(June 20, 2014 at 11:52 am)Tea Earl Grey Hot Wrote:(June 20, 2014 at 11:24 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Unknown how... PhysicallyThis weird physical/philosophical distinction isn't necessary.
Known how... Philosophically
If x is unknown physically, you believe it or not.
If x is known Philosophically you should believe it.
If you don't know whether something is true or false, you have a belief about it with a truth value of unknown. You can't then say that you "believe it is true" or "believe it is false" because you already believe it is unknown. You'd have a contradictory belief. You're saying x is true and x is unknown.
It is necessary in fairness.
What I think fr0d0 is saying is that although you cannot prove x by physical means, you can come to a conclusion about it being true or not by other means. This obviously requires belief in some form, I don't agree with it, and you're right, it doesn't make it any less ludicrous, but with many of the religious their ideas of truth and knowledge are very different to most rational people.
