Agnostic Theism?

Aw, I expecting a little more than that. I take the time to correct the contradiction flawing the majority of your posts and you tell me off with the petty insulting of an eleven year old?

And for the record, utilizing proper grammar would have entailed you to say 'go tell it on a mountain' seeing as 'the' is a definitive article that hasn't been defined.

 

Paintballer:

Why not read the thread? I asked Occam why he couldn't spell, not DirtyDog. Occam can handle criticism. That's part of why I like him.

It would have entailed me to?! lol

 

Regardless of who you criticized, the hypocrisy remains valid. If you were joking, then it was in bad taste, in my opinion.

Yes, if you were using proper grammar it would have necessitated that you used 'a' instead of 'the'. I don't quite see what you find comical; it's a common word and I used it properly, perhaps you think I slipped up here? Well, that's a personal problem.

 

I'd better help you out. This is how you should have constructed your sentence:

"And for the record, utilizing proper grammar would have entailed that you say 'go tell it on a mountain' seeing as 'the' is a definitive article that hasn't been defined."


Don't take it to heart, we all make mistakes. lol

 

Ha, please don't act like my sentencing was wrong. There was nothing erroneous about my grammar. You're childish attempt to correct something unflawed is comical, to say the least.

 

Yes, through equanimity one realizes that what processes give rise to awareness, which give rise to one mind are identical but are not the same ones.

Walking is an example of this. We all walk by picking up one foot, moving it forward, and placing it down in front of us, shifting the body center-of-gravity over this foot, picking up the next foot, moving it forward, placing it down in front of us, shifting the body center-of-gravity ... yet when you walk I do not simultaneously begin walking as well. The process of walking then is said to be identical.

This equality is the same for all beings, not just to humans or animal. And yes, animals have minds also, as do insects. I suppose then you will want to debate the process of the mind to reason and analyze as being different from being to being. Of course this is different. Each mind arrises according to the level of contact they have with their surrounding environment. The ability to reason and analyze is from a continual appearance of mind, consciousness and verious mental factors.

You are no more or less sentient than a symbiotic orgainsm that crawls around on an ants buttox, as it is no more or less sentient than you, or I.

I see that you are confusing the resultant operation of the mind with the appearance of mind.

HTML:

 

You completely missed the point, and negeleted to answer my questions. It really is raining, however because the person has been fooled in the past into thinking that it was raining when it wasn't, he does not believe that it really is raining. So here is the situation: (1) It really is raining (2) This person walks outside in the rain. (3) This person does not believe that it is really raining, since he has been fooled in the past at that exact same location. Now, here are the questions I would like you to directly answer:

1. Would you say that the person above knows that it raining outside?
2. Would you say that the person above knows that it is not raining outside?

We can deal more specifically with this later; "justification" is not nearly as simple as you're trying to make it. For thing, you're not explaining how it is possible that jusification exist apart from belief and apart from personal etities. In any case, the person above knows what rain is, knows what it's like to be rained on, and knows that he is standing in what appears to be rain, yet he does not believe that it is raining. So on the basis of this, could you answer the two questions above?

 

I didn't miss the point. You just missed my point. I called it what it is, faulty justification. If my definition requires that a truth be justified, in what way would I be able to call a justified untruth, knowledge?

The only reason the idiot believes it's raining, is because he hasn't looked around, and truly justified. He believed it was raining, based solely on water falling, then believed it wasn't raining, based solely on that he'd been pranked a few times, already. He knew nothing. His justification wasn't of a truth, it was justification of an untruth.

A truth, that's been justified (proven true), can't be untrue. Merely believing something is justified and true, can be untrue.


Peace

 

Justification is of no issue in the questions I asked, this is why you ARE missing the point. Could you please answer the two questions I asked?

So let us suppose that it was a large scale elaborate prank that spanned many blocks, and even false news reports. On the basis of this, when he walks outside and it actually is raining, he simply assumes that he is being pranked again. Furthermore, he knows precisely what it is like to be rained on, as he been in the rain many times during his 35 years on earth, and the pranks appeared to him to really be rain. Futhermore, we could say that it isn't even rain season, it's July in sourthern California. Now, it's Saturday, and for the past Five days (Mon-Fri) everyday as he left his work building, he was fooled into thinking that it was raining. Now on Saturday, as he leave his work building (at the same time as the previous days) it really is raining, but on the basis of the prank that had been played on him the past five days, he forms the belief that he is being pranked again, thus he believes that it is not really raining outside. Even after traveling in the rain for several blocks, hearing about it on the news, and being appeared to in those ways which consitute rain, he still believes that it is not raining, because of prank that was played the past five days. Now, on the basis of this, could you please answer my questions:

1. Would you say this person knows that it's raining outside?
2. Would you say this person knows that it's not raining outside?

Also, before you were suggesting that justification forces belief, and in this case the belief "it is not really raining" was forced, as were the prior beliefs that it was really raining. So what is justification exactly?

 

"in what way would I be able to call a justified untruth, knowledge?"

If you don't understand English, then there's no point in going on.

Justify (to demonstrate to be true). However, it's possible to justify untruths. Just look at history and things we've called knowedge, in the past, which have since been proven untrue. It can be through error (not asking enough questions, asking the wrong questions), or through deceit (someone lying to you...doesn't even have to be in a malicious way).

Here's a true elaborate hoax.

Proposition: Santa Claus exists.

Parents tell their kids that Santa Claus exists. The kids have no reason to doubt the truth of what their parents tell them. Further justification comes from seeing Santa, in the mall, or answering letters, on TV. Further justification comes from writing to, and receiving a response from, Santa. Further justification comes from eaten cookies and presents, from Santa, under the tree.

Do kids know Santa exists? Of course not. Did they believe Santa existed, before even hearing about him? Of course not. The parents provided the proposition, all their justifications pointed towards Santa existing being true, resulting in them believing Santa exists.

My definition of knowledge requires justified truths, so I don't know the point of you going on about justified untruths. Can you get to the point where you tell me what justified untruths have to do with justified truths, please.


Peace

 

You're still not answering the questions. Your definitions are non-standard, confusing, and contradictory. This is why I am asking you questions, to understand exactly what your position is. This is a completely normal procedure. Here are my questions again, read them in relation to the scenario I gave earlier:

1. Would you say this person knows that it's raining outside?
2. Would you say this person knows that it's not raining outside?

Simple "Yes" or "No" answers are sufficient. However if your choice is to continue not to interact, then I only hope that you'll pick some basic books on epistemology, or at least read the link I gave earlier. It is VERY apparent that you trying to deal in an area that you know very little about.

 

And so, no mind can equal another without being it.

We are not talking about the processes common to all minds, but minds themselves.

Each mind arises from its immediate environment, the body.

The operation of mind is its appearance. There is only equality in mind, not in minds. You are confusing mind and minds.

 

Bullshit. Your questions were answered, before you asked.

"Justified absolute truth."

And, after.

"Simple water falling down, is not rain."

"Your beliefs were formed on faulty justifications, both before and after."

"If my definition requires that a truth be justified, in what way would I be able to call a justified untruth, knowledge?"

"The only reason the idiot believes it's raining, is because he hasn't looked around, and truly justified. He believed it was raining, based solely on water falling, then believed it wasn't raining, based solely on that he'd been pranked a few times, already. He knew nothing. His justification wasn't of a truth, it was justification of an untruth."

"My definition of knowledge requires justified truths, so I don't know the point of you going on about justified untruths. Can you get to the point where you tell me what justified untruths have to do with justified truths, please."

"If something I simply believe to be justified and true, can, in the future, be proved not to be true, then I don't really know what I think I know."

Are you honestly now stating, you don't understand "He knew nothing."?

They are not. You're just showing the extent of what's really necessary to actually justifying a truth. Yes, my example was fairly unscientific. To truly justify that what's coming down, is rain, takes more than just standing in it. So what? Once you are standing in justified true rain, it would be impossible for you to truly believe it's not raining.


Peace

 

3DJay, I honesty don't know what your answers are because your definitions are, as of yet, contradictory. If it is that clear, then why don't just give me simple yes or no answers to my questions? That way I don't have to assume what you really mean.

 

That is a very common thing in this thread, which I have found in near every post so far.
Webster's Dictionary: Belief - a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing.
So, ' Can you believe without knowing?'
It is a necessity that you do not know something for certain in order for you to be able to believe it. If you have belief, then you are not sure, you are confident, you trust that it is so, but you do not know it. So the answer, imho, is yes you can, or more correctly, you must not know to be able to have belief.

 

Blackguard:

In truth, one may believe something whether one knows it or not.

 

Blackguard:
Quote:


It is a necessity that you do not know something for certain in order for you to be able to believe it.

Not according to Merriam-Webster's, as I noted in my last post. It is not the same thing, and once you know that something is so, you have proceeded from a state of trust and confidence into something more firm, which you no longer consider in question at all. Do you feel it is appropriate to say such things as: I believe my hand has fingers? I believe my fingers can type on a keyboard, I believe blood is inside me, etc?
Or is that not exactly the meaning that you would attribute to your views regarding blood, fingers, etc., and it would be more accurate to say "I know there is blood inside me." etc.?
To believe is to admit an element of faith, to know is to state you are convinced of it, which are two different things. So, I disagree with you, and agree with the dictionary definition of belief, which requires trust and confidence.

 

lol! Belief after knowledge is still belief no matter that it has changed ie. become involuntary. The trust and confidence you mention also changes, from being based in likelihoods, probabilities or plain desire, to that in the knowledge that precedes it. Regardless of it being more appropriate to say one knows where one does not only believe, one cannot help but believe after knowing.

 

Belief is to trust, according to the dictionary, and that also agrees with my definition of belief. To know something is so because one has seen enough proof to convince them that it is certain, to my mind, that is no longer belief, but something different. No one says 'I believe that I have a leg.' because it is more than belief, and belief is the wrong word for what is meant. It is your view that the belief still remains, which I don't see. If we have different definitions of belief and knowing and how they are related and how they are different, then that is okay by me. I believe I am being rational, and logical, but I don't know that.
It is just my opinion, nothing more.

 

Well of course it is! It's knowledge. I'm not disputing the distinction between them. But are you saying that one may know something and not believe it!? Naturally by knowing it we don't need to believe it, we simply believe it.

No-one says "I know that I have a leg" either! lol Just because one doesn't need to believe in their legs doesn't mean we don't believe we have them!

Belief...before AND after the event we call knowledge.