thinks it needs further qualification — Terrapin Station

It either does or doesn't need further qualifications in order to be true. Whatever someone thinks is irrelevant and accepting something because you don't think it needs further qualifications is inadequate.

So that's irrelevant to the atheists in question discovering that knowledge is a type of belief. — Terrapin Station

Knowledge isn't a type of belief. Knowledge is the information you know, it's either corrupt by biases, fallacies or unsupported belief or it's supported by facts, logic and rational reasoning. The latter being the form of knowledge which should be the virtue to have. Justified true belief has many times been corrupted by biased arguments using it to cop-out any scrutiny to the argument. Many use it as a form of "it's true because that's my belief" defense, rather than adhering to the complexity of JTB.

When I speak of atheists, I speak of those who reason rationally, with the philosophical methods at hand. Just as I view theists by their philosophical methods in opposition to atheistic philosophers. But it seems many straw man atheists and theists by comparing them to those who just "believe". What I argue is that theistic philosophers accept reasoning with holes in their logic way too often than atheists. By simply looking at the deduction and induction by both sides.

As I said, JTB is not in simple consensus. Just using the term without people knowing the complexity of everything around it makes the method overused in a simplistic form. Just as you say, it needs further qualifications. But there's a lot to read on the matter: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/

What do those folks do when they learn something about epistemology, where propositional knowledge is--as one of philosophy's most widespread consensuses--characterized as justified true belief? — Terrapin Station

Justified true belief is not in simple consensus due to the Gettier problem. It's not a modern method in epistemology by its original form.

Knowing about epistemology is not the same as actually learning epistemology.

I simply have the impression that, in general, atheist belief tends to rely entirely on scientificfically demonstrated explanations for anything and everything. — Merkwurdichliebe

For anything to be claimed as "truth" it needs a lot of evidence, explanation, logical reasoning and demonstration. That is true. Accepting something as true, without any of that is a serious flaw if knowledge is the purpose of something. But ideas, hypotheses, and speculation can still be made. The key difference is that atheists never view such speculation as anything other than speculation; something never accepted as any kind of truth or way to live by. To do so, is to abandon reasoning in favor of truths that fit the subjective narrative for the purpose of comfort. It's comforting to rely on something unexplained instead of continuing the search.

There might even be the reason of accepting something, even if it's not true or explained, in order to just live life. I think a key difference is that atheists never settle on anything, truth and what's real shifts according to the most recent understanding of something, instead of just settling on the established initial "truth".

Theism being looked upon as a fallacy, and treated with no respect is just egocentric and elitist. — SethRy

Theism isn't treated as a fallacy, the logic of many arguments by theists are not logical or rational. The inability to see the flaws in reasoning, the cognitive biases, the fallacies when trying to prove the existence of God, the existence of the supernatural etc. is so high within theism compared to atheism that it should be a red flag towards theists to "get in the game" instead of accepting flawed reasoning. Most of the time, basic philosophical methods are abandoned in favor of evangelism. In philosophical terms, that kind of reasoning does not deserve to be respected. Philosophy needs harder scrutiny for the arguments, which seems more acceptable to atheists than theists.

Atheists generally make the same mistake as the classic empiricist, they become intellectially comitted to the law of contradiction, and get inured and lost in the sphere
of understanding and reflection. — Merkwurdichliebe

That sounds more like an oversimplification of atheism. Generally, the ideal is to commit to that which can be proven or logically and rationally reasoned. Anything else is a belief, and belief can lead to a corruption of knowledge. Just because someone is an atheist, doesn't mean they can't use metaphors, stories, symbolism etc. to form ideas and understand new perspectives. I would argue that it's more impossible to be high in "openness to experience" on the big-5 if you have a strong unsupported belief, as that ideal generally dismiss any new perspective in favor of that belief or influenced by it. To narrow the perspective of atheists through viewing them as only able to think in binary terms; is a radical simplification of atheism.

The claim "there are no gods" is an unfalsifiable claim upon an unfalsifiable idea. The claim "there is a god" or "there are gods" must first be made before someone can claim "there are no gods". A child born in isolation and who knows nothing of religion will not claim "there are no gods". Burden of proof applies to the initial claim. By saying that burden of proof applies to "there are no gods", you are ignoring Russel's whole logic, simple as that. Read Russel.

So...anyone asserting "There are no gods" or "There is a GOD"...a burden of proof is created for which there is no unambiguous proof. — Frank Apisa

The burden of proof applies only to when someone makes a claim. You cannot add burden of proof to "there are no gods" since it would require there to a viable theory with some evidence of there being gods in the first place. This is the point of Russel's teapot. Start at the beginning, the claim is "there is a god", burden of proof starts there, everything else is a follow-up. Otherwise, you can claim there is a teapot in space and claim that because of burden of proof, no one can prove that there is no teapot in space. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, if proof is then provided, the burden of proof shifts over to the one claiming against what has been established as proven. Einsteins theories were under burden of proof, then got proved. Anyone who claims against those theories now has to prove against them and burden of proof is applied to their claims.

To apply burden of proof to both claiming "there is a god" AND "there are no gods" is ignoring Russel's logic for how burden of proof works. Prove there is a god or gods first, that's the initial claim that burden of proof applies to.

It's ironic, the notion that post-modernism has been influenced by Nietzsche. — whollyrolling

Maybe because most people don't understand post-modernism? And think it's something Jordan Peterson complains about, something vague that exists today. Post-modernism has become some politically charged term by tribalistic groups who haven't read a word of philosophy.

Accounts I've read put it mostly in the 1950s and 1960s, with perhaps just a few forerunners in the forties. — andrewk

It grew out of the aftermath of WWII. Started with many playwrights like Brecht who focused on questioning the form of theatre within the plays he wrote. The traditional views and "truths" had too much emphasis on optimism in the industrial age and WWII put a knife through that heart. Postmodernism grew out of the philosophical skepticism people had against the old "truths" that were taken for granted before witnessing the horrors of WWII.

While continental philosophy and postmodernism may be criticized for being vague and not enough analytical in form, the ideas are still very important. Nietzsche would be at home in postmodernism ideas and he was before his time. If he hadn't died at such an early age and if his sister hadn't corrupted his ideas into Hitler's head, the would probably look quite different today. I wonder how the birth of postmodernism had looked if Nietzsche had lived on.

I think to postmodernism was inevitable though. Soon or later people will question ideas, question the nature of thinking. The more we knew about how human psychology works, the more we knew about science and technology, the less sense religious ideas made. Postmodernism is a skepticism which grew out of questioning such "truths" about the world. As the world progress, postmodernism will eventually appear as a skeptical form.

I think the choice of political systems is a little more than just two! — Pattern-chaser

Of course; here's a map I made for another discussion. Not specifically about choices, but as a guideline for how we think about society.



The binary choice I mentioned are more about how people think of it, while the reality as you pointed out, is much more nuanced. Media and politicians have formed the binary and simplistic way of looking at political systems, making it harder for people to actually understand the complexity of our society.

And the 1% will definitely do that, as is their habit. — Bitter Crank

It's also important to understand that most people if entering the 1%, would act accordingly. The way people detach their morals from what morals the 1% has, is ignorant of the psychology that happens when you are at the top. Only when recognizing that most of us are the same as them, if we ever reached that level, will we be able to criticize correctly about the status quo of capitalism.

Daytime TV? Really?

The control to which the 99% are subjected is far, far more pervasive than daytime TV. — Bitter Crank

It was symbolic rhetoric, not literary, to underline the distractions people choose to have. If you want to make a literal list of all distractions, that would be a really tedious read within an argument.

In a sense, people are doomed to be free, but let's not get carried away with that idea. The revolution required to throw off the power of the 1% in this, the heartland of capitalism, is perhaps beyond possibility. — Bitter Crank

When people are free to do whatever they want, they often choose comfort over anything else. Why choose to battle for anything if you are content with what you have? And if you want to battle for anything, isn't capitalism and the consumer-focused society just distracting you with irrelevant goals to pursue? So that even if you break free from apathy, you start to aim for goals within the system you were trying to question.

This is why no one actually tries to change capitalism. It becomes a binary choice of socialism or capitalism and the nuances of thought are lost in trivialities and binary perspectives.

Besides, people doomed to be free may choose the capitalism of the 1% over socialism. Choosing capitalism over socialism doesn't equal "meaningless life". Some people choose to exercise their freedom in ways that you and I may disapprove of, but that doesn't make their choice "meaningless". — Bitter Crank

And choosing capitalism is what most people do, but not because it's better but because that is what they learned. Scandinavian countries have far more socialism in their political system and they are pretty high up on the global scale for best countries to live in. However, they aren't socialist countries in any Marxist way, they are socialistic democracies, they're essentially a form of social market economy, having socialist functions like free health care, free schools etc. while retaining a free market instead of communistic ideals. It's very hard for core socialism to form in nations that weren't already socialists before, since capitalism is so intertwined in how people not only view society but their own lives as well. Most people's values come from a capitalistic system and few even entertain a thought that is different from it.

Dissenters can get into a bind here: We say people are free to choose how to live their lives, but then we declare that 99% live meaningless lives if they do not choose to live outside the mass culture. I agree that there is a good deal that is degraded in the mass culture (and in the culture of the 1% too). Then there is the question of whether people even have a choice about living outside the mass culture. — Bitter Crank

That is a very good question. As mentioned just now, people's core values are so intertwined with capitalism that the choice to not live in it means being excluded and exiled from everything. So people have the choice of being metaphorically exiled in order to find true meaning (as they see past the system in order to see themselves truly). How can someone feel like they are able to find meaning if everything that had meaning traditionally needs to be left behind?

Does this mean that we aren't really doomed to freedom, but doomed to only feel free within the system that we find most comfortable? And getting rid of that comfort is like removing a part of ourselves. A form of paradox; you have less meaning in the system, but need to remove what is meaningful within that system in order to find a higher meaning in life. I don't think most people would do this within a short lifetime.

The 1% work only for themselves, and maybe a little for those like them. They fix nothing. It's us that fix things, on their instructions. They have the power, and yet it's us who really have the power, as you describe. I agree: it's difficult to understand. — Pattern-chaser

It's essentially Hagel's Master–slave dialectic. The problem with that dialectic is that it only refers to a tyrannical system. That the master has formed a tyranny and the revolution eventually occurs because of it. But if the tyranny is masked in comfort, how can people break free from that comfort, see the tyranny and use their gained knowledge as slaves to form a revolution?

Our modern capitalism is the perfect system to form a power that breaks Hagel's Master–slave dialectic in favor of the master. Even when people know about the master's tyranny, they do nothing.

Yes. I've always found that bit difficult to believe. Why do people allow themselves (and all around them) to be controlled by this empowered and entitled minority? :chin: I have no idea. — Pattern-chaser

Because of supply and demand, because of apathy, because of comfort. If your population is content with their life, distracting themselves with substanceless entertainment and just want to crack a cold beer in the evening, you have control over them if you have power over the market. Only when society makes you suffer would you choose to revolt against the status quo. People definitely do revolt when they're in that position.

Just look at how people treat the environment, the climate changes. The data is there, the warnings keep coming and people don't seem to do shit about it. Why? Because they are comfortable in their life and they expect the rich and powerful to fix whatever problems we have. The same rich and powerful that people want and ask to fix things are the same they despise as being the 1%. People are lazy children with apathy, only when their lives take a nosedive will they act out what's needed. So when the world is warmer, bad weather ruins parts of the world and a billion of environmental refugees knocks on colder nations doors; will people really get busy acting on the issues we already know about.

If you're among the 1%, I'd say go for it, act out your power, the 99% won't stop you and they deserve nothing more until they show a will to act against what is wrong. They deserve to be just where they are, hypnotized by daytime TV, slowly fading away from history. As Sartre said, we are doomed to be free and people use that freedom to have a meaningless life, controlled by the 1%.

I can't be anything other than pessimistic when it comes to mass psychology of our contemporary society.

You can't do that. — YuZhonglu

I think I can, they scramble together while thinking them. What kind of "not being able to" are you referring to? The meaning? The sound of the thoughts at the same time?

Other than that, basically, the processing of information is not the same as motor skills, so the explanation is simply that its different parts of the brain controlling these things.

All explained here: — Devans99

Once again, you use yourself as the foundation for your argument.

This is Inception-level of cognitive bias. I'm not sure which level we're at, your original argument has been countered numerous times, your current posts aren't in support of countering those counter-arguments and you are starting to support your non-supportive current counter-arguments with yourself in another thread. Seriously, this is ridiculous.

There is no way for anything to exist without a timeless first cause — Devans99

You have no evidence of that, so no conclusion of any kind can be drawn from that. Period.

time just forms an infinite regress going back forever - which is impossible - you have to have a timeless first cause to kick everything off. — Devans99

You are not a physicist, you also do not care for the physics research we have. And you conclude things that the brightest minds that have ever existed in history wouldn't conclude since they don't have the data required. That's delusional.

The universe is fine-tuned for life. — Devans99

There's no evidence of this, period.

This seems to requires intelligence. Intelligence beings are benevolent. I have a 2nd argument for benevolence too. — Devans99

I assume you have flawed arguments for everything you believe, however, ignorance does not equal valid arguments.

In order to escape the blast from the Big Bang, the first cause has to be non-material or extra dimensional. — Devans99

What the hell are you babbling about? Nonsensical statements proving nothing of anything you put forward.

All of this is just religious rants which have been countered thousands of times on this forum. You have no knowledge in physics and you use an 800 year old philosopher as the foundation for things we have a modern scientific understanding of. It's laughable at best.

I've given you so many counter-arguments to your original argument and you're just running both in circles and so far off track that you're not even in the same playing field.

I'd sooner take lessons in improving my posture from Quasimodo than take lessons from you or Chris in how to improve my writing. — Frank Apisa

I've never proposed taking linguistic lessons from me. But your linguistic skills do not have to be a hunchback in order to be lacking in efficiency. :razz:

We can deduce that the first cause is timeless. — Devans99

How? Without scientific data, we cannot deduce anything at all. And we don't have any data yet of anything earlier than a few fractions after Big Bang.

And some other attributes such as intelligence and benevolence are probable. — Devans99

In what way? How do you conclude this?

Being extra-dimensional or non-material is likely too — Devans99

How? Because you pulled that probability out of your ass? That's a 94,58% probability of being true. You need to stop using nonsensical statements as you do, that's the foundation for every counter-argument you get in here. But you don't seem to understand this fact.

The simplest arguments are the best. It has stood the test of time (apart from the 4th argument). — Devans99

No, the best arguments are the ones that have the most solid reasoning in their arguments. Otherwise, here's the most simple argument: YOU ARE WRONG, BECAUSE OF REASONS
Simple, short and to the point. Doesn't mean it's a valid deduction though, like the simplicity you refer to.

Aquinas argument stood the test of time because of philosophy history. It was a big turning point in the history of philosophy and is important in order to see how we got where we got. The only ones who ignore everything after are the theists who always return to his causality argument in order to prove some incoherent argument.

I deduce my beliefs from my axioms. Causality is one of my axioms. That leads to a first cause. That agrees with Aquinas's arguments. — Devans99

That still doesn't support your original argument, the numbers and probability you calculate.
The first cause argument also doesn't prove anything other than a first cause. You need belief outside of the conclusion in order to attach what that first cause was. It's the most overused argument in theistic philosophy and it's grade-school level in explaining anything. You might want to study philosophy from Aquinas and forward to really get the depth of how simplistic his argument really is. If the conclusion is "something started causality", it is true, but that's it, therefore, it's in support of nothing, especially any theistic claims.

Do you reject the logical necessity of a first cause? — Devans99

You don't have to reject it to conclude that it proves nothing more than simply itself. Any other attributes or definitions of that first cause is invented by the believer using the argument.

Obviously have to be selective about it. — Devans99

So, what is convenient for you and your personal beliefs is how you are selective about it?

Ah, okay. So everything is water. — S

I'm drowning.

In the context of the argument being discussed, it is not valid and does not have any relation to it at all. So, what is your point? The argument isn't valid to support what is being proposed.

He is regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of all time. — Devans99

For theists perhaps, but he is not. If you think he is, you know nothing of philosophy history.

OK I'm not getting any value out of talking to you so I quit. — Devans99

Of course. May I predict that you will start a new thread, proposing the same logic, referring to your old posts as support for your new thread, ignoring everyone's counter-arguments once more.

If there's anything that's circular it's the repeating cycle of your threads.

At least I don't assume the universe was created by magic. — Devans99

Is that reason to accept your failed logic? Jeez

Why do you have a problem with estimation? — Devans99

Because you use it as a fundamental foundation for your entire theory of inductive probability. A foundation that would require a true premise, meaning, it requires it to be more than an estimate out of your belief. But your use of it for the conclusions at the end of your argument needs for it to be a fact, which it isn't.

My allowance of 50% was based on a head versus heart argument I gave above. I am personally divided over whether eternalism is true and the 50% reflects that uncertainty. — Devans99

Your personal idea about eternalism is not a valid foundation for a 50% probability, that is just your personal belief of what is true. You cannot use your own opinions and beliefs as a foundation for mathematical calculations, that is utter nonsense.

But each dimension individually is a line - it has no further structure - so no further variations are possible. — Devans99

What the hell are you talking about?

What is the definition of low-quality posts? mods? I give up soon. This is like debating a dropout.

Its a high level estimate only, you are being pedantic. — Devans99

No, I'm not pedantic, you need a solid ground for your argument. How can you demand us to accept a theory that is flawed? That is not philosophy, that is an evangelical sermon of your opinions.

No I allowed a 50% probability of eternalism being true. — Devans99

Your allowance does not support 50% to be a number that is true. Your allowance is not grounds to support your premise. Your allowance is your belief, nothing more and nothing that can make your premises true out of what you allow. That number is your invention, nothing more.

A dimension can be visualised as a line. A line only has two possible topologies, open or closed. — Devans99

That is 1 dimension. 2 has X and Y, 3 has X, Y and Z. 4 becomes a tesseract (hypercube), hypothetical string theory allows up to 11 dimensions. The possibilities punch holes in your logic by being possibilities alone, ignored by you and your argument.

And whilst I'm using math, I'm doing induction. — Devans99

Induction doesn't mean your conclusion or premises can be fantasies. Induction means a probable conclusion based on true premises. You have no true premises, period.

You are being pedantic. — Devans99

No, I'm doing proper philosophical discourse here, get in the game.
And... THAT IS NOT A VALID COUNTER-ARGUMENT

My argument first allows for the need to eternalism to be true as a prerequisite as well. — Devans99

So you need it to be true, therefore, your argument is invalid as your premise is assumed to be true before proven true.

So assuming time is a dimension, you claim it is of some shape that is NOT EITHER open (linear) or closed (circular). Prove it. — Devans99

Prove that linear and circular is the ONLY concepts to be true before you can claim the possibility of more to exist. If you can't do that, how can you conclude there to be only those two without any doubt and how can you assign 50% probability to either without any data whatsoever?

Prove your premises first. Seriously, your reasoning is infantile.

Your premises need to be true, not assumptions or guesses.
Your conclusion needs to be a probability based on true premises or a conclusion that is absolutely true based on absolutely true premises. If you do not, you fail at basic philosophical reasoning. So far, all premises are based on your assumptions, beliefs and what you want reality to be.

Seriously, how far should we go before you understand that your argument is invalid?

I've explained my reasons why I disagree with Christoffer above... — Devans99

We're not done yet, convince me with your superior math skills and superior knowledge of physics before claiming a win of the dialectics. Or are you applying circular time to your circular reasoning?

so I choose 1% - did not think it would be controversial. — Devans99

Math does not accept you to "choose" anything. You need to calculate it. If you "choose" a number, you don't even know basic math. Period.

You cannot just make up anything for the topology of a dimension - it is either open (linear) or closed (circular) - there are no other options. — Devans99

I can't, I thought I could do what you do... invent a number out of thin air through pure convenience.
Outside of that, maybe you should actually invest time in investigating physics and discover that linear and circular isn't binary choices for explaining time. But your the amateur astronomer, who are any of us to argue with Devan Aquinas?

Again, I re-iterate the general principle, if there is no data for a sub-proposition, then assuming 50% is statistically the correct thing to do. — Devans99

If there is no scientific data, you cannot conclude anything outside of belief. I wonder what mods define as low-quality posts, I would say that this is it.

What are you referring to? Provide a link. — S

I refer back to my own reference post of an argument that is 50% probable to be true based on a hypothesis that is part of my agnostic ideals. There, a bulletproof philosophical conclusion worthy of Aquinas!

There is no calculation behind it; it is an estimate. In the absence of statistical support; estimates are the best one can do. — Devans99

How can you reach that estimate? And if it's only an estimate, how can you make a probability conclusion if your probability is based on just an estimate? You need solid numbers for calculating the probability, but you use only an estimate, so your probability is based on variable estimates about something without any data in support of it. Are you unable to see how hollow this calculation is?

Eternalist time can have two possible topologies: linear or circular. I have no data on which is more prevalent, so it is statistically correct to assume 50%: — Devans99

You cannot assume 50% because no data support either to have that number as a probability. You fail at basic math here. I can add any kind of fantasy concept and change the numbers: tesseract linearity, there... now you have 33,3333333333333% and your calculation fails. You have no data in support of your probability, your logic fails.

That is the statistically correct answer. — Devans99

You wouldn't even pass basic math.

It is not as far fetched as you think, see for example: — Devans99

A hypothesis is a hypothesis, you cannot use that as a scientific theory for a probability calculation. In order to have a probability of something, you need to have facts in support of it. A hypothesis is not enough. You are using educated guesses that haven't been confirmed in order to make a probability calculation for a solid conclusion.

It's so flawed it's infantile. Where did you get your basic education?

THAT IS NOT A VALID COUNTERARGUMENT — S

THAT IS NOT A VALID COUNTER-ARGUMENT TO ANY COUNTER-ARGUMENT TO ANY ARGUMENT TO ANY QUOTED ARGUMENT - COUNTERED

If anything, I am an agnostic. — Frank Apisa

Not a foundation for a rational argument, irrelevant.

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't. — Frank Apisa

THIS IS NOT A VALID ARGUMENT

Which number(s) do you object to? — S

Which counter-argument that is not valid are you referring to? :lol:

1% - is basically a rounded up estimate — Devans99

Rounded up from what? Why is this number 1% and not 1,1%? Explain how you ended up with exactly 1% We want to see the actual mathematical calculation that made you end up at that exact number.

12.5% - I already explained the derivation here: — Devans99

No, you didn't. You need to explain how you calculated 50% in the first place and how you can apply the chances of circular time to be 50%, which has no data in support of that number.
You essentially need to explain how you can apply 50% to a concept that does not have any data in support of it. A boolean distribution cannot be used as a foundation for a probability of something to be true. That is so fundamentally un-scientific in its logic that it's absurd.

Here's a test for your appliance of 50% to circular time. Tell your calculation to a physicist actually working on time-related physics and see how they react to your concept. If they don't laugh at it I will be surprised.

There, now answer in a way that convinces us all how any of this is logical.

Which number(s) do you object to? — Devans99

1%

12,5%

Explain, now, or just stop trolling.

I understand philosophy involves argument and counter-argument. All you do is waffle.

SPECIFIC ON TOPIC COUNTER ARGUMENTS PLEASE — Devans99

EVERYONE DID OVER AND OVER - DEAL WITH IT

Well as no-one can articulate exactly what is the problem with my probability calculations, I can hardly be expected to answer that question. — Devans99

Your numbers don't relate to anything other than your own invented logic. That's the problem. People have pointed this out over and over but you won't listen. You have no source for the probability you propose. Seriously, how are you unable to see this simple fact?

Explain how you ended up with those probability numbers, it's the biggest hole in your logical reasoning.

I thought that life after death is a subject that is of natural interest to all of us and was there anything we could do with it on the numbers side. I thought it was an interesting idea. Why all the hostility? — Devans99

Are we hostile just because we point out your logic is invalid? As I said, you don't seem to understand what philosophy really is.