No problem, take care of yourself. Hope it’s nothing serious. — Pinprick

I went to the doctor day before yesterday. They said it was bronchitis. They gave me antibiotics. I been sick 14 days now. :shade:

Hey, I’d still like to see what you think of this. — Pinprick

Yah, I got sick man. Been sick for what seems like forever now.

↪SonOfAGun You can't be serious. :rofl: — 180 Proof

I am not sure what you mean? Serious about what?

Summarize please. — 180 Proof

To complex for my little brain to do. Or at least I have not spent a life time thinking about it as he has.

As my previous post points out: If set T is empty, then members of set T are, at most, fictions. True or not true? If true, then your statement above is a non sequitur. If, by your light, not true, please show why not.

Again (more precisely): — 180 Proof

He is definitely not working from an empty set. His God is defined.

This is him at his best. They do eventually get to god, but they work through a lot of definitions and first principals first:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

Insofar as "god" is undefined, the statement "god is false" says nothing but "@^%*# is false" (i.e. nonsense). Otherwise, if 'theism is false' is true, then every theistic-type of g/G is fictional - that's my position. — 180 Proof

I only ask because there is a lot of apologetics you have to get through to claim that "every theistic-type of g/G is fictional" and Jordan Peterson makes some of the best of these arguments. In fact JP's interpretations might not even be apologetics.

Insofar as "god" is undefined, the statement "god is false" says nothing but "@^%*# is false" (i.e. nonsense). Otherwise, if 'theism is false' is true, then every theistic-type of g/G is fictional - that's my position. — 180 Proof

What are your arguments against Jordan Peterson's interpretations of theistic divinity?

My actual "argument", as sketched above, I've applied as a principle - criterion - for evaluating  any theistic conception of divinity and thereby I'm committed to anti-theism (which, therefore, excludes 'agnosticism' with respect to theism's truth-value (of its e.g. ontological claims)). — 180 Proof

Fair enough. As long as you limit your claims to "theism is false" not "god is false."

Well, I think you’re using a looser definition of science than I thought — Pinprick

I don't think that my definition of science is loose. I have studied the mater extensively.

but either way I disagree that I was taught pain or hunger. — Pinprick

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.

It also depends on how you’re using the term “mean.” — Pinprick

Well I guess I could demonstrate from a data perspective. If I have two apples and then I obtain two more apples that means that I now have four apples. I don't know how that is subjective. seems pretty objective to me. Data interpretation is not some kind or new concept. The interpretation of date is in fact required in the conclusions of scientific experimentation. It is also require in the formulation of a hypothesis.

I consider meaning to be subjective — Pinprick

I guess it can be. I don't know how that relates to what I am saying. Given the scope of any particular problem and a proportionately long enough time line, any subjective mistakes in interpretation should be corrected via the constant nature of the physical properties of reality. In the case of you coming to understand your own sense of pain, in the environment that you were likely raised in, the time line should be relatively short.

and I’ve never had to interpret data to know I’m in pain, and that pain was meaningful to me. — Pinprick

Yes you have, you just don't remember it.

If I cut myself I react automatically without having to hypothesize or interpret anything. — Pinprick

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?

It is a subconscious process. — Pinprick

Yes it is, and also not knowledge of any kind.

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

Fixed this^^^ changed scenery to sensory. Damn you autocorrect.

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. — Pinprick

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.

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? — Pinprick

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.

When I cut myself I know that I experience the sensation of pain. When my stomach growls I know I am hungry. — Pinprick

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

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. — Pinprick

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

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. — Pinprick

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?

The use of the word "believe" there is a convention...and serves to corrupt the word. — Frank Apisa

I agree with everything you've said here. I dealt with this sort of thing so much in other places that I basically have the responses prescripted now. Because it is basically always the same.

So far as I can tell, a conception along these lines is compatible with many varieties of theism, atheism, agnosticism, idealism, materialism, skepticism, and so on.

Moreover, it offers a rational basis for a sort of conceptual closure, and for regulative principles of harmony and unity that may inform the rational imagination in practices of meditation, prayer, and worship -- for instance in keeping with Dewey's talk of "natural piety" in the first section of A Common Faith. — Cabbage Farmer

Since I didn't follow what you said before, I have no idea how to respond to this. You should try again.

For instance, consider the Great Fact, the whole of existence, the eternal sum of whatever is in fact the case, across all time and all space or across whatever "dimensions" we should name alongside or instead of time and space, across whatever iterations of generation and decay of universes or multiverses there may be.... Isn't it a truism to say the World thus conceived as Totality is the "source" or "ground" and "home" of all things and all beings? — Cabbage Farmer

This is just babbling to me. I have no Idea what this is supposed to mean.

When I say "This is a glass of water", I believe this is a glass of water. That's not an explanation of what a glass of water is. It's just a belief that this is a glass of water. — Cabbage Farmer

No man people have run many test to identify the physical characteristics of glass and water, including yourself, over the course of your life time. If you don't trust your own experience you can always fall back on science it is rock solid concerning this mater.

— SonOfAGun
What do explanations have to do with it? A belief is not an explanation. Perhaps you're conflating beliefs with explanations? — Cabbage Farmer

What the h*** are you talking about. If you have a true/factual/tested physical explanation for a phenomenon YOU NO LONGER NEED TO BELIEVE what ever it was that you believed about the phenomenon. YOU NOW KNOW FOR A FACT. belief is no longer required.

It's not clear to me that you have provided any reason that we should refrain from this custom. It's not clear to me that you have made sense of an alternative to this custom. — Cabbage Farmer

It is not a custom. Your 'knowledge" of the route is based on a lifetime of lived experimental data.

I knowingly and intentionally reach out for a glass of water. What are the facts that I have applied? Whatever they are: Isn't it ordinarily correct to say, and incorrect to deny, that beliefs like these factor among my beliefs at the time I reach for the glass: I believe that there is a glass before me, I believe there is water in the glass, I believe water is hydrating and thirst-quenching, I believe getting a hold of the glass and raising it to my lips is a way to put water into my mouth... — Cabbage Farmer

No. You observe that there is a glass before you, you observe that there is water in the glass, you have tested - for however many years you have been alive now - that water is hydrating and thirst-quenching, you have tested holding the glass and raising it to your lips and KNOW that this is an efficient way to put water in your moth.

Do I also know that I know the route? Do I believe that I know the route? Am I aware that I know the route? Am I aware that I am heading to the grocery store? Do I expect that the route I am taking will lead to the grocery? Do I have a clear notion of why I am heading this way.... — Cabbage Farmer

Christ man, you have got to be kidding me. This is not how the human brain works.

It seems likely that what you're calling "practical application of a fact" is the same or nearly the same thing I am calling "belief". — Cabbage Farmer

It is not.

Who "applies facts" in practice without "believing" the facts they apply? — Cabbage Farmer

Have you ever studied chemistry. You do a lot of application of facts to learn that they are facts.

What do facts "require"? — Cabbage Farmer

Only application. If you know the facts, you can apply them with invariable results. Have you ever studied chemistry? If not, you could think of it like instruction for putting together a desk. You don't need to "believe" that the instructions are true you only need to follow them. This is because they have already been proven to be actual facts/knowledge. So belief is not required.

Sorry, TMF...I just do not know what fae means...and was not able to find out from Google. — Frank Apisa

Try typing into google "the fae" rather than just fae.

Edit>>> Well it actually pulls it up both ways. I thought you said you already tried.

Sorry, TMF...I just do not know what fae means...and was not able to find out from Google. — Frank Apisa

Fae is a term for mystical creatures like fairies (also spelled "faerie"), gnomes, sirens, succubi, etc

agnosticism is the epistemic state describable with respect to a proposition p as "not true that p and not false that p, but still possible that p". Possibility can be phrased in terms of "may/may not" right? — TheMadFool

Yah, this is not how I see it. It would be the position that proposition p has no current relevant value. Either "mays", the affirmative and the negative currently lack value. This is because none of them are actually knowledge of any kind. They are just baseless suppositions, including "may/may not." Produce some facts regarding the mater, then we can take a practical approach to the subject. But that is just the problem, there are currently no facts regarding the mater.

and paradigm cases of how epistemologists and ordinary speakers use the word "belief" and its cognates. — Cabbage Farmer

Forgot to comment on "ordinary speakers". This is an argument from popularity. Just because it is popular to use the word belief in the way that the masses do does not make it correct. The vast majority of people are also not intellectually equipped to wrestle with the problem.

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? — Pinprick

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.

I would state that knowledge of things like your emotions, desires, needs, etc. have actual value and aren’t known through science. — Pinprick

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?

Sorry got distracted again.

The fact that I don't need to engage in sophisticated discourses and investigations in order to persuade myself that these beliefs are true is no reason to claim that I don't believe them. To the contrary, the fact that I am already persuaded shows the firmness of my belief in such cases. — Cabbage Farmer

The fact that you are already persuaded demonstrates the power of the decimation of facts throughout the population you are a member of via science. It is a testament to the shear amount of verifiable truth produced by science. And here is the kicker: If you believe that something in science is not true, you can go and verify it yourself because all accepted science is practical/verifiable.

Human beings cannot, do not, and do not "need" to consider every possible conception of things that don't exist. But on some occasions it turns out to be, or at least initially to seem, useful to consider one or more specific conceptions of things that don't exist. Most often, to claim or to suggest that a prior claim -- one's own or someone else's -- that some conceivable thing exists was false. — Cabbage Farmer

My comments were directed at the absurdity of your initial question "do you believe that these count as beliefs." I do not, because the claims to belief that you asserted, are in fact observations of demonstrable facts. You can believe these things but, the human brain works as it does precisely to avoid having to deal with such interference.

The assertions you were responding to are of a different caliber entirely. People actually believe/disbelieve in god. and have real world reasons for doing so.

The type of reasoning that you are talking about is called counterfactual reasoning, but that is not what you are doing because your alternatives are not grounded in the reality of the subject.

^^^ Editors not at bottem^^^

Why do you say that we do not "believe" matters of fact? — Cabbage Farmer

I did not say that. I said that facts do not require belief: they can be practically applied.

and paradigm cases of how epistemologists and ordinary speakers use the word "belief" and its cognates. — Cabbage Farmer

I don't think that the epistemological field is as unified as you claim. What about epistemologists who are scientific realists? Perhaps they are not the majority, but exist non-the-less.

How could we perform ordinary actions if we did not have ordinary beliefs about ordinary matters of fact? — Cabbage Farmer

Again facts can be practically applied with invariable results. They do not require belief.

How will I get from here to the grocery, if I do not believe I know the route, and if I do not expect the grocery is in the same place it was last time I went shopping? — Cabbage Farmer

Since you know the route belief is not required.

How will I answer a child who asks, "What color is the sky", if I don't believe the sky is blue? — Cabbage Farmer

The color of the sky is explainable via basic physics facts.

The fact that I don't need to engage in sophisticated discourses and investigations in order to persuade myself that these beliefs are true is no reason to claim that I don't believe them. To the contrary, the fact that I am already persuaded shows the firmness of my belief in such cases. — Cabbage Farmer

The fact that you are already persuaded demonstrates the power of the deceleration

Oops. accidentally pushed the post button will continue in next post.

Knowledge is defined as justified true belief. — Pinprick

You are working with an old definition of knowledge. Currently there is only one universally acknowledged method for the acquisition and categorization of knowledge - objectively recognized to be a producer of truth/knowledge - and that is science (this includes the math this used to conduct science and the philosophy that trickles down to become science. You might argue that not every person in the world believes in science, but this is irrelevant because they all in some form or another at least tacitly or indirectly benefit from or accept the benifits of scientific knowledge. There are different types of knowledge, but only science produces anything of tangible/measurable/actual value.

True - in the abstract. But that's not my argument. If you're genuinely interested - not just in trolling (like Frankie) or scoring points against strawmen, keep looking, Son. — 180 Proof

I am finished looking 180 Proof. I didn't find anything else that I thought was worth responding to. I am not trying to be mean here, score points, or trolling. I am always genuine.

If you have any arguments that you think I should consider closer/further please quote them here, and I will be happy to consider them and give my critique. Or make an argument, that is fine too.

Scroll up or flip back to previous pages and read my "evidence". — 180 Proof

Cite one example of 'divine' intervention in the world (i.e. miracle) ascribed uniquely (i.e. which cannot also be ascribed to natural forces or agents) to any g/G in any religious or philosophical tradition for which there is any corroborable evidence. Insofar as you can't - that there isn't any - THAT is "unambiguous evidence against the existence of gods" BECAUSE such evidence is entailed by 'divine predicates' attributed to it. — 180 Proof

Found it!

Sorry that took so long. Unexpected IRL distractions.

"God" is a malleable philosophical argument. The things that are ascribed to any entity labeled "god" by any theistic religion are not the end all be all of what can be ascribed to the characteristics of god. Philosophy is in a constant state of flux with new advances being made here and there and many particular arguments rising to or falling from prominence. Take metaphysics for example: many recent advancements in the science branch of philosophy have lent new prominence to many ideas that metaphysics deals with. So a change in science precipitates a rise to prominence for metaphysics.

Theists do not have a monopoly on "what is god." the argument can be simplified to "any entity with omniscience and omnipresence" the "physical being nature" and "intervention nature" that is ascribed to god by the Abrahamic religions is not required. An example of a god that is only omniscient and omnipresent can be found in the ideas of "universal consciousness/universal mind" - and this does indeed meet the criteria of a god. On the other hand, another prominent argument these days is that the universe is a simulation. Now, I did recently read arguments on this forum (don't know if they were from you or not) that a simulation/programmer do not meet the qualifications of a god due to a proposed universal substrate. But this is not necessarily true. The physical properties of reality prime may be entirely different. And then there is the deistic god who does not intervene. And and then there is spinoza's god.

Also the main body or your argument is fallacious. Argumentum ad ignorantiam, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I'm still looking for other "proofs" I'll let you know If I find any.

Why do you say that we do not "believe" matters of fact? It seems to me these are paradigm cases of belief, and paradigm cases of how epistemologists and ordinary speakers use the word "belief" and its cognates. — Cabbage Farmer

Sorry will respond later. Right now I'm doing 180 Proof. I'm taking my time to, doing other things also, so may be a while.

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? — Pinprick

Facts do not REQUIRE belief. They can be practically applied in reality. But yes you are correct one can believe facts. There is nothing stopping anybody from doing that.

But will you understand? (Frankie surely doesn't.) :sweat: — 180 Proof

Can you give me a page number. Yes I am good at comprehends.