief entails knowledge. Since you continue to deny this, could you please show me how one can know something without believing it?

The main problem, as I've been trying to point out, is that you're using knowledge in a non-standard way. For example, how does one observe knowledge? What do you mean exactly.

It is your assertion that we start from a clean slate not mine. But it is irrelevant anyway.

Belief is required for a full analysis of knowledge. It is not that belief is a prerequisite for knowledge, as if one believes that p before he knows that p. Instead, when one knows that p he believes that p. When I know that it is raining outside, I believe that it is raining outside. Knowledge is belief--a case of belief that is both warrented and true. You can agree with or disagree with this statement. Incidentally I've been trying to get you to clarify on this point, but you have yet to offer a straight forward answer. So, let me again ask: Can one know that p without believing that p? Does knowledge entail belief?

I'm not dodging anything, I hink you're just failing to see where the focus of the discussion lies.

(1) I never said that one can form a belief without having knowledge
(2) It should be plain that one can form beliefs on the basis of false or unjustified beliefs, thus knowledge is not require for belief formation.
(3) But, this is completely irrelevant since that's not what's in question anyway. What is in question is what knowledge is. My analysis of knowledge included belief, you seemed to disagree with this, but have yet to offer any sort of analysis of your own. You're not interacting at all, instead you're simply presupposing some, as of yet, undefined version of knowledge, then using it to argue against some imaginary opponent whom you think is trying to argue for God's existence.

Knowledge = ?

Please tell me what knowledge amounts to in your view, then perhaps we can discuss other issues you keep running to.

 

Yeah, thanks. However, we were discussing mere belief (an -ism) implying knowledge, which it doesn't. So, stating you're both merely a believer (an -ist) and not a knower (an Agnostic), is still redundant. Especially considering the fact, that there's a already a term for those who claim some secret knowledge.....gnostics.

I hope that clears things up. To imply we were discussing the reverse is plainly false.

It doesn't matter, if I know what God means, or not. Maybe I didn't bold enough.

An Athe-ist knows God doesn't exist?

It seems like gnostic is the term that needs prefixes, for the old Theo-gnosts and the new Atheo-gnosts.

And, at the same time you claim to know something is, in fact, true, you claim you don't carry a burden of proof? So, Atheo-gnosts have some "secret" knowledge, just like those Theo-gnosts? Interesting. The more the Theos and Atheos sides differ, the more they seem the same. Makes me glad to be an Agnostic.


Peace

 

Justified absolute truth.

From history, we can see that "knowledge" has refered to believing that propositions are justified and true. However, as the human "knowledge" base has changed quite a bit, over time, we now know that much which was accepted as "knowledge" was, in fact, not true. From that, it seems, to me, that knowledge needs to be absolute truth, before all else.

It also seems apparent that people form beliefs, based on justifications. The justification actually comes first. Therefore a justified absolute truth would force belief. Belief is not required, as part of the definition, IMO, as it is a result of justification, anyway.

Not having belief as part of the definition, also allows for knowledge, to still be called knowledge, while it's in transit, from one person to another. If belief was required, then knowledge, written on paper, or some other medium, would be something less than knowledge.

So, belief isn't a prerequisite for knowledge, IMO. But, justification (even flawed) is a prerequisite for belief. To prove the later, I still put forward...

X = ?

...and challenge anyone to form a belief, about X, before I define it.


Peace

 

"A what may exist?! We may deduce that a superhuman is a possibility, and
that a highest existing human being is a reality, but what is a god?! "

Dejavu

Oh,, so there are no 'beings' other than 'human beings'
You kiddin me right?
Are you actually proposing that human beings are the only rational species in our universe.?
If you are not then beings with even a million years of technological evolution behind them are GODS to us.
In just 50 years we have managed to reproduce stellar fusion.
A thousand years from now we will be travelling to the stars.
In 50 thousand we will make worlds
in 200 thousand we will make suns.
In 1 million years we will modify reality.
That, is our current precondition for god.
Wake up lad.
If we can do that and other rational species exist, then they must have existed way before us as well.
THEY have done all the above.
Beings/species that can change reality MUST hav existed before humans
were even a potential.

NO, agnosticisms failure to detect is purely a product of our perception and the perception our technology allows.
We are like a VERY shortsighted man in new york. We can only see clearly a few inches. Using vision alone, how long would it take you to find someone who had no name, no address , no phone??

Thiesm tries to prove a particular god exists, as these particular gods are fictional constructs based on the prime concept.
Used to manipulate others as a powerplay by oranised religion.
They will never be found.

Occam

 

3DJay

It does, because the question :

only amounts to -

"An Athe-ist knows Something doesn't exist?"

To which we naturally reply "What?"

We are terribly reasonable beasts.

It seems that agnostics and atheists alike would do well to get over their positions in relation to 'god' since neither ultimately have recourse to them.

No great secret, we atheists simply recognize that the word 'god' is redundant!

 

Occam :

I'm proposing no such thing!

Ohhhh! "GODS!" Why didn't you say so? I hear higher beings find the expression "sugar-daddies" acceptable also!

By 'god' I here understand you to mean superhumanity, but I think it's possible we can realize it much sooner, and without all the extra suns and stuff. As creators we have never needed to conquer creation itself in order to realize our full, let alone our over-full potential.

This question begs a dark reply, but I withold it, being an idealist before any of the other ists.

"The Prime Concept"?! Which one?! lol I don't doubt your intelligence for a moment, but it's nonsense like this that makes us atheists content to pursue ourselves when really we are best suited to advance the whole. When it is boasted about that it's agnostics who have vision, we are happy to have long ears,----our hearts are not as rough as they are enduring.

 

Awwwwww.....so, Michael Jordan isn't a god? That's disappointing to find out, I must say.


Peace