No Proof = No Knowledge

[Ben Davis]

Are you saying that everything must be empirically proven in order to be true? That's a self defeating argument.

Sorry but I don't get your point. I thought that the practical application of this claim is (to quote the Texan Tank) 'if you can't show it, you don't know it'. Please can you elaborate on why this is self-defeating?

[Mudhammam]

Are you saying that everything must be empirically proven in order to be true? That's a self defeating argument.

Sorry but I don't get your point. I thought that the practical application of this claim is (to quote the Texan Tank) 'if you can't show it, you don't know it'. Please can you elaborate on why this is self-defeating?

I get the sense that he is saying the statement itself cannot be "empirically proven in order to be true," hence it defines a requirement that it cannot itself satisfy.

[Darkstar]

I get the sense that he is saying the statement itself cannot be "empirically proven in order to be true," hence it defines a requirement that it cannot itself satisfy.

I don't think that everything need be proven empirically to be true. We can easily and reasonably exclude normative rules (e.g. logic) and philosophical arguments from the realm of the empirical (in the strictest sense, though we might observe the effects of following said normative standards to see if they achieve the desired result, which is technically empirical). However, the claim that a god, a sentient being that supposedly affects the physical world, would not require empirical proof is absurd.

[Sword of Christ]

If you don't have certain proof you won't have certain knowledge. Though I haven't seen any certain proof that atheism/materialism is true so this would be a belief (not a faith fair enough) in the absence of certain knowledge. There is a difference between what you believe to be true and what you know to be true. You can believe in God and a particular revelation from God without having certain knowledge of it's truth, you take it with a degree of trust that the people who delivered this revelation experienced what they experienced and this is a faith based position.

[Darkstar]

If you don't have certain proof you won't have certain knowledge.

It really depends on how strictly you adhere to the definition of certain. If 99% is enough, then there are plenty of things that you can justify belief in. If you mean an absolute 100%, then, technically speaking...you get Solipsism. Which is not so good. Perhaps the courtroom "reasonable doubt" standard is better, that is until we start debating how to define 'reasonable'.

[downbeatplumb]

There is a difference between what you believe to be true and what you know to be true. You can believe in God and a particular revelation from God without having certain knowledge of it's truth, you take it with a degree of trust that the people who delivered this revelation experienced what they experienced and this is a faith based position.

Yes but people lie.

[Mudhammam]

If you don't have certain proof you won't have certain knowledge. Though I haven't seen any certain proof that atheism/materialism is true so this would be a belief (not a faith fair enough) in the absence of certain knowledge. There is a difference between what you believe to be true and what you know to be true. You can believe in God and a particular revelation from God without having certain knowledge of it's truth, you take it with a degree of trust that the people who delivered this revelation experienced what they experienced and this is a faith based position.

Sure, you "can" do that, it's just not rational, as evidenced by the thousands of contradictory religions spawned from your sanctioned methodology.

[Crossless2.0]

There is a difference between what you believe to be true and what you know to be true. You can believe in God and a particular revelation from God without having certain knowledge of it's truth, you take it with a degree of trust that the people who delivered this revelation experienced what they experienced and this is a faith based position.

Yes but people lie.

. . . and misinterpret their experiences.

[Sword of Christ]

It really depends on how strictly you adhere to the definition of certain. If 99% is enough, then there are plenty of things that you can justify belief in. If you mean an absolute 100%, then, technically speaking...you get Solipsism. Which is not so good. Perhaps the courtroom "reasonable doubt" standard is better, that is until we start debating how to define 'reasonable'.

I'd say 99% certainty is still a little too much, you can leave some room for doubt when you don't actually know and have no concrete proof.





Try to get it over 50% either way so you're not sitting on the fence you want to be one side or the other.

---

Yes but people lie.

Book of Mormon/Scientology yes certainly, the Quran seems likely and the Bible much less likely. Take into account the level of sincerity St Paul writes with here in Corinthians.

"But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised.…"

I doubt St Paul was lying about what he believed/experienced, neither he nor any of the other Christians would have stood to gain by lying about this anyway quite the opposite. Joesph Smith and L Ron Hubbard, Mohammed to some degree did stand to gain something by making some shit up. So I think that's a decent point to bear in mind. Of course there is the possibility that everyone involved Jesus himself were nuts/crackers but they acknowledged this a as a possibility themselves yet stood by their faith in the face of persecution against them, in many cases they even ended up martyring themselves they wouldn't do this for a deliberate lie obviously.

[Mudhammam]

Book of Mormon/Scientology yes certainly, the Quran seems likely and the Bible much less likely. Take into account the level of sincerity St Paul writes with here in Corinthians.

"But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised.…"

I doubt St Paul was lying about what he believed/experienced, neither he nor any of the other Christians would have stood to gain by lying about this anyway quite the opposite. Joesph Smith and L Ron Hubbard, Mohammed to some degree did stand to gain something by making some shit up. So I think that's a decent point to bear in mind. Of course there is the possibility that everyone involved Jesus himself were nuts/crackers but they acknowledged this a as a possibility themselves yet stood by their faith in the face of persecution against them, in many cases they even ended up martyring themselves they wouldn't do this for a deliberate lie obviously.

Paul converted from Pharisaic Judaism, in which he was also a fanatic. There's no reason to think he was deliberately lying. Many gullible people STILL die for their faith, no matter how unsubstantiated or irrational their beliefs are.