We seem to be in a similar situation: no understanding of physical processes, however complete, explains consciousness. — Art48

You have provided no justification for this statement, because there isn't any beyond "Seems to me."

As Isaac wrote:

Another in a tiresome series of posts confusing the poster's personal inability to understand neuroscience with there being no facts of neuroscience to understand. — Isaac

Would you still chose to escape it?

If yes, would you say that is the rational choice? — TheMadMan

I'd say it's neither rational nor irrational. It's a question of values, which are non-rational.

if you ask "how did the universe came to be?", atheists reply "it's just a fluke". — Agent Smith

This is facile and untrue. It shows a lack of understanding of how the universe works at a fundamental level.

Where is the rigidity? — TheMadMan

As I've said, you underestimate the compassion of normal, everyday, non-enlightened people.

As I said before I'm not speaking of the ordinary man but beyond it. I pointed to the man of Chuang Tzu, Zarathustra's etc. — TheMadMan

As I wrote previously and as comments by others highlight, I think you are being unnecessarily rigid in your understanding of how morality works for regular people.

The underlying premises of morality are based on social factors, such as the principle of the golden rule of treating others as one would wish to be treated, as well as morality existing socially as a form of social contract. — Jack Cummins

This is a good point.

You'll have a hard time following it if you haven't read Plantinga. (I wouldn't blame you if you don't want to bother.) — SophistiCat

I did check it out at the Wikipedia link you provided. I found the argument... unconvincing. Thanks.

The best of them are those who defined the structure and obeyed their conscience but I believe that was uncommon. — TheMadMan

I don't think that's true, but, as I noted, I can't provide more specific backup for that belief.

I had a hard time following your argument. The use of letters to represent properties was especially confusing, e.g. I can't figure out what "the probability of R on N&E is low" means. Some of them were not defined. You also make a lot assumptions about God's characteristics without explanation. Not all gods are necessarily omnipotent, omniscient, or rational. Are you only talking about a Christian or Muslim God?

Plantinga argues that the person who accepts naturalism (N) the thesis that there is no God or anything at all like him and evolution (E) has a defeater for her belief that her cognitive faculties are reliable (R). — GodlessGirl

This is the only place in the body of the post you mention evolution. You don't really explain how it fits into the argument.

a belief on materialism(which he takes N to entail) — GodlessGirl

I don't think naturalism requires a belief in materialism.

It is true that in modern times people base their morality less and less on formal system. I took into consideration the whole history of mankind. — TheMadMan

I'm not a good enough student of history or anthropology to be definitive, but I think my description of how most people make moral decisions probably applies during all times.

But still I observe that people, consciously or unconsciously, create a structure of morality for without it they feel at a loss. — TheMadMan

Most people probably do to some extent, but I think there's a lot of wu wei in how even regular people treat other people.

And welcome to the forum.

How would a phenomenal conservativist accept my definition when there is no reason we should think an intuition increases the probability that a belief is true? — GodlessGirl

Welcome to the forum.

I've made the case here on the forum many times that intuition is a valid source of justification. Whether or not it is adequate in itself depends on the consequences of being wrong. If the consequences are significant, intuition might have to be validated with additional information.

So we have the moral person who acts through the traditions of their organized belief system and we have the person of Heraclitus, of Chuang Tzu, of Christ and of many old wisdom who acts spontaneously through their understanding. — TheMadMan

Sounds like you are familiar with the Tao Te Ching. This from Verse 38, Stephen Mitchell's translation.

When the Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is morality.
When morality is lost, there is ritual.
Ritual is the husk of true faith,
the beginning of chaos. — Tao Te Ching

Although I am mostly in agreement with what you've written, I think you've laid it out too starkly. Most people don't make decisions based on a formal system of morality. For me, that's what conscience is about - it includes internalized learned rules, but also empathy and compassion.

A veritable definition of sophistry: what counts is what serves my purpose. — Banno

That's not what sophistry means. You should look it up.

I'd be happy to discuss opinion sometime, but it's outside the scope of this discussion, which is about knowledge.

Which, on your account, have no truth value... — Banno

I didn't say anything about the truth value of opinions. Let me think about them now... I think you're probably right that opinions are not either true or false. That doesn't mean they aren't useful. I've been consistent here on the forum that I believe usefulness is more important than truth.

There wasn't actually an argument in that post. — Banno

Agreed, but there were statements of opinion.

What is the term you'd prefer to designate JTB if not "knowledge"? Let us use the word "tnow" for that. — Hanover

As I stated previously, knowledge is adequately justified belief. As to what JTB is...I guess I think it's meaningless, or at least useless. That's a position I've been pretty consistent about throughout my brilliant philosophical career here on the forum.

One might even claim that their pushing such a break between fact and value was intentional sophistry. — Banno

Particularly lame sophistry.

Are you really wanting to maintain that values do not have a truth value? — Banno

Yes.

SO it's not true that I like vanilla, — Banno

That you like vanilla is a statement of fact. Your liking of vanilla is a statement of value.

Who shouldn't such sentence have truth values — Banno

It's not that it shouldn't. It's that it doesn't.

I'm saying that Ptolmey didn't know the earth was in the center of the universe, regardless of how helpful that belief might have been to him. — Hanover

I disagree.

Your example is very consequential, thus a higher burden of justification is needed to claim something as knowledge. — PhilosophyRunner

I agree.

Perhaps pragmatism works for deciding if the sun will come up tomorrow. Does it work for deciding if you should kill Mum for her inheritance? — Banno

This is not a question of fact, i.e knowledge, it is a question of values, which you know. More sophistry.

The point here is that dispensing with the T element dispenses with a meaningful K. That truth is evasive is just the truth about truth, and ignoring it doesn't resolve any issue. — Hanover

It allows us to make decisions in the face of uncertainty. That includes most decisions. In a related fashion, it allows us some control over the risks of decisions we make.

Sophistry, intentional, as are many of your comments.
— T Clark

Whatever gets you through the night. I can show you the bigger picture but I can't make you see it.
35 minutes ago — Banno

I think my statement is a justified true belief.

And so in practice, everyone uses JMAOJB (Justified Massive Amounts Of Justification Belief) when using "I know..."

If everybody uses JMAOJB when invoking knowledge, then is it not the case that knowledge is actually JMAOJB and not JTB in any practical use. A meaning of a word is what is in common usage, after all. — PhilosophyRunner

I don't need a massive amount of justification, only enough so that any uncertainty is acceptable given the consequences of being wrong. The same belief might require different justification in different situations.

Is that true? How do you know? How certain are you? — Banno

Sophistry, intentional, as are many of your comments.

So how do you know that all truth is provisional and how certain are you? — Banno

I believe, based on experience and reason, that the attitude I expressed is a useful, pragmatic way of seeing things which is most likely to lead to effective actions. That's what knowledge is about - it is a tool to help decide what action to take.

And to put my views more succinctly, JBT is defying knowledge (epistemology) is being defined in terms of metaphysics (absolute objective truth). But since we can never actually access this, instead I propose to define knowledge in epistemological terms - provisional truth that can be justified using the best current justification methodology. That to me is what most are referring to when they say "I know" — PhilosophyRunner

You and I are in agreement. As an engineer and a pragmatist, I think an emphasis on the adequacy of the justification, uncertainties in that judgement, and the consequences of being wrong are primary.

Curious, that your thread on a simple technical feature had been metamorphosed into a discussion of the arguments for the existence of god. — Banno

It's more of an argument about whether religious people and their beliefs deserve to be treated evenhandedly on the forum. I think the new feature @Jamal has identified can grease the squeaky wheels on both sides in that regard.

3) It is tru.. . Wait a minute, I do not have direct access to the truth. I am stumped. — PhilosophyRunner

may JTB be useless? — PhilosophyRunner

I think you are exactly correct. That's why I think JTB is useless. I propose different factors for identifying knowledge. Rather than belief, justification, and truth; I think belief and adequate justification are the right factors and are all that's required. I'll bring out one of my favorite quotes, from Stephen J. Gould - "In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

All truth is provisional. We just have to be certain enough that we minimize the consequences of being wrong within acceptable limits. Not everything can be justified by personal experience, so it is perfectly reasonable to accept justification from sources you have confidence in. As for flat earth - If you are at sea and another boat with masts is coming toward you, you first will see just the tops of it's sails. As it get's closer, more of the boat will be visible. People knew that long before Columbus. Of course, now we also have pictures of the Earth from space.

So, if you want to say you know something and you're worried people will doubt your knowledge, just add a statement about how you know it and how certain you are.

Solution: place this thread into a blocked category and quickly forget about it. — Metaphysician Undercover

Your post is well-expressed, and I agree. If religious posts are put into Philosophy of Religion, then those who are offended by arguments for the existence of God can just block the whole category.

I'm not in favor of encouraging those who disagree with a topic to avoid that topic so as to allow those in agreement to hold their conversations in peace. — Hanover

Yes, I agree, but my post was in response to @Benkei's provocative post. See below.

Finally, no more religious crap!
— Benkei

Finally, no excuse for anti-religious bigotry in "Philosophy of Religion" threads. — T Clark

I'm all for respectful, responsive comments from non-theists in posts on religious subjects. Many anti-religion posts are neither.

just turn a blind eye. as you would to any subject that doYYesn't interest you. — Janus

Yes. That was my point in the whole exchange - Now that we can block whole categories, anti-religious people can avoid the whole problem rather than whining and growling over religious threads.

Sounds like all humans are naturally bigots by this definition. — Nils Loc

Twas brillig and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe.

I'm sorry? You've been on this site how long? If you think any of the proofs of God actually works, you haven't been paying attention. — Benkei

Klaatu barada nikto

Ah, you've just described religious persons as bigots. That's not very nice. — Benkei

How is that relevant to your behavior?

I'm not anti-religious, I'm against stupid threads. And since all the god arguments have been disproved, all of them are stupid. — Benkei

Definition of bigotry - The character or mode of thought of a bigot; obstinate and unreasonable attachment to a particular creed, opinion, practice, ritual, or party organization; excessive zeal or warmth in favor of a party, sect, or opinion; intolerance of the opinions of others.

No further questions. I rest my case. That's the name of that tune. Nuff said. Quod erat demonstrandum.

My heart sinks when I read those sorts of OP's and there is an existing conversation much like it here already somewhere festering with overly familiar bigotries. — Tom Storm

I didn't like it either, but it's pretty run-of-the-mill for what gets posted here. Most of the responses I read were people criticizing the OP. That's kind of the way it's supposed to work unless a post is especially egregious.

Egregious is a good word. I'm glad I had a chance to use it.

The thread was deleted because my concerns were shared by other mods/admins. — busycuttingcrap

Thanks for the reasonable reply. I still think deleting the thread was unnecessary.

And welcome to the forum.

Finally, no more religious crap! — Benkei

Finally, no excuse for anti-religious bigotry in "Philosophy of Religion" threads.

I recommended that your thread be deleted, — busycuttingcrap

You're brand new on the forum and you've already been made a moderator. You don't know much about our history or way of doing things. Your decision seems precipitous and unnecessary to me. I assume you ran this past other moderators before you deleted the thread.

I had problems with @tomatohorse's OP, as I noted in the comment I posted. I agree that he didn't do much homework. On the other hand, his post had much more detail than many that are allowed here. OPs with one or two sentences and very little content are allowed all the time.

Although I thought his ideas about transgender people were ham-handed, naive, and ungenerous, they didn't seem to me they violated any of our guidelines. You seem to have made a preemptive strike based on what might happen.

While I'm at it, I'll make another request that moderators notify affected members when they delete a post or thread. At the very least it will help avoid unwelcome kvetching from loudmouth members like me.