The OP is nonsense. That the universe is inherently filled with uncertainty does not make it impossible for people to believe otherwise.

@Asmodee

(January 10, 2017 at 2:28 pm)Asmodee Wrote: The OP is nonsense.  That the universe is inherently filled with uncertainty does not make it impossible for people to believe otherwise.

It appears you have failed to reduce the initial passage.

International belief definition:

To accept as TRUE/ABSOLUTE.

Simply, we aren't omniscient of any event, thusly we can't regard any event as TRUE/TOTAL/ABSOLUTE.






@Ben

---

(January 10, 2017 at 8:06 am)Ben Davis Wrote:

---

Hi PGJ

(January 8, 2017 at 10:20 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: We are all atheists/atheistic, to Gods, as we physically can’t believe

Yes we can. I can. You possibly could. Almost anyone can. A few can't, some choose not to, the majority do and some of those can't help themselves but in the grandest terms, belief is an existent property of the human condition.

Quote:How?

(1) International belief definition:

“To accept as TRUE…..” 

---

/thread time. Anyone can accept anything as true (and often do!). The accepted thing doesn't even have to be real. Since it's a demonstrable fact that people accept things to be true, belief exists and your proposition can not stand. The rest of your post is ad-hoc rationalisation to cover your equivocation fallacy.

In the like, it appears you have failed to reduce the initial passage.

Simply, the target thing, shan't be measurable as 'true', due to the instance that humans (as far as science regards) cannot measure any scenario with absolute accuracy.

That is, we don't have access to 'truth' / absoluteness.

By extension, you fail to oppose non-beliefism's subsequent premise:

(January 10, 2017 at 9:26 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: It appears you have failed to reduce the initial passage.

International belief definition:

To accept as TRUE/ABSOLUTE.

Simply, we aren't omniscient of any event, thusly we can't regard any event as TRUE/TOTAL/ABSOLUTE.

That is not the definition used by most philosophers or cognitive scientists.

The Stanford Encyclopedia (considered one of the best) defines it thus:

"Contemporary analytic philosophers of mind generally use the term “belief” to refer to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true."

"Most contemporary philosophers characterize belief as a “propositional attitude”.

There is nothing about the need to be absolute about beliefs.

Belief is simply the psychological state in which one accepts a premise or proposition to be true.

I believe the proposition that my girlfriend loves me, but I do not believe with absolute certainty.

I believe that evolution is true, but my beliefs are provisional and not absolute, based on evidence.

As David Hume said: "A Wise man proportions his belief to the evidence."

In other words, it is possible to have beliefs held at various degrees of certainty.

(January 10, 2017 at 9:57 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(January 10, 2017 at 9:26 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: It appears you have failed to reduce the initial passage.

International belief definition:

To accept as TRUE/ABSOLUTE.

Simply, we aren't omniscient of any event, thusly we can't regard any event as TRUE/TOTAL/ABSOLUTE.

---

That is not the definition used by most philosophers or cognitive scientists.

The Stanford Encyclopedia (considered one of the best) defines it thus:

"Contemporary analytic philosophers of mind generally use the term “belief” to refer to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true."

"Most contemporary philosophers characterize belief as a “propositional attitude”.

There is nothing about the need to be absolute about beliefs.

Belief is  simply the psychological state in which one accepts a premise or proposition to be true.

I believe the proposition that my girlfriend loves me, but I do not believe with absolute certainty.

I believe that evolution is true, but my beliefs are provisional and not absolute, based on evidence.

As David Hume said: "A Wise man proportions his belief to the evidence."

---

In other words, it is possible to have beliefs held at various degrees of certainty.

It appears you failed to reduce the initial passage.

In addition to google's initial result (to accept as true), I extracted that of the definitions from 38 definition websites, (including standford).

A largely frequent paradigm, 'truth' | true, is compounded in non-beliefism premise-1.

This had long been mentioned amidst the initial passage's sources.





Thusly, it is clear? that belief need not constitute certainty.
HOWEVER, belief is primarily truth bound, on the horizon of truth's PROFOUND presence betwixt belief, and it's synonyms.




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Perhaps it is pertinent that you approach premise-ii.

There have been frequent failed attempts to disregard premise-i, however narrow attempts betwixt premise-ii:

(January 10, 2017 at 10:09 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote:

(January 10, 2017 at 9:57 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

---

That is not the definition used by most philosophers or cognitive scientists.

The Stanford Encyclopedia (considered one of the best) defines it thus:

"Contemporary analytic philosophers of mind generally use the term “belief” to refer to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true."

"Most contemporary philosophers characterize belief as a “propositional attitude”.

There is nothing about the need to be absolute about beliefs.

Belief is  simply the psychological state in which one accepts a premise or proposition to be true.

I believe the proposition that my girlfriend loves me, but I do not believe with absolute certainty.

I believe that evolution is true, but my beliefs are provisional and not absolute, based on evidence.

As David Hume said: "A Wise man proportions his belief to the evidence."

---

In other words, it is possible to have beliefs held at various degrees of certainty.

It appears you failed to reduce the initial passage.

In addition to google's initial result (to accept as true), I extracted that of the definitions from 38 definition websites, (including standford).

A largely frequent paradigm, 'truth' | true, is compounded in non-beliefism premise-1.

This had long been mentioned amidst the initial passage's sources.





Thusly, it is clear? that belief need not constitute certainty.
HOWEVER, belief is primarily truth bound, on the horizon of truth's PROFOUND presence betwixt belief, and it's synonyms.




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Perhaps it is pertinent that you approach premise-ii.

There have been frequent failed attempts to disregard premise-i, however narrow attempts betwixt premise-ii:

---

Quote:Non-beliefism/Premise[ii]:

Belief may constitute non-science.

Logic/science in contrast, shan’t encode non-science.

…ie scientific evidence shan’t contain non-scientific-evidence.

Thereafter, it is illogical to believe.

---

I see the word 'true' and 'truth' in the various definitions, but none of them state anything about having ABSOLUTE certainty.

I have plenty of beliefs. None of them I believe with ABSOLUTE certainty.

All of them are open to become disbeliefs, if shown evidence to do so.

(January 10, 2017 at 10:35 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: I see the word 'true' and 'truth' in the various definitions, but none of them state anything about having ABSOLUTE certainty.

I have plenty of beliefs. None of them I believe with ABSOLUTE certainty.

All of them are open to become disbeliefs, if shown evidence to do so.

Someone has far too much time on his hands, apparently.

(January 10, 2017 at 9:26 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote:

The Shiba Inu :The most irrational and frustrating pet known to dog lovers.

(January 10, 2017 at 10:48 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote:

---

---

Cherry-pick much?

You're entire premise is dependent on the attribute 'truth' being defined in it's most narrow context. You ignore the attribute 'acceptance' and the broader definitions of 'true' which are more appropriate in the context of belief. As has been stated many times, your requirement for certainty/absolutism is not necessary for a definition of belief and is about as far from a valid rebuttal of the existence of belief as you can get. You've conducted a poor analysis by failing to include all attributes of the entity and you have failed to recognise how to improve it in spite of advice from peer review.

As an aside, I assume you regularly describe/ascribe entities and attributes in your role as programming god. You should apply the same rigour to your philosophical considerations.

(January 10, 2017 at 9:26 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: @Asmodee

(January 10, 2017 at 2:28 pm)Asmodee Wrote: The OP is nonsense.  That the universe is inherently filled with uncertainty does not make it impossible for people to believe otherwise.

It appears you have failed to reduce the initial passage.

International belief definition:

To accept as TRUE/ABSOLUTE.

Simply, we aren't omniscient of any event, thusly we can't regard any event as TRUE/TOTAL/ABSOLUTE.

What I was saying is quite simple.  I CAN regard any event as true, total or absolute.  I just might not be right.