The Insult EvidenceVsFaith Thread

[fr0d0]

I'm insulted that you didn't register my insult which must be for you, the ultimate insult.

[Samson]

Holy shit, it's like hearing a brother and sister spat at each other......lolol

[TheMultiverseTheory]

How mundane.

[Autumnlicious]

Holy shit, it's like hearing a brother and sister spat at each other......lolol

After playing teacher in the OS thread, I think it is safe to say that type of brother-and-sister-spat occurs all over these forums. Probably because a certain sister is great at provoking those.

[Violet]

After playing teacher in the OS thread, I think it is safe to say that type of brother-and-sister-spat occurs all over these forums. Probably because a certain sister is great at provoking those.

Indeed I am

---

Holy shit, it's like hearing a brother and sister spat at each other......lolol

Perhaps... but I'm right

[Samson]

Holy shit, it's like hearing a brother and sister spat at each other......lolol

After playing teacher in the OS thread, I think it is safe to say that type of brother-and-sister-spat occurs all over these forums. Probably because a certain sister is great at provoking those.

Synackaon...... I like Saerules too much to believe "She" is provoking anything other than natural opinions/ideas...

Now don't get me wrong....In stating that, we all have a little bit of, "In your face", instigator in us...

[Edwardo Piet]

"Proof" is not possible. Can you "prove" anything at all to me?

The fact that it can't be proven means it cannot be known in the philosophical sense. The fact that things can't be proven is why I'm an agnostic.... fundamental unprovability/unknowability=agnosticism.

But I can't even prove the fundamental unprovability/unknowability either.

You make a claim so I ask for proof to demonstrate that you don't really know it so why do you claim it?

Good good.... because they can't know anything... because they don't have a brain.

Maybe they do have a brain? I'm an agnostic I thought you were too You claim they "can't" and then you wonder why I ask for proof? :S

Aside from the fact that all things (save existence itself) are subjective?

Maybe they're not all subjective? Who knows? And maybe existience itself is subjective too? Maybe solipsism is correct?

We see a collection of existence, and say we interpret that as a door: we now know that it is a door (or is likely a door).

To know it you'd need proof. And as we have established - there almost certainly can't be proof it seems. The best we can do is have extremely strong evidence.

The action of attribution itself is subjective... how could knowledge (which is built atop attribution) be not subjective?

I don't know how... but that doesn't mean it can't. To say that it can't because we can't think of how it could is to commit the logical fallacy of the Argument From Personal Incredulity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

It cannot be, hence it must necessarily be so.

That's just tautological language. Maybe it can be so? The only way you can know that it cannot be so is if you can prove it. Otherwise: Maybe it can be so? Agnostism FTW I say.

I have told you how I know repeatedly: I have faith

Faith is belief that lacks evidence. And if belief that doesn't lack evidence doesn't prove and therefore doesn't mean you 'know' something - then how the hell can belief that lacks it (faith) do that?

Belief in something, with or without evidence - is different to knowing. You are just talking about belief, and if it lacks evidence then that's just an even weaker position that with evidence - so faith certainly isn't 'knowing'.

Since I am an agnostic I don't believe anything can be ultimately 'known'. There is a difference between belief and knowledge.

How else can we know anything save by holding faith in it?

How can we know something through belief that lacks evidence? How can we know something with faith?

How can we know something at all? Even with evidence? Who knows? We just don't know. Maybe there is a way but I don't know

If we hold faith in nothing, we know nothing... if we know nothing, we have no faith. Savvy?

Holding faith in something is claiming/believing we know it and also lacking evidence to support it. And claiming/believing we know something is very different to actually knowing something. There is a difference between belief and knowledge.

I am assuming that instead of asking 'how' I know... you are asking 'why' i know. To which I gave my reason above.

No I am asking how. I don't believe there is a reason for 'why' we know at all. In fact I am agnostic so I think we almost certainly don't know anything but I don't claim to know that.

Subjective = not absolute. Only existence (the one thing that is not subjective) itself is absolute, after all.

We don't really know this though do we? At least I think we don't. Maybe solipsism is right?

You can't think of a good reason to suppose that a rock/electron can have knowledge "therefore knowledge can't be absolute" - doesn't follow as far as I can see. Please to prove me wrong if you can (I'm not sure how you even can, I consider these matters only really provable if they're tautological).

Yes it does. If knowledge were absolute ("everything knows it"), then everything must have knowledge.

That's not what I said though. I said that just because you can't think of a good reason to suppose that a rock/electron can have knowledge, that doesn't mean they can't. You said "therefore" as if that logically follows. It doesn't. That is once again, the fallacy of the Argument From Personal Incredulity "It doesn't make sense to me, I can't think a way of how it can make sense - therefore it's wrong." I said that logically doesn't follow, and it doesn't because it's fallacious.

In which case one must know what is meant by "objective". I am using my definition for the word (that being simply "regardless of specifics"). I didn't say you did make a claim... you're just asking silly questions that I'm sure you could answer yourself in very little time.

You claim that knowledge is necessarily subjective. Not that it probably is, not that it almost certainly is: You claim that it necessarily is. And for an absolutist claim like that: You need proof. To really ultimately "Know" anything, you need proof. I don't think anything can be ultimately proven so that's why I am an agnostic and believe in fundamental unknowability (and it also applies to itself). Knowledge and belief are different things: To claim to know something, and to believe something - neither of those are actually "knowing". Claiming to know something and actually knowing something are different things. Belief and knowledge: Are different things.

First: quit asking "how do you know?".

I might have to since you don't seem to know what I mean by it even though it's a commonly used phrase :S

The only answer to that is that a person has faith.

Faith proves nothing, faith isn't knowing. Faith is belief. It is also irrational belief because it lacks evidence. How is that 'knowing'?!

"Why" is your friend...

No because I'm asking "how" not why.

I am not talking about the burden of proof...

No. But I am. You are making the claims not me

All annoyance I am showing here is as result of being asked questions that shouldn't need to be asked.

Well that's a matter of opinion.....

You claim things and I question them

Then you need to get your hearing checked : )

No, I certainly don't think that my believing that "faith" is the "opposite of knowing" as I put it, means I need to get my head checked. I certainly don't think that. Faith is belief that lacks evidence - that's very different to actually knowing something. That's just irrational belief.

No belief lacks evidence. If faith was "belief that lacks evidence": it would never be used, because it does not exist. It in fact cannot exist.

Faith lacks evidence because it has an insufficent amount of evidence to be rational, or it has a very bad standard and hence lacks proper valid evidence, or both. It's better to believe with proper valid evidence.

Faith lacks evidence, that doesn't mean it's totally absent of it - it's just that its reasons are irrational, invalid, unscientific, insufficent (i.e. lacking), etc..

One can't even get "close" to "objective knowledge"... because all knowledge is subjective : )

Well you once again claim that all knowledge is subjective. Is that an absolutist claim? If not, then maybe some knowledge is objective huh?

And anyway, there is a difference between objective and absolute. I certainly don't believe in absolute knowledge - but one can think of the scientific consensus of knowledge as 'more objective' than someone who merely pulls a, say, religious/superstitous/paranormal belief out of their ass crack.

Evidence is open to interpretation. Evidence is interpretation. Why the fixation on evidence, anyway?

Because... Evidence>Faith.

You can have more valid evidence and more sufficent evidence. And if you have invalid evidence/insufficent evidence and yet you still, irrationally believe, you in that sense 'lack it' - or IOW: you "have faith".

You think? : )

I think so.

Pedantic = focusing on trivialities.

Pedantic isn't always such negaitve conotations.

I wouldn't call introspection trivial...

Me neither.

But my point is... how do you know that I am the only one who thinks it?

Faith.

See above. How does believing in something with a lack of evidence equate to 'knowing'? (I reckon: It doesn't). That's just believing! (and irrationally at that), not knowing - there's a difference!

[quote]I'd say the universe is a fuck ton older than 13.7 Billion SolIY.

Welll atm that's how old science predicts it to be I thought. What evidence have you come across to disagree with science there?

In fact weeks are sometimes longer than a year.

I do indeed claim this. Stop asking "how" I know...

Then stop claiming things - because i like to question claims.

Alright, a little lesson on what "how" means:

I already know (in the colloquial nonphilosophical sense of "know") what it means. I was born in England.

"how 1 |hou|
adverb [usu. interrog. adv. ]
1 in what way or manner; by what means"

I know that (in the non-Philosophical sense).

The means/manner/way is faith.[

So, you hold knowldege and "know" something despite the fact you're an agnostic I thought, and how? Through belief that lacks evidence. i.e.: Faith. Huh? Even if you have a rational belief that doesn't lack evidence, that isn't faith, that doesn't imply that you 'know' it - so how the hell would irrational belief, lacking evidence, i.e.: faith - help?! It wouldn't I'm guessing. That's how I reckon.....


'Knowing' in the sense of gnosticism you don't believe in do you? I thought you're agnostic. In that case why do you now claim to 'know' things through faith, through irrational belief that lacks evidence?

Belief and knowledge are different things. Belief isn't knowledge. And Faith is just irrational belief that lacks evidence.

Try using "why" instead:

"why |(h)wī|
interrogative adverb
for what reason or purpose"

^ Guaranteed to get you 500% further in a discussion with a theist...

I already know (non-philosophical sense of "know" once again) what "why" means.

I don't ask "why" because there is no why. They may have their own reasons for believing but that is very different to "knowing". And I don't believe there is any ultimate "why" to the question in the sense of ultimate purpose to the universe for why they believe what they believe - so I don't see any reason to ask "why". I don't want to ask why, it seems nonsensical from my perspective.

Also, I'm not going to ask "Why" they know because it assumes that they know. I don't believe they can know because I'm agnostic. I ask "how?" in the retorical sense to get them to realize that they don't know as much as they think they do, that they believe they do - because knowing and believing are not the same thing. That's why I'm asking "how?", that's what I'm trying to do. I can't see any reason to ask "why?" that makes sense to me.

it changes not the capacity for it to be known.

True. But you're the one making the claims. I'm asking how you can know that all knowledge is necessarily subjetive. I'm not asking how you believe. Belief and knowledge are different things. I'm saying that just because you believe it/ have evidence for it doesn't mean you know it. Because, how do you know that? I'm guessing you don't - isn't that why you're agnostic as I thought you were? Because you understand that you can't know things? If that's the case why are you now claiming that faith, irrational belief, means that you can know things - and it also somehow means you can know that all belief is necessarily subjective. How does it mean that? It doesn't really does it? Nope, I'm guessing: No. It doesn't mean that.

So..... you believe that all knowledge is necessarily subjective fine. Or you say that it is "subjective" fine. But to just outright claim that it's "Necessarily subjective", that's more than just claiming belief, that's claiming knowledge - and there is a difference between knoweldge and belief. To strongly believe that backed up by evidence is one thing, to 'know' it is another. To really 'know' it you'd need proof. Gnosticism is about 'knowing' and I thought you were agnostic.

Because the 'self' is a philosophical problem and I am yet to read you providing a tautological proof that you know yourself. If you think you know your self that doesn't prove it unless you define it so that's true by definition (a tautology).

If I could give a reason that the self should be held to a higher standard than anything else: then I'd be a solipsist.

Yes. But I don't necessarily know what I'm thinking because to claim that I'd have to be gnostic. You seemed to suggest that I must know what I'm thinking. But I can't prove that even to myself so I can't claim to know it really.

Truth is a separate matter from knowledge. It says what it means. A bunch of Christians know that there is a single 'God'... a bunch of Muslims know there is an entirely different one.

They believe they know it. That's very different to actually knowing it. Not only do I not share their beliefs but I also don't believe they can actually 'know' it, nor can I actually 'know' that I'm right in my atheism - I'm agnostic on all matters. As opposed to gnostic.

They can't both be right, can they? : )

I believe that is surely the case yes. But just because they believe doesn't mean they no it, no. Knowing and belief are very different things.

If someone says "I know that" that doesn't mean they do. That's just certainty, not knowledge.

You do know that you think though....

I won't claim that actually. I'm agnostic. There could be some way that I somehow don't know what I'm actually consciouslly thinking - and just because I can't think of a way doesn't mean there can't be one. I'm not going to fall into the fallacy of the Argument From Personal Incredulity

EvF

[Meatball]

That last post was unnecessarily long and could have been ended a lot sooner.

Sorta like your miserable life.

[Samson]

Holy Shit EVF.... Just being able to post that lengthy indulged post, I have to ask, "did you just do a line of Crank" before-hand......LOLOLOL...

[Eilonnwy]

...What the hell is this I don't even