(January 10, 2019 at 10:18 am)tackattack Wrote: If knowledge is the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association or  the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning (standard definitions from MW) then knowledge is pretty easy to obtain.

Reasoning is only valid when fed true premises; faith is believing something that you can not reason your way to.

Quote:Neither knowledge or faith require evidence in their definitions.

Knowledge, in any meaningful use of the term, must be based on evidence.

Quote:People however, demand proofs and evidentiary standards to include a view into their own beliefs. That could be difficult to accept for those that  don't believe there is a spiritual world.

Evidence, not proofs, but that's no better than saying it would be hard to believe in oompa-loompas if you don't believe there is a Willy Wonka.  You can't base "knowledge" on something that you can't show actually exists.  You can only get as far as belief with faith.

Quote:It may not be reasonable from your perspective, or provable to you, but that doesn't make it any less real to me or true objectively. Faith requires reasoning. The reasoning could be faulty, but doesn't have to be.

The reasoning can be completely valid but unless it is based on demonstrably true premises there can be no justifiable conclusion.  Faith can lead you to a true conclusion but you have no way to evaluate that.

Quote:Faith doesn't require evidence.

Which makes it a failed epistemology since it can't justify any conclusion it reaches.

Quote:As to your earlier point regarding what faith leads to, it does lead to expectation. Faith breeds hope. You and I both have Faith that there will be a tomorrow to wake up to our wives.

I have confidence based on decades of experience in that situation.  Using faith as a synonym for trust or confidence while also using it to justify believe in supernatural agents is an equivocation fallacy.  They are not at all the same thing.

Quote:Justified faith leads to reliance, and reliance to trust, trust to security in your knowledge that tomorrow is another day. That is reasoned knowledge from faith. We can discuss all day long how and why tomorrow will most likely happen in a materialistic evidentiary way. We can even apply neuroscience and sociology to whether it will include our wives.

There is no such thing as justified faith.

Quote:However, we nominally operate on this intuitively not scientifically, which is faith.

That is very disingenuous.  We do operate intuitively but some intuition is based on experience and demonstrable facts and the conclusions can be justified if you take the time to review them consciously.  Other times, as in the belief in the supernatural, it can feel compelling but when you examine it there is no substance there.  If I find that I have believed something based on intuition without being able to rationally justify it then I stop believing.

(January 10, 2019 at 4:13 pm)unfogged Wrote:

(January 10, 2019 at 10:18 am)tackattack Wrote: If knowledge is the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association or  the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning (standard definitions from MW) then knowledge is pretty easy to obtain.

Reasoning is only valid when fed true premises; faith is believing something that you can not reason your way to.

Quote:Neither knowledge or faith require evidence in their definitions.

Knowledge, in any meaningful use of the term, must be based on evidence.

Quote:People however, demand proofs and evidentiary standards to include a view into their own beliefs. That could be difficult to accept for those that  don't believe there is a spiritual world.

Evidence, not proofs, but that's no better than saying it would be hard to believe in oompa-loompas if you don't believe there is a Willy Wonka.  You can't base "knowledge" on something that you can't show actually exists.  You can only get as far as belief with faith.

Quote:It may not be reasonable from your perspective, or provable to you, but that doesn't make it any less real to me or true objectively. Faith requires reasoning. The reasoning could be faulty, but doesn't have to be.

The reasoning can be completely valid but unless it is based on demonstrably true premises there can be no justifiable conclusion.  Faith can lead you to a true conclusion but you have no way to evaluate that.

Quote:Faith doesn't require evidence.

Which makes it a failed epistemology since it can't justify any conclusion it reaches.

Quote:As to your earlier point regarding what faith leads to, it does lead to expectation. Faith breeds hope. You and I both have Faith that there will be a tomorrow to wake up to our wives.

I have confidence based on decades of experience in that situation.  Using faith as a synonym for trust or confidence while also using it to justify believe in supernatural agents is an equivocation fallacy.  They are not at all the same thing.

Quote:Justified faith leads to reliance, and reliance to trust, trust to security in your knowledge that tomorrow is another day. That is reasoned knowledge from faith. We can discuss all day long how and why tomorrow will most likely happen in a materialistic evidentiary way. We can even apply neuroscience and sociology to whether it will include our wives.

There is no such thing as justified faith.

Quote:However, we nominally operate on this intuitively not scientifically, which is faith.

That is very disingenuous.  We do operate intuitively but some intuition is based on experience and demonstrable facts and the conclusions can be justified if you take the time to review them consciously.  Other times, as in the belief in the supernatural, it can feel compelling but when you examine it there is no substance there.  If I find that I have believed something based on intuition without being able to rationally justify it then I stop believing.

You seem to have a fair amount of faith in your explanations.  Why do you assume them to be correct?

(January 10, 2019 at 4:17 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(January 10, 2019 at 4:13 pm)unfogged Wrote: Reasoning is only valid when fed true premises; faith is believing something that you can not reason your way to.


Knowledge, in any meaningful use of the term, must be based on evidence.


Evidence, not proofs, but that's no better than saying it would be hard to believe in oompa-loompas if you don't believe there is a Willy Wonka.  You can't base "knowledge" on something that you can't show actually exists.  You can only get as far as belief with faith.



The reasoning can be completely valid but unless it is based on demonstrably true premises there can be no justifiable conclusion.  Faith can lead you to a true conclusion but you have no way to evaluate that.


Which makes it a failed epistemology since it can't justify any conclusion it reaches.


I have confidence based on decades of experience in that situation.  Using faith as a synonym for trust or confidence while also using it to justify believe in supernatural agents is an equivocation fallacy.  They are not at all the same thing.


There is no such thing as justified faith.


That is very disingenuous.  We do operate intuitively but some intuition is based on experience and demonstrable facts and the conclusions can be justified if you take the time to review them consciously.  Other times, as in the belief in the supernatural, it can feel compelling but when you examine it there is no substance there.  If I find that I have believed something based on intuition without being able to rationally justify it then I stop believing.

You seem to have a fair amount of faith in your explanations.  Why do you assume them to be correct?

Why do you assume you are correct? Please do not tell everyone reading this you think others of other god claims/religions don't think they are correct.

(January 10, 2019 at 4:40 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(January 10, 2019 at 4:17 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: You seem to have a fair amount of faith in your explanations.  Why do you assume them to be correct?

Why do you assume you are correct? Please do not tell everyone reading this you think others of other god claims/religions don't think they are correct.

Never stated that they don't think they're correct.  One of my very good friends is a Muslim.  I don't go around trying to invalidate him.  We have common ground and as such, we are friends.  There's a lot we can probably agree on, and there are qualities that he has that I wish I had more of, but we are who we are.  Sometimes that's what's good to focus on.

You say you're a poet, correct (Rational Poet)?  I'm a poet, and write poetry.  We have common ground.  It wouldn't make sense to try to invalidate you as a poet, or in doing such, I might as well invalidate myself.

(January 10, 2019 at 10:18 am)tackattack Wrote: @LadyForCamus @unfogged

If knowledge is the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association or  the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning (standard definitions from MW) then knowledge is pretty easy to obtain. You don't question whether the sky is blue, or a tree is firm enough to hold you, or that tomorrow is another day.

Thank you for a thoughtful response! And, now you'll hate me because I'm going to be pedantic about the definitions of knowledge, lol.  I'm not trying to be difficult; I just want to make sure we're on the same page before we move further on in the conversation.  I don't want us talking past each other. From MW:

Quote:knowl·edge

1.facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

2. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.

So, knowledge is, 1.  the acquisition of facts about a thing, or said another way in definition 2., an awareness of facts about a thing. Would you agree with my summarization? If so, then knowledge of a subject requires the subject itself to be a thing that exists.  As you said further down regarding your examples, we know the sky is blue, that trees are strong, and that the sun will rise tomorrow because these are material subjects that can be demonstrated. We can acquire facts about them, and these facts can be subsequently demonstrated. Facts are descriptive. They inform us of the reality of a thing. If a fact cannot be demonstrated, what qualifies it as a fact? We may intuitively understand these objects as real through our first-hand experience, but they can also be independently verified via the scientific method. Put another way, if I was the only one who ever saw trees, I may begin to doubt my first hand experience that informs me that trees exist. Intuition is functional short-hand, but it’s not without its flaws.

Quote:Those things are grounded in the material and natural. They are easy to quantify and measure with other tools we have like materialism and science. Neither knowledge or faith require evidence in their definitions.

I disagree here.  Facts, in and of themselves, are evidence. And, knowledge is a collection of facts that inform us of a thing.  It's implicit in the definition, even if the word "evidence" is not explicitly stated.  If there are no demonstrable facts about a thing, then there is no evidence for that thing.  If there is no evidence, why believe it exists at all?

Quote:People however, demand proofs and evidentiary standards to include a view into their own beliefs. That could be difficult to accept for those that  don't believe there is a spiritual world.

I agree here.  I would need someone to demonstrate some facts that describe a spiritual world before I could reasonably believe in one.

Ahura Mazda

(zoom zoom?)

(January 10, 2019 at 5:11 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(January 10, 2019 at 4:40 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Why do you assume you are correct? Please do not tell everyone reading this you think others of other god claims/religions don't think they are correct.

Never stated that they don't think they're correct.  One of my very good friends is a Muslim.  I don't go around trying to invalidate him.  We have common ground and as such, we are friends.  There's a lot we can probably agree on, and there are qualities that he has that I wish I had more of, but we are who we are.  Sometimes that's what's good to focus on.

You say you're a poet, correct (Rational Poet)?  I'm a poet, and write poetry.  We have common ground.  It wouldn't make sense to try to invalidate you as a poet, or in doing such, I might as well invalidate myself.

"Some of my best friends are"....

Ok, so what? 

Sorry, but there has never been any evidence in our species history of a super natural cognition. Certainly lots of claims of countless labels throughout our species history, but no evidence of any. 

Again, I don't care if you are Christian, or Muslim, or Buddhist, or Jewish, or Hindu. If you can rightfully reject claims of Apollo, and Thor and Poseidon, it should be easy enough for you to see why I reject your claim as well.

Nobody is asking you to deny your Muslim friend's right by "invalidation". This is not an argument on my part against human rights. This is merely about evidence.

If you think you got it right, that is the reason you hold your position, as much as your Muslim friend hold's their position. If your Muslim friend is not "invalid" then why are you not a Muslim?

(January 10, 2019 at 5:53 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(January 10, 2019 at 5:11 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Never stated that they don't think they're correct.  One of my very good friends is a Muslim.  I don't go around trying to invalidate him.  We have common ground and as such, we are friends.  There's a lot we can probably agree on, and there are qualities that he has that I wish I had more of, but we are who we are.  Sometimes that's what's good to focus on.

You say you're a poet, correct (Rational Poet)?  I'm a poet, and write poetry.  We have common ground.  It wouldn't make sense to try to invalidate you as a poet, or in doing such, I might as well invalidate myself.

"Some of my best friends are"....

Ok, so what? 

Sorry, but there has never been any evidence in our species history of a super natural cognition. Certainly lots of claims of countless labels throughout our species history, but no evidence of any. 

Again, I don't care if you are Christian, or Muslim, or Buddhist, or Jewish, or Hindu. If you can rightfully reject claims of Apollo, and Thor and Poseidon, it should be easy enough for you to see why I reject your claim as well.

Nobody is asking you to deny your Muslim friend's right by "invalidation". This is not an argument on my part against human rights. This is merely about evidence.

If you think you got it right, that is the reason you hold your position, as much as your Muslim friend hold's their position. If your Muslim friend is not "invalid" then why are you not a Muslim?

- You say there has never been any evidence.  Others clearly say differently.  Who determines evidence?
- I don't go around rejecting claims of Apollo, Thor, or Poseidon.  Not sure where you got that idea.'
- Why try to invalidate my Muslim friend?  I have hope for him, not hate.  I even gain from him at times, but he's not a tool.  He's a friend, and I don't need to be a Muslim to be his friend.

(January 10, 2019 at 6:18 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(January 10, 2019 at 5:53 pm)Brian37 Wrote: "Some of my best friends are"....

Ok, so what? 

Sorry, but there has never been any evidence in our species history of a super natural cognition. Certainly lots of claims of countless labels throughout our species history, but no evidence of any. 

Again, I don't care if you are Christian, or Muslim, or Buddhist, or Jewish, or Hindu. If you can rightfully reject claims of Apollo, and Thor and Poseidon, it should be easy enough for you to see why I reject your claim as well.

Nobody is asking you to deny your Muslim friend's right by "invalidation". This is not an argument on my part against human rights. This is merely about evidence.

If you think you got it right, that is the reason you hold your position, as much as your Muslim friend hold's their position. If your Muslim friend is not "invalid" then why are you not a Muslim?

- You say there has never been any evidence.  Others clearly say differently.  Who determines evidence?
- I don't go around rejecting claims of Apollo, Thor, or Poseidon.  Not sure where you got that idea.'
- Why try to invalidate my Muslim friend?  I have hope for him, not hate.  I even gain from him at times, but he's not a tool.  He's a friend, and I don't need to be a Muslim to be his friend.

You know what claims are like, don't you? Everyone has one.

Again, there are certainly plenty of claims of deities/God/gods/super natural. So what?

It cant be humans are merely projecting their own qualities, desires, narcissism, and insecurities into the form of bad claims that take on comic book form?

Next time you see your pet, or a video of a pet reacting to it's own reflection in a mirror, remember this.

And where did I accuse you of having hate for your Muslim friend? I already said I value human rights myself. I am not asking you to hate anyone. I am saying you got it wrong.

"Unescorted child"

Okay, that might be Catholic priest specific...