Faith vs Skepticism - Why faith?

Of course, and I'm not conflating them. I don't know if the concept exists or not because I don't know what the concept is. I don't see how that isn't blatantly obvious and warrants discussion.Why are you insisting that I am unable to not know if a concept exists or not if I don't know what the concept is?If I am unable to not know, doesn't that mean that I must know? Or is there some neutral ground between not knowing and knowing?

---

I don't have a clue if concept X exists or not. I have no idea. I don't know.

---

ABE: How in the hell am I seeming determined to conflate them!? I just re-read my posts and I don't see anything except me insisting to you that they are different.

quote:

---

Me not knowing what it is, is why I don't know if it exists or not.

---

quote:

---

I don't know what it is AND I don't know if it exists or not.

---

quote:

---

No. "I don't know if concept X exists or not" is not just about my lack of knowledge of what concept X is.

---

Where's the conflation? You seem determine to see me as determined to conflate them. And that's fucked up. Are you drunk?Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE

Hyroglphx responds to onifre:

quote:

---

quote:

---

if he is supernatural and undetectable, then no one can claim with any honest (or expect to be taken serious) that they've experienced god. That's impossible for god to be undetectable, not part of reality, but yet people can experience him. That is completely contradictory, don't you think?

---

​

I don't think it is contradictory, I just think it is rather convenient that God gets to slip in and out of the natural realm at whim.

---

Hold it a second. If god can "slip in," then he necessarily is detectable, not undetectable. The fact that something has amazing camouflage but will come out of it every now and again doesn't make him "undetectable." It simply makes him hidden.The claim, however, is not that that god is skittish but rather is "undetectable." There's a difference.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Its not that nature is a better answer, its that nature is the only answer we find. Name one thing that requires god to exist that CANNOT ever be answered through nature?

---

​

The First Cause/Prime Mover.

---

Really? "Cannot ever"? Where's your evidence of that?After all, if god doesn't need a god to get started, why does nature?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Actually I was. Well spotted. Buurp. Well the concept I had in mind was cheese.Well done CS. You have just declared you undying agnosticism towards cheese.Pizza night in your house must be a fucking hoot. If nobody knows what the concept is then your argument might make some sort of semantic sense. Maybe. But if someone does know what the concept in question is and they ask someone else if they believe it exists the answers (e.g. being agnostic to the existence of cheese) are meaningless. And misleading. Not to mention potentially insane (e.g. cheese agnosticism).So are you telling me that those who believe in gods have no clue what it is they believe in? No concept at all? Or do they know what they believe in (at least loosely) but (like my cheese example) refuse to tell us to maintain some veneer of rationality in the form of telling atheists that they should be agnostic? Do theists/deists have a concept of what they believe in? Or not.Personally I cannot see how any position at all is possible about a non-concept. And that includes "I don't know whether it exists or not". That is still a position. If the concept doesn't exist how can a position on it exist?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Exactly! The absence of evidence is evidence of absence is precisely attempting to use proof by contradiction. There is no evidence of A, therefore the lack of evidence for A means must mean that it is actually evidence of B. That's an illogical premise. It does assume the premise. That's all it is, an assumption built around a faulty premise.Either way one could assume this as a strawman to draw attention from the real issue at hand, which is that the absence of evidence should not be misconstrued as evidence of absence.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

It doesn't necessarily mean that god would be or wouldn't be "detectable." It is said that God reveals himself to the believer, but not the unbeliever. Is that rather convenient? Certainly sounds to be the case. But the point is that God is detected by the faithful and undetected by the unfaithful. All right, cannot ever is too strong a wording. What I mean then is that is remains to be understood. We know empirically that the universe had a beginning. That cannot be said of God.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

No I haven't. I didn't know what the concept was, how could I possibly have known if it existed or not?Now that I do know what the concept is, I do believe that is exists. So much for undying, huh?And you didn't answer my question (I even put the confused smiley there!): Is there some neutral groud between not knowing and knowing? Because if there isn't, for a concept that I cannot know if it exists or not, I must not know if it exists or not. That statement is meaningless. WTF are you talking about? Please expound this brain fart of yours.How does your knowledge of the concept make my lack of knowledge about the existence of the object a meaningless answer?Even granting that it is meaningless, I'm still left with not knowing if the concept exists or not so... so what?

Hyroglyphx responds to me:

quote:

---

The absence of evidence is evidence of absence is precisely attempting to use proof by contradiction. There is no evidence of A, therefore the lack of evidence for A means must mean that it is actually evidence of B. That's an illogical premise.

---

Indeed. And if anybody were making such an argument, then you might have a point. Instead, the argument is that X leads to Y, but Y contradicts X, therefore X is not true. That's what "reductio ad absurdum" means: You have been lead to a logically "absurd" conclusion. You certainly don't assume it.Nobody is arguing "absence of evidence is evidence of absence."

quote:

---

It does assume the premise.

---

Huh? You really think assertion is going to make it so. Here, let me show you an example.We're going to prove there is no largest prime number.First, we assume there is a prime number. Note, we are not assuming there isn't one. Instead, we are assuming the exact opposite.So, let's assume that there is a largest prime. We'll call it p.If there is a largest prime, then we can generate a list of all prime numbers (Sieve of Eratosthenes will work just fine as a method):2, 3, 5, ..., p_n-2, p_n-1, pWe can generate a new number, q:q = 2 * 3 * 5 * ... * p_n-2 * p_n-1 * p + 1Is q prime? Well, let's assume it isn't. Then q should be divisible by one of the primes in the list. But, q isn't divisible by any of those primes: There will always be a remainder of 1.Thus, since q is necessarily greater than p, then that means that either q is prime or there is a prime between p and q.This contradicts the original premise that p is the largest prime. Again, notice that the assumption was that p was the largest. By assuming it to be true, we then followed a logical path that led to an absurdity.Now, where in this do we assume that there is no largest prime? That's the conclusion, not the premise. The premise was that there is a largest prime. We use that premise to show that it leads to an "absurd" conclusion.So where is this "faulty premise" of yours? Can you state it directly and then show where anybody actually claimed it?

quote:

---

Either way one could assume this as a strawman to draw attention from the real issue at hand

---

Since you're the one who brought it up, it's nice to see that you're admitting you're derailing the thread with a strawman. You're trying to play that faux "impartiality" game of yours.Nobody is making this strawman argument of yours.

quote:

---

which is that the absence of evidence should not be misconstrued as evidence of absence.

---

And if there were anybody making such a claim, you'd have a point.Since nobody is, one wonders why you're making such a fuss over something that you have just admitted is a strawman.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Hyroglyphx responds to me:

quote:

---

It doesn't necessarily mean that god would be or wouldn't be "detectable." It is said that God reveals himself to the believer

---

At which point he becomes detectable. You've just contradicted yourself.

quote:

---

but not the unbeliever.

---

So god is incapable of any physical action? After all, physical actions are independent of belief state. If god can only be detectable by believers, then there is no way there can be any physical manifestation.So what's the difference between someone who claims to see god and someone who claims to the see the ghost of Abraham Lincoln?

quote:

---

What I mean then is that is remains to be understood.

---

Hey, nobody is saying our methods are perfect right here and now. As we know from our investigations of science, our theoretical work often exceeds our laboratory capabilities. But the claims being made are that there is no way to ever put god in the box. As someone more clever than I am wrote, "Proof denies faith and without faith, I am nothing."

quote:

---

We know empirically that the universe had a beginning.

---

Do we? We know empirically that the universe was much smaller, denser, and hotter than it is now. Is that a "beginning"? Or is that simply an indication that our physical model isn't helping us to understand what was going on?

quote:

---

That cannot be said of God.

---

Why not? Plenty of the descriptions of "god" indicate a beginning. A large number of theologies put the universe first, gods second or at the very least have a story of how god came into being.It'd be nice if RAZD could tell us what he was talking about.At any rate, you didn't answer the question: If god doesn't need a god, why does the universe? Why does having a beginning require a god to trigger it? Why can't it trigger itself?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Catholic Scientist responds to Hyroglphx:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Well done CS. You have just declared you undying agnosticism towards cheese.

---

​

No I haven't. I didn't know what the concept was, how could I possibly have known if it existed or not?

---

Precisely! How on earth can one claim "I don't know" about something if that something hasn't been defined? You don't know if you don't know because you need to know what you're talking about before you can have an opinion about it.RAZD wants people to proclaim their opinion without knowing what they're claiming an opinion about.

quote:

---

Is there some neutral groud between not knowing and knowing?

---

Of course. But before you can say, "I don't know," you have to know what you're talking about. When you hear a knock at the door, you don't know what caused it, but you do know that there was a knock at the door. That's what lets you be up in the air about the cause. How can you have an opinion about what caused the knock at the door if you don't even know that we're talking about a knock at the door?

quote:

---

That statement is meaningless. WTF are you talking about?

---

Exactly! If you don't know what is being considered, how can you have an opinion about it? You might consider it true. You might consider it false. You might be a naif with regard to the subject and thus don't know one way or the other. But until you are told what it is people are talking about, you can't say anything at all.

quote:

---

How does your knowledge of the concept make my lack of knowledge about the existence of the object a meaningless answer?

---

Because you don't know what the other person is talking about. How can you say you do agree, disagree, or don't know if you don't know what is being talked about?

quote:

---

Even granting that it is meaningless, I'm still left with not knowing if the concept exists or not so... so what?

---

So what makes you think you are capable of saying you "don't know" if you don't even know what is being talked about?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Yeah, so I don't know if it exists or not. Because I can't claim that I do know. If I do 'not know', then I don't know. Does it have a name? What do I refer to it as?Maybe I am wrong and me not knowing something doesn't mean that I don't know. What else can it mean? Why? If I don't know what were talking about, then I lack the knowledge of whether or not it exists, ergo I don't know if it exists or not. QED.Unless, there is some neutral ground between not knowing and knowing that I'm unaware of. You say there is. What it is? If I don't know what the other person is talking about then I lack the knowledge of whether or not it exists. I literally do not know if it exists or not. My lack of knowledge of whether or not it exists means that I don't know if it exists unless there is some neutral ground between not knowing and knowing that I am unaware of. You said of course there is. What is it?

The great Wikipedia has a pretty good entry on Epistemology -> Epistemology - WikipediaThe most humourous part of the above exchange to me was You can't claim that you "do" know YET because you haven't been given the details to which the answer "I DO KNOW" or "I DO NOT KNOW" could be applied.You run the risk, CS, of infinite regression here it seems. The logical extension of your arguments (to my thinking anyway) is that you can never really "know" anything, since everything is predicated on another piece of knowledge. My head spins. Maybe I misunderinterpreted (Bushism). The ground between knowing and not knowing has many names in my view:Suspicion, idea, hypothesis, inkling, hunch, guess, impression, notion.Fill in the blank of the following sentence with any of those words:"I don't know for sure but I have a(n) _________ on the matter."The resultant sentence is representative of a state somewhere between "not knowing" and "knowing".Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.

Thanks for your comments and thank your for the welcome into the fray.If I had to put those three definitions in order of "logic", I would place them in this order:

• Logical: Agnostic - although in my personal opinion, a part of this definition is not accurate (the part stating that there is no evidence that God/s do not exist). I appreciate that many people feel this way and I think there is logic in the opinion.
  ​
• Logical: Athiest - (see below)*
  ​
• Not logical: Theist - I disagree with the first part (there is no evidence God/s do not exist), and I believe the second part is an amazingly ill-informed leap. (i.e. lets just go believe in some gods why don't we! If we don't like the ones we have to choose from, we can make some more up!).

I would expand on your definition of atheist, at least in the sense that I consider myself an atheist, as follows. My modification is italicised. Defined in that fashion, I would rank atheism above agnosticism in logical terms.With regard to things being on "equal footing", we need to be talking about probabilities here. Someone could tell me that Zeus is in the heavens shooting lightning bolts at bad people. I cannot disprove this, and I can never say "all the evidence is in", but I can say that I have reason to suspect this proposition as highly improbable. As Dawkins points out with reference to "tooth fairy agnostic", all such notions work on probability rather than certainty. I am pretty sure the tooth fairy doesn't exist, but I cannot say with absolute certitude that this is the case. However, this does NOT mean that the probability of the tooth fairy's existence is 50/50 or "on all fours" with the probability of its non-existence.Edited by Briterican, : Revision revision revision.

That's pretty long. Any part in particular apply to this debate? But I do, in fact, lack the knowledge of whether or not an undefined concept exists. Do I know if it exists? No. I do not. I do not know.And I don't have a suspicion, idea, hypothesis, inkling, hunch, guess, impression, nor notion... I simply do not know if it exists or not. I'm not talking about absolute knowledge in the Solipsism sense of the word.I'm talking about simple knowledge of the exisence of something. I know that cheese exists. I know that the IPU does not. I do not know if an undefined concept exists or not. I have no knowledge of it, nor its existence, whatsoever. All those require the concept being defined. If the concept is undefined, you have nothing to base your hunch on. It is impossible for you to know if it exists or not, or to have even a hunch either way. You simply cannot know if an undefined concept exists or not.Also, don't all those count as not knowing anyways? I don't know, but.... yeah... you don't know.

The sentence is "I don't know for sure but..."Why the need to make everything black or white, yes or no, on or off? You say "You simply cannot know if an undefined concept exists or not." I'm just not sure where you're headed with this.If I might stick to the issue of the ground between "not knowing" and "knowing" - do you really insist that there is no in-between?When you are born you "don't know" how to walk. At some point you "DO know" how to walk - but you didn't just switch from one to the other. You moved along a gradual slope leading from "not knowing" to "knowing".I'm not going to argue semantics, but to break knowledge down to a binary level (yes or no) seems to ignore the gradual development of knowledge both within an individual, and within our species as a whole.Edit - I think I might be making a mistake referenced on the Wikipedia page for Epistemology in that I have used a "knowing-how" example, rather than a "knowing-that" example. If you comment is specific to "knowing-that", then I can accept the notion that this could break down to a yes/no situation, but is it not the conjecture that happens subsequent to the acquisition of any piece of knowledge that leads to the attaining of more knowledge? And thus, can these digital bits of knowledge be added up into bytes, and thus the rise from bits to bytes represents the gradual curve of knowledge?Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.

I'm not heading anywhere with this. This is where it ends.Here's the context of the argument:

quote:

---

I am thinking of a concept. I know what it is. But I am not going to tell you. Do you believe concept X exists?

---

I maintain that if I don't know what a concept is, then I don't know if it exists or not.And I'm failing to see a problem here.Going down the road of solipsism is unnecessary. Finding shades of grey of knowledge is too. Gradual development of knowldege is besides the point.If you don't know what a concept is, then how can you have anything but a lack of knowledge of whether or not it exists?The only position that can be taken is not knowing if it exists or not. How can it be otherwise?