Thank you for sharing, I'll be sure to check it out in the future.

By that reasoning, you're saying you understand everything already, preventing what you once didn't understand being equal to nothing, becoming something you now do understand. With that, there would be no gaps in your reasoning, but to make such a claim requires a lot of evidence to back it up.

By that reasoning you are saying that a circle is a square at the same time because they're both shapes. In other words, since they're both similar to each other, they must be the same thing.

I am uncertain of everything (even myself existing), and even nothing since nothing requires understanding of what is not nothing to compare by, like knowing where a hole in the ground is by understanding where a hole in the ground is not. It could be that people actually know things, but it could be that they don't. But despite myself being uncertain of everything and nothing, I have faith in logic, science, etc. which is why I'm able to type up this response right now. Life doesn't have to make sense, we just want it to, this is why everything requires faith.

The positive point in understanding that everything requires faith has to do with why I have faith in the first place, which is believed positive benefit. This opens up a gateway of having faith in other things for believed positive benefit. Many people think they can know things, so they don't think they desire to have faith in things (after all, if they know things, why would they do something as uncertain as having faith?). I've seen many who (in my opinion) are basically weakening themselves by thinking this way, by being unable to admit how uncertain they are of life they are unable to have hope to the degree of what I see as being healthy.

I believe in the atheist sect of the religion Flawlessism (yes, a real religion, not a secular one). I believe in it because it's internally consistent, and because believing in it has more positive benefit than not believing in it.

Evidence you have won or lost a debate is not in the other person telling you, it is in your own understanding. If someone can address all of the points I made, not leaving anything important out when making a point, and prove to me why I am wrong, I will listen, but the majority of those who have responded to me did not do this, so I do not find it worth my time to respond to them anymore after engaging with them a little. So I challenge those who think they can actually disprove me to do so, those who are not looking for someone to tell them if they have won a debate or not, someone that does not have such shallow reasons to debate and are satisfied with that. Because it will be people like that I will see as mature, who are truly confident in their views.

I'm going to stop responding to you now. Have a nice day.

You're making so many assumptions that this conversation just isn't worth it anymore.

No, I don't, but it sure sounded like you did.

Ok then.

For 1, let’s imagine an entity that is definitely free. I put a gun to the entity’s head and tell it to pick a number between 1-10. Having no information about the number, what it means, if it will have any effect at all or otherwise, the entity still has 11 options (1 being to not answer at all). — 013zen

No, this is false, if they truly had free will, they would not be limited by your knowledge, after all, in their mind, they can react to things you say however they want, suffering would not affect them, they could shut off all of their senses, and killing them would not be possible because their body and mind would be fully them, you could not use things to control how they experience anything.

For 2, first of all why not and second of all I don’t believe that we have a predisposition towards knowledge, but we learn over time that knowing things is beneficial and try to actively acquire knowledge for that reason. This has nothing to do with our freedoms. In fact, some people freely choose to not acquire knowledge. — 013zen

Some people freely choose to not acquire knowledge?? Where is your evidence for that? Am I just supposed to believe that you're telling the truth?

Why do you choose to do anything? Why do you know what your answer is of what you will do before you do it? Because you have knowledge of what you should do, but where does that knowledge come from? If your first source of knowledge had nothing to do with free will, why would you then assume that you gain free will later?

Ah yes, because when the majority says something is true, they are always right, never could there be a situation where the majority is wrong. That would just be absolutely crazy. (I'm being sarcastic).

If you are talking about how I changed the title, I did that so that we would all have conversations more on topic, as I felt that many just read the title, didn't read much of the post, totally missed the point because the title wasn't clear enough.

With how vague you're being, can you truly blame me? I'm doing my best to understand what you're getting at, and yet the first time I mess up, you don't correct me, you instead just say I'm wrong... and that's all. Makes me wonder just how committed you truly are to this debate.

It might help for you to re-read my original post, as I have recently added some more details to it for enhanced clarity.

You're assuming that all faith is blind faith, but you see, true blind faith is when you no longer think you have faith in something, but instead think you know something is true, because when you think you know something, how can you then be wrong? It prevents people from thinking critically to have blind faith in things, it prevents people from desiring to learn more, after all, you already know so much, so there's no need to doubt what you already know. And this certainty in turn encourages others to no longer think they have faith in anything, but think that they truly know things, which is why so many people in this modern day believe in things that many people understand as being ridiculous.

And why believe the brain even exists? Likely science, but why believe science is real? Evidence, I imagine, but why believe evidence is real? Etc. I think you get the point here.

In other words, you're assuming that we're both using logic right now, but if logic doesn't actually exist, that would then just mean that you and I think we're using logic, when in reality, we're using something different which just seems like logic.

Once logic doesn't work, that means all arguments for or against it shouldn't work... but no, that implies there is no other form of reasoning aside from logic, but since we don't know everything, we cannot say if this is true.

Once you have faith in logic, it's consistent, but the system of logic itself is not logical, in that you can't prove it to be real with evidence, you have to rely on faith-based evidence. In other words, by believing that logic is real, you by extension believe that reality has consistency for logic to be true.

I'm confused what you're talking about now.

If logic were truly like that, such absolute certainty, why am I able to doubt it? If it were truly so true, myself doubting it should not even be possible, I would have to be lying, yet to lie, seems strange, after all, who would I be trying to convince? Obviously not someone who claims to know logic, as you are, and yet, I stand firm that logic requires faith even now. So tell me, why am I doing this?

Why not both? — Count Timothy von Icarus

"Why not" is not logical reasoning, it's like saying that suddenly, we are able to use free will. Sure, that could be true, but why should I believe that? What basis does such a belief have in being meaningful to have faith in?

If you look back, you'll see that I agree with you on the paradoxical nature of an absolutely free will. I think most philosophers would. I guess my suggestion would be: "is this a good definition of free will?" — Count Timothy von Icarus

To clarify, I do believe free will exists, but I do not believe we gain it until after death, and even then, we only have free will within ourselves. We already have a will, we are just not free to use it, it is restricted. To have a free will within yourself means that your body/mind is truly you, so the actions of your body/mind came from just you, but are limited by how things are around you, for if this were not true, our free wills would contradict each other.

Our freedom would allow us to not only have bodies/minds which are truly us, but also have knowledge which is truly us. We would each be unique in a way that others are not. The reason why I believe we don't have free will right now is because this world is not perfectly good, in that it would be irresponsible to give us free will in this situation, as it would be like telling us to figure out things ourselves.

What is the premise of logic? As I'm sure you know, logical arguments are dependent on premises and conclusions, therefore, what is the premise of logic that leads to the conclusion that logic is logical? Ah, but wait, if you use logic to say that logic is logical, would that not be a circular fallacy? I see no reason why it wouldn't be, therefore, logic requires faith.

But if you use the argument that because logic is logical is why logic is true, that is dependent on awareness being truly as it seems to be, which we can't know, therefore, logic still requires faith.

Yes, but that's just rearranging the appearance/shell of the figures. The inherent 1+1 =2 if it was actually in reality 3+3=500 we just shift changing the shell. The awareness is set in the decimal system, and its identity will pretty much remain the same regardless of what shell we put on it while using the decimal system. — Vaskane

How do you know this, that there exists nothing which could contradict this reasoning? Because for that to be true, you would have to know everything, and therefore know that there is nothing else which could contradict your reasoning, but you naturally don't know everything, so you can't make that argument with 100% certainty.

Since you're asking me this question after admitting that you had a hard time following my original post, you're essentially using the strawperson argument whether you realize that or not, so I'll end this debate with you here.

Why put effort into things? Well, based on the knowledge I have, I put effort into things because I understand the point in doing so (though knowledge I did not gain through free will).

The more knowledge you get through a lack of free will makes you free? How does that logically follow the premises? It's like saying that a lack of free will+ a lack of free will+ a lack of free will, etc. once you get to a certain point of gaining knowledge through a lack of free will, you suddenly are able to use free will. Sure, you could say it's possible, but using logic, you would never come to that conclusion.

Knowing what choice you should make, also requires knowledge, but if we gain knowledge, not because of our free will, then our "choice" is already set in stone, because we know through faith which choice is the choice we will make.

Descartes thought his awareness meant something of 100% certainty, but I don't see things as being that way, after all, our awareness might not truly be awareness at all, but just a deception to make us think we are "aware", whatever that means. But the point of having faith in things is meaningful, and the direction I believe that faith should go into is Socrates's reasoning, being humble in the face of uncertainty, not in the face of not knowing or knowing anything. This is why I picked Socrates, because I don't fully disagree with his philosophy, only part of it.

https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191826719.001.0001/q-oro-ed4-00010264#:~:text=Socrates%20469%E2%80%93399%20bc&text=I%20know%20nothing%20except%20the%20fact%20of%20my%20ignorance.&text=The%20rest%20of%20the%20world,while%20I%20eat%20to%20live.&text=To%20fear%20death%2C%20my%20friends,what%20we%20do%20not%20know.

You clearly didn't read my whole post, likely because you thought I would say things I didn't.

While im at it, I couldnt help but notice that even though faith is heavily discussed here you used an interesting angle...using Socrates, and free will is smart and to slide in these questions about faith and certainty without religion. — Kizzy

To clarify, I do actually believe in a religion, and the points I made do actually tie into my religion, so it would actually count as a philosophy of a religion, but it can also apply outside of my religion.

I was kinda getting at this here with the delight of, Vaskane....https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/887319 — Kizzy

From my understanding, faith is never blind until faith is no longer believed as being faith, but actually knowing things, because when you truly think you know something, how can those who only have faith in things prove you wrong? I believe that those who think they can know anything without faith already have blind faith. In fact, back when I was still a Christian, I was taught to think I knew things, not that I had faith, and getting out of that religion from that position was a nightmare to me. I was able to leave Christianity behind only because I realized that I had faith in that religion through painful experiences, in other words, to leave a faith behind requires understanding your own uncertainty, therefore, to teach that people can know things is to discourage a lack of certainty and make leaving any faith behind harder than it needs to be.

In other words, by emphasizing that we can know things, belief systems can inadvertently discourage acknowledging the role of faith and uncertainty in our understanding of the world. This can therefore lead to blind faith, where individuals will not critically evaluate their beliefs or consider alternative perspectives. Encouraging an awareness of uncertainty can promote a more open-minded approach and a deeper understanding of the basis of one's beliefs.

Thank you for your positive response, I went back and edited the original post a bit, the paragraphs that say "Edited" at the beginning are the only parts changed. It should add more clarity to my original argument.

You say you are not an idiot - are you certain? Is that faith based? — Tom Storm

I am not an idiot is obviously based on faith, as is everything else.

I'm unclear, what is it you are certain you are uncertain about? — Tom Storm

In the context of knowing anything, I am neither certain or uncertain, in the context of faith, I am certain.

To claim uncertainty is to claim you know there are things you are uncertain of, which means having knowledge, which I do not have, not in the context of non-faith-based knowledge.

Socrates believed at one point that he knew that he knew nothing, if he did not have this belief, he would not ever seek knowledge. My claim is that he knew things even while he thought that he knew nothing.

"When I studied Socrates at university, we were taught that the claim was not to be read as a concrete absolutist proclamation, but a poetic expression about the limitations in Socrates' knowledge."

Yes, limitations, he thought he knew that he knew nothing in certain areas, not that he thought he had faith that he knew nothing in certain areas. I'm not an idiot, I of course understand he believed he knew some things when he said that he knew that he knew nothing.

"No. There are things we can have confidence in and things we don't know. Faith can be left to religious claims. There's a continuum from total ignorance to certainty. If this wasn't the case, you wouldn't be typing your response on a website based on technology maintained by knowledge and then reading and responding. Sure, we know nothing with absolute certainty, but we don't need certainty."

I do not believe I gained awareness of logic and other things through free will, since I don't believe in free will, so now, after being exposed to such things, I feel influenced to believe such things are true because I have no influence swaying me to think differently, and I see no benefit in doing differently. So, I believe I started out my beliefs with zero certainty because I lacked the free will to do differently, and since my faith in anything was originally started out with zero certainty, everything I have faith in is founded on faith of zero certainty, disproving your reasoning. I did explain this in my post, but I guess you couldn't be bothered to fully read it before stating your opinion.

I agree that Socrates was wise in many ways, but as my post title stated, I disagree with part of his philosophy, and I have explained why, because yes, his faith was not ever claimed as a faith, that was not the direction he went with things, he truly believed he knew when he lacked knowledge, not as faith, but as knowing, this is reflected in his philosophy, but hey, if you want to believe that that's not what he meant, then you do you.

I do not know if we know things, but I believe we know things though since I believe reality is real in the way it seems to be... Did you actually read my full post? Because I did explain this in my post clearly enough.

He claimed to not know anything at all, which is why he sought after "knowledge", however, many times he taught others they were ignorant with certainty, however, if he believed that people only knew things through faith, that would mean that he wouldn't then say for certain that others knew nothing, since he would not know such things, he would have faith of such things, which could then in turn mean that others who were "ignorant" might actually know things after all, they just weren't truly aware of that.

Thanks, I'll keep doing my best.

I actually improved it yet again, adding these two sections: "Application to the Sorites Paradox" and "Note" for added clarity, but nothing else changed.

Thank you.

Made a major edit, just for clarity though, so I would recommend re-reading the whole thing, since it's much better explained now.