Agnostic Theism?

Argh! Dang you and your long posts...I'll have to take this in pieces for now.

If you look back at my earlier posts, I said that to "know X" was equivalent to "knowing that p" and that we were dealing with propositional knowledge. "God exist" is a proposition (unless you have problem with existence being predicated, which you don't appear to). You keep insisting that "X" ("that p") must refer simply to the term "God." I'm not sure why that is though. Let "God" represent whatever you want it to, that's not the point of what I've been saying.

"God is X" is a proposition...now why isn't "God exist" a proposition? Why is it that when I ask if a person can know that God exist (a proposition) without believing it, you insisted that it needs to be restated as "God is...?"

Ok, now tell me why it is necessary for the proposition "God exist" to be changed to "God is...?" Is "God exist" a proposition?

If a person believes that God exist, don't you think that it is resonable to believe that he has some definition of what God is? Secondly, you keep missing the intention of my question (though I know you'll deny this), which is this "IS IT POSSIBLE TO KNOW A PROPOSITION WITHOUT BELIEVING IT" If it is, then your question is of no relevance because one may very well know what God is eventhough he has no beliefs about God.

Why isn't it "X X"? Here. Why are not giving the term "exist" equal treatment?

Why not God, underfined, exists, undefined?

Alright, let me try this again... Your question is not at all relevant. Let me explain. Let us suppose that the proposition is "God exist" and we'll call this proposition "X." Now, what you're asking is this: "Is it not true that we need to know propositions 'Y' and 'Z' before we can know proposition 'X'?" Frankly, I don't know, maybe we do and maybe we don't--that's not important. Here's why: my original question, to which you are responding, is this: CAN WE KNOW X WITHOUT BELIEVEING X. But you're answering this by asserting that we must know Y and Z (what a singular term in "X" means) before we can know X. But that doesn't at all answer my question. I am not at all interested in the doxastic standing of Y or Z.

I'll have to stop here for now.

 

3DJay

No 'i think therefore i am, and thus a reality exists to support the am'

Occam knows this for absolute fact.

All ELSE is suspect. But if there are no contradictions then all else stands as the underpinning evidence of FACT KNOWLEDGE and BELIEF.
Phenomena/evidence, are the SOLE basis for any stance on 'what is'
Gained from multiple subjective agreement without contradiction.
[we all burn in the fire]

There is no true human understanding of 'I'
We 'i's know so very little of how the mind works.
Like uneducated villagers with Assault riffles.
They dont even know the basis of periodic tables to quantify the
metals that must be refined that go into the simple casing of an AK-47

They just use them

Occam

 

So you must *believe* the propositions "God is omnipresent" and "God is omnipotent," and "God is spirit," etc., before you can know the propositon "God exist" fine, I'll grant this for now since it isn't important or relevant.

What does it mean to "know" a proposition? You never explain this eventhough I keep asking.

What is the difference between knowing and believing here?

Ok

I don't know, you tell me, it's your position. I'm just wondering why you can't answer the original question without asking for the difinition of a term. I could write the propositon, "X, Y" if you like, then ask if it possible to believe the propistion "X, Y" without believing it. All I'm trying to get you to answer is if it is possible to know a proposition (any proposition) without believing it.

It's not that justification isn't important just read my rain and magic 8-ball example from a few post back which proves, I think, that there is another element to knowledge in addition to true belief. However, we haven't gotton past the "true belief" portion, so that is where all of my questions have been focused. It is not that justification wasn't important, it is that it was not important for our discussion which was dealing with belief (or at least that what I was trying to deal with)

Again, go back to the rain and magic 8-ball example to see that I think a type of justication is needed. Secondly, I've have stated that I think knowledge is warrented true belief. But there is no sense in going into a subject as complex as warrent and justification if we can't agree on knowledge being at least true belief.

Frankly, 3DJay, your definition doesn't make any sense to me. Firstly "truths" are not justified, and secondly truths exist independant of both our minds, and jusification. If something is "absolute truth" then it is so regardless of what you or I think, or are jusified in believing. What you are no realizing is that justification,in your view, is completely a doxastic state. But this gets us back to the original topic of knowledge being at least belief.

And as far as me admiting that justification comes before belief, I don't recall ever doing that, nor do I even know what that would amount to (perhaps you should asked me what I think). Justication hasn't even been fleshed out. Is it simply us standing in a "proper" causual relationship to external forces? Is it something to which I have special mental access? What?

 

post a thread in the christianity forum explaining how if god is omnipotent, free will is lost and see how well the post does.......

you could probably dig and find one or two.......

just look for a post with 0 replies

 

I think you mean "omniscience" not omnipotence.

 

i see your already celebrating 420

 

Are you sure it's me who is?

 

Redundant:
"She is a female woman." --> "She is a female human female."

"He is an unmarried bachelor." --> "He is an unmarried unmarried man."

Not Redundant:

Knowledge --> True, justified belief.

 

Heeh2

Already did it years back. If god has a plan. there is no fee will.
And that god must be omnipotent. Or the message means nothing.

Thus 'the message' is false. [free will and good and evil]

The message is false.
Or the plan does not exist. you cant have both together.
Cause free will negates the plan.

It's all religious crud anyway. As if a god would give a shit about
microscopic variables. [you who call yourselves important]

Occam

 

what does "free will" mean? I suppose you think it means you can choose french fries instead of mashed potatoes. You really wanted the french fries but to prove your "free will" you go against your will and choose the mashed potatoes, thereby negating your "free will".

 

All propositions are of subject-predicate form.

"---He--- is an unmarried bachelor."
|subject| | ------predicate------- |

The predicate can be divided into the verb (in this case the copula), the immediate predicate, and the mediate predicate.

"He --- is ------ an unmarried ---------- bachelor."
----|copula| |immediate predicate| |mediate predicate|

Now we analyze the proposition.

"-- He ------ is ------ an unmarried ------- unmarried man."
|subject| |copula| |immediate predicate| |mediate predicate|

Now take the following proposition.

"Knowledge -- is ---- true, justified belief."
-|subject| |identity| |mediate predicate|

Note two things. First, the "is" is the "is" of identity, not the copula. Second, there is no immediate predicate.

Now, in the former proposition, the mediate and immediate predicates express the same concept, following the copula. This is made explicit by analysis, and makes the proposition redundant. But, in the latter proposition, there is no immediate predicate to express the same concept as the mediate predicate. So, it cannot be redundant. Instead, the subject is linked to the predicate by the "is" of identity, meaning that all knowledge is identitical with true, justified belief. All this means is that the proposition is a definition.

We can analyze it into the following.

"True, justified belief is true, justified belief."

But, because the "is" is the "is" of identity and there is no immediate predicate, we can conclude that the proposition is, as I said before, a definition, which does not mean that it is redundant, since a redundant sentence needs, first, an "is" of the copula, and second, a mediate and immediate predicate that express the same concept.

 

CS

ROFL
What a load of crap
Please say in english what your trying to say in gobbledygook.
Transpose into concepts we can understand.
I'm damn good at concepts.
You sound like Kant on a bad trip,.


Occam

 

Ockham, why don't you try reading what I wrote with understanding before you criticize it. Because this is a very basic logic point.

There are several senses of "to be," but only two are important for our purposes:

(1) The "to be" of identity. e.g. "Mark Twain is Samuel Clemens."

and

(2) The "to be" of predication (the copula). e.g. "Socrates is a man."

They are expressed logically as:

(1') a = b

and

(2') Fa

As for the rest, those were mere points of English grammar. All sentences have a subject and a predicate, etc.

If you still don't get it, you'll probably get a few thousand relevant hits of google by searching for, "senses of to be" or something like that. As for the grammar part, if you didn't learn it in 5th grade English class, I don't know how to help you.

 

yes.

But 'to be' is no equation.
Thats what your not seeing.
To be is , or is not.

Occam

 

HOLY CRAP...the guy is obviously trained in philosophy, I suppose that doesn't mean anything though huh...

 

Dry bread is better than nothing. Nothing is better than wisdom. Therefore, dry bread is better than wisdom. ('Better than' is a transitive relation.)

Let's put it simply so that even I can understand it:
The more you have, the more you use. The more you use, the less you have.
Therefore, the more you have, the less you have.
('More than' is a transitive relation.
Given R a transitive relation on the set of propositions, and given that a,b,c are propositions,
a R b and b R c implies a R c. )

(I used to think I was stupid, but now I realize I'm only dumb.)

Next week: The riddle of the surprise examination.

 

Common Sense
have you noticed the word "proposition" you have been using. "that is what it is" . propositions can logically equal true but it does not imply that everything used to prove it will also be the truth when it does equal true. propositions allow you to "propose" anything. lies can be logically true.

dirtydog
i think that just looks strange because you chose that there would be more used when having more (it's not necessarily implied). furthermore using more when having more, does not imply having less.


i know im responding late. i just couldnt resiste the title of this thread

venom_zx

 

Pascal's wager, as you present it here, seems like a weak basis for believing in God. First of all, can you, or should you, really "believe" in something because it's expedient to do so--i.e., because somebody has told you you'll get a reward for believing what they tell you or punishment for not believing it? Have you ever received a chain letter or email telling you just that, if you don't send it on to six other people? Pascal seems to be saying that you'd better send it on, to avoid losing out on the million dollars you were promised or suffering the curse that your teeth will fall out if you don't. Second, he seems to assume that there's nothing to lose in believing. If Pascal right, why are we wasting our time on this website instead of digging up our backyards in hopes of striking gold? If there's gold there, we could all be rich. If not, what have we lost--other than our time, labor, and the opportunity to be doing a lot of other more satisfying things with our lives! Pascal seems to think that living your life as a theist or a non-theist, same difference--except for what comes afterwards. Third, what kind of self-respecting deity would find this bet-hedging, acceptable? Certainly not the Yaweh of the Bible! Fourth, what if you bet on the wrong deity? Would Baal be understanding if you bet on Yaweh?
I think a case can be made for a diluted form of the wager. I'm an Okie existentialist at heart, which involves chosing beliefs in the face of uncertainty, recognizing the risks of being wrong, and accepting reponsibility for the consequences. In that sense, we're playing a game of "bet your life". I make my bets on the basis of what I think is reasonable or the best available evidence, realizing I could easily be wrong. "Christian agnostic" comes close to how I'd describe myself. If that's all we're saying here, I agree, but I think Pascal is saying something more questionable. If we make our bets on the basis of the scariest threats or most enticing promises of rewards, we're fair game for the hellfire and damnation preachers or bin Laden's promises of forty virgins.

 

where do people get these ideas.

 

I can't speak for "people", but as for myself, I got them by trying to make my way though the confusion of existence and come up with some tentative beliefs and values to get me through. And I'm not the only one.