Then I don't know what your criteria for atemporality is or how you're reaching any conclusion about what is temporal and what isn't.
Exactly, so you could believe that the next president will be Bob without knowing it: — Bob Ross
No, I can have an irrational belief that turns out to be incorrect, based on fallacy or just lack of knoweldge, or I can have a rational belief that turns out to be correct based on knowledge.
I have to know what the president of the United States is in order to have a belief about who will become president in the future.
how do I non-temporally acquire knowledge of X and then a belief in X without that inevitably being a temporal process? — Bob Ross
"No, I can have an irrational belief that turns out to be incorrect, based on fallacy or just lack of knoweldge, or I can have a rational belief that turns out to be correct based on knowledge."
That’s not what you implied thought with:
"I have to know what the president of the United States is in order to have a belief about who will become president in the future." — Bob Ross
This implies that one only needs some knowledge which is not the thing about to be beleived for that belief to be rational — Bob Ross
Is believing a ridged state for you? Are you equally sure about all your beliefs? — mentos987
how do I non-temporally acquire knowledge of X and then a belief in X without that inevitably being a temporal process? — Bob Ross
I didn't say this. I gave an example of a kind of belief that can turn out to be irrational or rational on some temporal dependency.
Underline adds by me. And, not to mention, you reiterated it again in your last response:The relationship is not temporal but one of dependency. If we're rational, belief depends on knowledge.
Those are both examples of atemporal logical/semantic dependency of raitonal belief on knowledge that beliefs possessing temporal dependency also have.
Why is it necessary for one of those two statements of mine to imply the other?
Of course the former doesn't imply the latter. The latter is a much simpler claim about rational beliefs than what the former says about rational beliefs that have some temporal dependency. They are not in contradiction, either.
…
To have a belief about presidents, you need to know what "presidents" means.
To have a belief about who will become president in the future, I have to know what "becoming president in the future" means.
To have a belief about presidents, you need to know what "presidents" means.
To have a belief about who will become president in the future, I have to know what "becoming president in the future" means.
Those are both examples of atemporal logical/semantic dependency of raitonal belief on knowledge that beliefs possessing temporal dependency also have.
I need to know the former before the latter. — Bob Ross
It's you that said one is more relevant than the other, not me. I'd say "relevance" of a definition comes down to popularity and history. — Hallucinogen
As a way of debunking what the OP is aimed at debunking - the idea that definitions prove what things are. — Hallucinogen
Not sure that's true. You can have direct knowledge that Bob will become President (for instance, if you're told he's going to be by a source trustworthy).
My understanding is that the conflict in the above exchange is that you are asserting a temporality requirement to the knowledge that Bob will become President
I.e that one must know what a President is, in order to justify the knowledge that Bob will become one/It.
I dont think one needs to know what a President is before being told Bob will become one/it to know that Bob will become one/it. — AmadeusD
the result is called, by tradition (or perhaps he knows the etymology, but not to what it refers), a butterfly, — AmadeusD
but i have no idea what the person drew — AmadeusD
is for people who go outside. — Lionino
the thing that comes out of the cocoon, so he knows what a butterfly is for him, just not what a butterfly is — Lionino
You know that it was a non-triangle, hence your conclusion. — Lionino
Your OP was attacking agnostic atheist in the sense that one needs knowledge of X to believe X — Bob Ross
I don’t see how any of that is atemporal. In order to know what “becoming president in the future” means to believe Bob is going to be the next president, I need to know the former before the latter. — Bob Ross
So in the terms in that quotation, agnosticism would be neither belief not disbelief, but, perhaps suspension of judgement or a belief that the question is malformed and therefore unanswerable.
It does seem to be the case that some (many) people don't think the distinction between agnosticism and atheism is important. And indeed, for some purposes, it isn't. But then, for other people, on other occasions, it is.
Well, agnosticism means that one doesn't "know" whether gods exist or not. However it is an error to then assume that believers and nonbelievers "know" that gods exist or don't exist. It is more accurate (when dealing with unknowable entities, like gods) to substitute "believe" for "know" on the question of existance. — LuckyR
For the first response, my clarification was more in the opposite direction. One must know what a President is in order to know that Bob will become one/it
I dont think one needs to know what a President is before being told Bob will become one/it to know that Bob will become one/it.
This could also be pointless - but i need practice for my upcoming papers LOL
To rationally believe X, I have to know what X means
To rationally believe X, I have to know X is a fact
Have you got a brief sketch of why you might argue this? — Tom Storm
There is a list of more detailed issues, all well known in Christian theology, none of which have what I would call a solution. In alphabetical order, divinity/humanity of Jesus, original sin, redemption through sacrifice or scapegoating, transubstantiation, trinity, — Ludwig V
Then, they both(Bob and the dumb kids) know what a butterfly is, and the other pieces of information (in one case, it's appearance, in the other, its origin) don't seem to bear on the respective knowledge claims. It doesn't seem to follow that the opposite (in each case) is required to bring the information to the level of 'knowledge'.
I don't think that's a counter as much as a parallel. They both know what a butterfly is under different criteria. — AmadeusD
Bob knows merely that a butterfly comes from a cocoon — AmadeusD
This seems to go the President example pretty squarely - I'm of the view that we can know Bob will become President, regardless of whether we know what a President is. — AmadeusD
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.