Good. Then I guess the next question is whose categorization is correct. I’m really not sure how to go about justifying one categorization over the other. I guess it’s a question of determining if “thoughts about existence” fall under “beliefs,” or vice versa...

So you’re just categorizing things differently. Instead of beliefs and nonbeliefs, it’s “thoughts about existence” and “thoughts not about existence.” All beliefs fall under the former, and nonbeliefs under the latter. Both “X exists” and “X doesn’t exist” are thoughts about existence, and therefore are beliefs.

Think of it in terms of categories. You have one category that consists of beliefs (B), and one that consists of it’s opposite, nonbeliefs (~B). If X (the thought that Y exists) falls under category B, then it’s opposite, ~X (the thought that Y does not exist), must fall under category ~B. X and ~X cannot both logically fall under the same category.

Oh, I see. So, then my question would be wouldn’t that mean we would have to define belief, at least when talking about existence, as X as well as ~X? X being “exists.” If so, that is an issue logically.

The other is that I’m not saying belief is about thing existing vs them not-existing, but rather it is about the topic of whether or not something exists. — Pfhorrest

I don’t understand the difference between the two here. The topic of whether or not something exists consists of that thing existing, or not.

You where taught how to interpret the data every time your mom shoved a boob in your moth to stop you from crying, when you where hungry, and had no idea what it meant. You also have conducted many experiments concerning how to interpret pain and where guided in this process by your parents, even though you may not remember doing any of this, it did happen. — SonOfAGun

This is where I think I see science as something more strict than simply being taught something. I would probably say the same thing about your use of the word experiment. I know for a fact that I haven’t set up any legitimate scientific experiment on myself regarding pain. I haven’t made hypotheses, controlled for variables, etc. I don’t think experiment can be reduced to just experience, which is precisely what I have regarding pain. I have experienced pain, therefore I know pain.

You are moving the goal post again. Now we are talking about your reflexes, which ARE instinctive. This is not related to the current topic because reflexes are not any kind of knowledge. You seem to be drifting in this conversation. Are sure you are not loosing the through line here? — SonOfAGun

My mistake. But, once I instinctively react I know why I reacted the way I did (due to pain), without having to know the “science” (biology, physiology, chemistry, or physics) behind it.

It is not obtained independent of reason and logic. Not everything requires a full on scientific investigation. You still have to interpret the data to mean something, and then we are back in the field of science. Unless you think that "external spirits are responsible for your pain and hunger" is a viable alternative. This knowledge is not instinctual in human beings. The knowledge is passed down from parent to child or, more generally, taught via science, because science has more information to give on the subject. — SonOfAGun

Well, I think you’re using a looser definition of science than I thought, but either way I disagree that I was taught pain or hunger. It also depends on how you’re using the term “mean.” I consider meaning to be subjective, and I’ve never had to interpret data to know I’m in pain, and that pain was meaningful to me. If I cut myself I react automatically without having to hypothesize or interpret anything. It is a subconscious process. I react before I even know what I’m doing.

Ok, so you’re claiming that not all thoughts are beliefs, but all thoughts regarding the existence of an object are beliefs. Did I get that right? If so, then it seems that there is something special about existence that causes all thoughts regarding it to be classified as beliefs. What is that special thing? Also, if you’re claiming, and I don’t know that you are, that thoughts about the nonexistence of an object are beliefs, then you’ve contradicted yourself.

If A = B, then A cannot = ~B.

I'm considering this one closely. My first inclinations where to be snarky, but I don't want to do that. May take some time. — SonOfAGun

No problem. Appreciate your good manners.

Scenery perception is pretty well understood already by science and does not fall into the category of needs, desires and emotions. — SonOfAGun

Ok, maybe it wasn’t included in my original examples, but the point still holds that it is valuable knowledge obtained independent from science. Science can certainly explain it, but I don’t need to consult a medical/science apparatus to know I’m hungry or in pain.

I thought we were looking for truth not authority. My bad. — SonOfAGun

Is it not appropriate to look towards the consensus of scholars/experts as a starting point to find the truth? What definition of knowledge should I have assumed if not the one the experts generally agree on?

I don't know that your examples qualify as knowledge they are not consistent. Need and desire: Do heroin addicts need heroin? Is their desire for heroin a false desire? Emotion is an erratic and often illogical thing and difficult to understand even when they are your own. What about unjustified jealousy or anger, gluttonous satifaction, unrequited love, etc. Are you saying that these things meet the criteria of knowledge? — SonOfAGun

You may not have knowledge of these internal states reliably, but if your belief about these states is accurate then I think it counts as knowledge. When I cut myself I know that I experience the sensation of pain. When my stomach growls I know I am hungry. These beliefs are true and justified if they correspond to reality, and therefore count as knowledge.

So far as I can tell, denial of the proposition "x exists" entails:

i) a belief that the proposition "x exists" is false,

ii) a belief that the proposition "x does not exist" is true, and

iii) a belief that there is no such thing as "x". — Cabbage Farmer

I have no problems with i or ii. I see i and ii as meta-beliefs, as they are referring strictly to a statement/proposition. Whereas iii is referring to the nonexistence of a real world object.

What post of mine are you referring to?

An appeal to tradition? Simple observations of the world will tell you that this is no longer true. Though I am sure that this is still the accepted definition among scholars. Doesn't make it true. I'll rely on my arguments to determine the truth of the mater, given that my opposition is more arguments. — SonOfAGun

Well, I consider this to be a scholarly discussion, so I think the consensus of scholars would be appropriate. It may not be true, and I’m aware of the Gettier problems and other criticisms of it. At the very least it is flawed, but still the best we have at this point according to experts.

A good deal is known through science, and more is being discovered all the time. Given an effectively infinite amount of time to study these subjects, do you think that they will remain a mystery forever? — SonOfAGun

No, not at all. I’m not trying to discredit science as a pathway to knowledge. I was just pointing out that science isn’t the only pathway that achieves valuable results.

I KNOW WHO I AM. — Frank Apisa

But do you believe you are Frank?

It is an old definition, but I was under the impression that it was the accepted definition throughout epistemology and philosophy through consensus. Perhaps I’m wrong?

Regarding

There are different types of knowledge, but only science produces anything of tangible/measurable/actual value. — SonOfAGun

I would state that knowledge of things like your emotions, desires, needs, etc. have actual value and aren’t known through science. Knowing those things are valuable to me. Unless I misunderstand what you mean by value.

Or perhaps this?

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/knowledge

You don’t believe you are Frank? Then who do you believe you are?

This conversation you are having with several people stems from the corruption of that word "believe" that I have talked about.

Some of these people think it would be absurd for me to say:

I know I am sitting at my desk typing on my keyboard...and I do not "believe" I am sitting at my desk typing on my keyboard.

But that is absolutely the truth.

I KNOW I am here...sitting at my desk...typing on my keyboard.

There is NO "believing" involved in the essence of that statement...which is merely to identify the fact that I (Frank) am sitting on a chair pulled up to the well of a desk in my den typing a response to an Internet forum.

But the use of the word "believe" has gotten so corrupted...the people you are debating think it must be used to identify that situation. They see that bolded comment above to be a contradiction of some sort.

It is not. — Frank Apisa

Knowledge is defined as justified true belief. You seem to be saying that belief isn’t required for knowledge. How then would you define knowledge?

Let me put it another way then. None of these things you have listed here require Belief. Their existence is fact. — SonOfAGun

If facts are not believed to be true are they still facts? Seems to me facts require belief in order to be facts. Facts can obviously be not believed in (i.e. flat Earth society), do doesn’t that mean they at least can be believed in too?

Would you agree that to deny the proposition that "x exists" is ordinarily to believe that the proposition "x exists" is false? Just as to affirm the proposition that "x exists" is ordinarily to believe that the proposition "x exists" is true"?

Accordingly it would seem that to deny the existence of x is indeed ordinarily to have a sort of belief, though not a belief in the existence of a nothing. More like: belief in the existence of a false proposition, or of an empty concept. — Cabbage Farmer

Yes. But I want to make the distinction that believing a proposition is false is different than believing something doesn’t exist.

Your wording is wrong. Believing that no god or gods exist is not "believing in something that you don't think is true." It is believing in the truth value of the claim that "there is/are no god/gods. — SonOfAGun

Ok, I can accept that. I think that’s the point that @180 Proof was making. That denying that any Gods exist is a meta-belief in the truth value of the claim. But that isn’t, or at least doesn’t seem to me to be, what @Frank Apisa and others are insisting.

Care to show your work? What is the reasoning by which you start — Cabbage Farmer

In hindsight, that was poorly phrased on my behalf.

Can't someone believe in stars and planets, rivers and oceans, plants and animals... and all sorts of things, without believing in God and without "believing in nothing"? — Cabbage Farmer

Yes

What happens when we deny the existence of other putative or conceivable things? Does any denial of existence, i.e., any belief in the non-existence of some putative or conceivable thing, entail "belief in nothing" on your view? — Cabbage Farmer

Actually, I would say that a denial of existence cannot be a belief. If you deny that something exists, you lack belief in its existence.

Right now I believe there is no unicorn on the table I'm sitting at. Also there is no pot of gold. Also there is no lobster....

Do you agree these count as beliefs, even though these beliefs have a negative form, even though they have the form of denying the existence of a conceivable thing or state of affairs? — Cabbage Farmer

No.

I agree. However, I would propose that “what is true to you” = belief. Again, how can you believe something that you don’t think is true?

Which Dialogue are the two of you reenacting? :lol:

Yes, truth is irrelevant to the criteria of belief. One can believe something that is objectively false if they are absent the requisite facts needed to "know", and sometimes people can even believe the opposite in spite of knowing the facts, or they can even lack the capacity to fully comprehend the facts. — SonOfAGun

I agree with everything except the first sentence. How can you believe something you don’t think is true? Notice, I’m not suggesting that it must be objectively true, only that you must think it is.

:up:

This is a misconception. It is not to think something is TRUE or NOT. It is only to make the claim that something IS. — SonOfAGun

I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying that truth is irrelevant to the criteria of belief? To me, saying that something “is” implies that it exists. If you mean something different than that, please explain.

You mean to say that it doesn't make sense to say something like "I have NOTHING" since NOTHING is, by definition, not anything and so can't be had or possessed.

You're right but where I think you err is in conflating what to me seems like a phraseology "I have nothing" with its meaning. When someone says "I have no money" fae means fae doesn't have money and not that "no money" is "some money" and that fae possesses that amount.

Likewise, when someone believes that "no god exists" it doesn't mean that there exists such a thing as no god. All that that someone means is that god doesn't exist. — TheMadFool

Therefore, they do not actually believe, they just phrase it that way. Right? Also, I don’t think it’s an error to expect people to say what they mean. If “I have nothing” actually means “I don’t have anything,” then that is what should be stated. Likewise for “I believe that no Gods exist” and “I don’t believe any Gods exist.”

"I think it is true that X is not true." How about that. — god must be atheist

Ok, then belief is defined as something you either think is or isn’t true?

My essential question of what the criteria is for beliefs remains unanswered as best I can tell. If a belief is “to think something is true,” then a belief cannot be “to think something is not true.” The definition of Atheism everyone seems to be pushing is a claim that something is not true (the EOG). Therefore, that claim cannot be a belief.

Excluding them from what? I’m not excluding them from beliefs, I’m limiting beliefs to just them. I think you misread me. — Pfhorrest

I’m asking why thoughts about existence must be beliefs. Why do those types of thoughts warrant the designation of “beliefs” when others do not?

I don't know how serious you are about this issue but what I'd like for you to do is distinguish between disbelief in god and belief that god doesn't exist. You seem to be claiming that the former position is atheism; for me the latter is atheism. Also, in your money example, beliefs correspond to "money" and since "god doesn't exist" is a belief, it can be possessed unlike nothing. — TheMadFool

Disbelief that any Gods exist means that you do not possess the belief that any Gods exist. Belief that no Gods exist means you possess the belief that no Gods exist. My claim is that the latter makes no sense because that is an empty belief, because there is no object for that belief to refer to. Therefore, Atheism cannot be defined as belief that no Gods exist. A belief is an affirmation of a statement, not a negation of it. If you negate the statement, then you also negate the belief. Here is my example explained:

X doesn’t have any money. (X doesn’t have a belief in God)

This means X has money is false. (X believes in God is false).

But this doesn’t mean that X has no money. (Doesn’t imply that X believes no Gods exist)

This sentence is nonsensical.

X can’t “have” no money. (X can’t believe no Gods exist)

Rather, X doesn’t have any money. (X lacks belief that any Gods exist).

I’d say all thoughts to the effect that something exists or not constitute beliefs. There are also thoughts that are not about what does or doesn’t exist, which are not beliefs, but we’re not talking about those here. — Pfhorrest

Ok. What justification can you provide for excluding thoughts about existence?

What makes for a good philosophy? — A Seagull

Nihilism. That should be your starting point. Then evaluate all claims using logic/reason until you are convinced. Then continuously challenge those convictions until you ultimately return to....Nihilism. Wash, rinse, repeat, die.

If it's true that x doesn't think god exists it means that for x the proposition "god exists" is not true but that would mean x has to think god doesn't exist unless you're claiming atheists = agnostics. — TheMadFool

I think what we are missing is that beliefs imply the possession of some object. A belief is something you have. If what you “have” is nothing/an empty set then you don’t actually have anything, because there is no thing to possess.

Example:

X doesn’t have any money. This means X has money is false. But this doesn’t mean that X has no money. This sentence is nonsensical. X can’t “have” no money. Rather, X doesn’t have any money. You either have something, or you do not have something, but you can’t have nothing. Nothing/an empty set is impossible to possess, therefore it is impossible to believe that/in.

I may ponder:

If all entities existing are physical then non-physical entities don't exist.
If deities are non-physical entities then deities don't exist.
If I hold the premises to be true then I hold the conclusion of deities not existing as true or in other words, I believe deities don't exist.

Someone else may ponder that God exists:

Deity exists.
If all entities existing are physical then non-physical entities don't exist.
If the deity in question is a non-physical entity then it doesn't exist.
If I hold the premises to be true then I hold the assertion of deity existing not true or in other words, I don't believe deity exists. — Happenstance

True, but can both be correct, or only one?

I am, because they mean the same thing. To believe something is just to think that it is true, nothing more. — Pfhorrest

Right, but wouldn’t you agree that not all thoughts are beliefs? If so, then the thought “no Gods exist” doesn’t have to be a belief.

I’m pretty sure Pinker had some data on this in The Better Angels of our Nature. However, he also brought up a lot of issues with the data on wars and violence, and how different historians make different distinctions between wars, skirmishes, isolated acts of terror, etc. But I would start with whatever data he provided in the book.

Your use of the word in question is not typical of everyday speech. You say that there is nothing in the box, therefore, atheists believe in nothing, as an attempted philosophical argument, however, "nothing" in philosophical terms, where logic is applied, the term nothing has a very specific meaning, which is why we use the term "empty set" in reference to what you are talking about. — SonOfAGun

If the term “empty set” suits you better, so be it. I think my point remains valid regardless.

My assertion: Belief is not a valid approach to logic in the first place, so why are you trying to shoehorn it in here. The true test of of the truth value of a thing/concept is can it's existence be proven or can it be practically applied in reality. Whether or not humans believe something is entirely irrelevant. — SonOfAGun

I’m not trying to determine the truth of anyone’s belief. I’m trying to determine if believing that there are no Gods is logically possible. I feel that believing in an empty set is equivalent to lacking belief. Therefore, Atheism (and possibly other terms such as Nihilism) are better defined as a lack of belief in X, as opposed to believing that not-X, when not-X implies an empty set. Believing that not-X, when doing so implies an empty set, is actually not a belief at all. That is my claim.

If being unconvinced that god exists is atheism then what is being convinced that god doesn't exist? — TheMadFool

Being unconvinced that a God exists is Agnosticism.

http://geekofalltrades.org/_misc/atheist-agnostic.png — Pfhorrest

Agree 100% with this as long as you aren’t equating “thinks” with “believes.”

An empty box, does not contain "nothing". Even if you were to draw a perfect vacuum in the box and seal it in complete darkness it still contains space, virtual particals, and time. — SonOfAGun

Obviously that’s true, but when we use the term “nothing” in everyday speech we exclude the properties you mentioned. Also, I hope you realize I’m not discussing physics in this thread. Space, particles, and time are only relevant to this discussion if they are used to represent something metaphorically. So in the context of the requirement for beliefs to have objects, what would those things represent?

You can have a box with no god in it. That is perfectly fine. Don't know how you are going to prove that though. — SonOfAGun

Metaphorically speaking, if you have a box with no Gods in it, then what do you have in the box?