The Insult EvidenceVsFaith Thread

[Violet]

Prove that then.

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

I don't know. But I'd say at least almost certainly, no.

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

I'm not making an argument for knowledge being objective. I'm asking how you know knowledge is necessarily subjective? Can you prove it? I don't see how you can even if we assume you're right!

Aside from the fact that all things (save existence itself) are subjective? 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). The action of attribution itself is subjective... how could knowledge (which is built atop attribution) be not subjective? It cannot be, hence it must necessarily be so.

Still, how do you know? I'll go with that in the sense that: I agree with you. But I'm still asking: How do you know?

I have told you how I know repeatedly: I have faith How else can we know anything save by holding faith in it? If we hold faith in nothing, we know nothing... if we know nothing, we have no faith. Savvy?

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

How does that follow? I don't see how it does. Sounds fallacious to me.

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

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. Simple logic, use your head, Evie!

All I'm doing is asking how you know knowledge is necessarily subjective. That's why I'm asking "How do you know?". I'm not making a claim there.

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.

I'm not trying to prove anything here though. You claim that subjective knowledge is necessarily subjective - so I'm pretty sure the burden of proof is on you. I am asking, as I am pretty sure I have said: "How do you know?".

First: quit asking "how do you know?". The only answer to that is that a person has faith. It is pointless to ask that question. "Why" is your friend...

I am not talking about the burden of proof... All annoyance I am showing here is as result of being asked questions that shouldn't need to be asked.

Sounds like almost theopposite of knowing to me.

Then you need to get your hearing checked : )

For faith is belief that lacks evidence... and the presence of evidence is the closest we can get to knowing objectively I reckon.... the absence or lack of evidence is the opposite. So in the only truly real practical sense of knowing (apart from tautologies): Evidence is as close as we can get, faith is the opposite. Faith is belief with an evidence deficit, not rational - and I personally don't favour` ir[b]rational over rational.

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.

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

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

I prefer to call me, me.

And "you" could be a lot of things really.

And the part of me that is thinking I prefer to call "the part of me that is thinking".

You think? : )

If I call the part of me that is thinking me then what do I call the rest of myself? And if I call both me then that's kind of confusing and I'd prefer to be a little more pedantic really.

Pedantic = focusing on trivialities. I wouldn't call introspection trivial...

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

Faith.

Substantiate that claim. I don't claim to NOT be the only one, I just think that it is more probable that I am not the only one who thinks 13.7 billion years is longer than a week, and I take this belief from my experience in life so far and my understanding of numbers and time.

Evidently you aren't thinking about just how ambiguous "year" and "week" are... I'd say the universe is a fuck ton older than 13.7 Billion SolIY. In fact weeks are sometimes longer than a year.

You however claim that I'm the only one who thinks this, and, as I said, I am just asking (as I am asking my other "How do you know?" questions above (in response to your claims)): How do you know?

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

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

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

The means/manner/way is faith.

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...

That's a tautology it's true by definition. That's different to non-tautological things.

So what if it is true (ultimately, by definition, or what have you): it changes not the capacity for it to be known.

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).

Of course you haven't read "proof" of one knowing themself anything. I don't presume to give a reason for it... i was being facetious with you for most of this. 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.

I feel like I am constantly saying that "Knowing dictates not truth".

Hmm... - could you elaborate on this perhaps? I'm quite interested.[/quote]
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 can't both be right, can they? : )

Maybe I should sig it.

Maybe you should. I don't know. But I think I'd certainly like to read you elaborating on it or an aspect of it at least a tad somewhat.

... I'm sigging it... it's so annoying having to explain existentialism, subjectivity, and nihilism consistently...

Well, I was merely trying to convey that not only do I believe I don't know things but I also don't believe I know that... or that or that or that - ad infinitum. If you know what I mean or not?

EvF

You do know that you think though....