Is there anything skeptics can't reduce

[Nyarlathotep]

Again, there is either a mystery to the whole thing, or there isn't. And if there was, this man must have known it and, been in touch with it. I'm suggesting that he was fully aware that God existed for himself.

And I am suggesting you have no way of knowing that therefore you cannot claim that he did.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Huh?

If you're driving down the road, and the fuel gauge shows "1/2", you can consider it "knowledge".

However, the gauge could be stuck! Then your fuel level really wasn't knowledge, then, was it? It was belief based on evidence (which was wrong!).

Oh, well. So much for both belief based on evidence, and knowledge. They both could be wrong. You might run out of gas.

So, because facts might be wrong, we should never use them at all, rather than just checking our facts more carefully, and admitting that sometimes, we make mistakes?

 

[Huntster]

...Did you know that lots of equipment isn't operated on a shift basis, and instead is fueled up as needed, instead of to a set time schedule?....

Yup. I used to operate equipment. Sometimes I only had a hour or two job.

I learned the hard way to check the fuel level by climbing up, opening the cap, and looking. If I saw fuel up to the top, I knew I was safe. If not, I fueled up.

I got tired of taking chances, then putting up with my co-workers belittling be for running out of fuel.

... Did you know that fueling up the car every morning is a waste both of time and money?...

It would be a waste of time for me, but not a waste of money. I've got a 300 gallon tank of gas in my fuel shed. I can fuel up anytime I want.

But why do that? My car has a fuel gauge!

And I trust it. I believe it's correct.

If it gets stuck, and the car runs out of gas, I guess I'll have to walk. (Maybe I can call Mrs. Huntster; these cell phones sure are neat! But, what if my battery is dead? Oh, well, I guess it's all a crap shoot, isn't it?)

...And this has nothing to do with whether or not having evidence for something keeps you from believing in it....

That's right.

So, why are you writing about it?

Tired of high gas prices, or something?

 

[Iacchus]

And I am suggesting you have no way of knowing that therefore you cannot claim that he did.

I don't see why not, I've had very similar things like this happen to me. Take what I've written here for example.

 

[Huntster]

So, because facts might be wrong, we should never use them at all, rather than just checking our facts more carefully, and admitting that sometimes, we make mistakes?

Nope.

Use the fuel gauge, but figure that every once in a while, the gauge may screw you up.

It's not your fault, it's not my fault, and it's not God's fault (I suspect he doesn't care much about cars).

That's just life.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I don't see why not, I've had very similar things like this happen to me. Take what I've written here for example.

And I have no way, as an outside observer, to know if you are crazy, lying, mistaken or 100% right. Likewise you have no such way to tell about the author of Revelations.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Nope.

Use the fuel gauge, but figure that every once in a while, the gauge may screw you up.

It's not your fault, it's not my fault, and it's not God's fault (I suspect he doesn't care much about cars).

That's just life.

The way you determine that the fuel gauge is wrong is by noting that the evidence (stalled car) contradicts it. You however, seem to hold evidence in disdain.

 

[wastepanel]

Nope.

Use the fuel gauge, but figure that every once in a while, the gauge may screw you up.

It's not your fault, it's not my fault, and it's not God's fault (I suspect he doesn't care much about cars).

That's just life.

The other day I was waiting for an elevator when I realized that elevator may crash and I would die. Does that mean I should do an inspection every so often on elevators I ride?

 

[Mercutio]

Good comment.

Let's take the same example, and have Iacchus find the letter, but only have the letter be destroyed upon his him reading it (think Mission: Impossible). What evidence would lead Mr. Whore to believe him? And how Iacchus not know he imagined the whole thing?

He would have no evidence. He might have had some when he had the letter--and of course, that evidence would have to be critically examined (not just that he might be imagining; it could be a forgery, or someone with an untruthful agenda)--but he no longer has any. He may be telling the truth, but there is no reason for anyone to believe him. "No evidence" says nothing about the truth of the assertion, merely that there is no reason for anyone else to be convinced.

I agree with you that Iacchus should not quote his beliefs as facts as they are facts to him alone (due to lack of evidence).

No one is at any risk of thinking they are facts.

The default position is that there is no evidence of God. But that doesn't mean there isn't undiscovered evidence either. Look at it this way: in Iacchus's search for evidence, he may very well stumble upon it. If science didn't think "maybe we can...", there wouldn't be advances in science. We would simply add new laws and be content.

Have you looked at Iacchus's history? He would not recognize evidence if it bit him in the nose.

 

[Mercutio]

Mercutio has just driven his car off the edge of a cliff as far as I'm concerned.

What a puzzling comment.

Any reasoning behind it, or is this more random brainstem activity?

 

[drkitten]

Huh?

I quite agree. What, exactly, do you mean by the word "knowledge"?

If you're driving down the road, and the fuel gauge shows "1/2", you can consider it "knowledge".

However, the gauge could be stuck! Then your fuel level really wasn't knowledge, then, was it? It was belief based on evidence (which was wrong!).

Oh, well. So much for both belief based on evidence, and knowledge. They both could be wrong. You might run out of gas.

Not in standard philosophical practice. Knowledge is defined as a justified true belief -- with emphasis, in this case, on true. If you believe (based on evidence) that your gas tank is half-full, and it is, then you've got "knowledge."

If you believe, based on evidence, that your tank is half-full, when the gauge is stuck and you're really running on fumes,.... well, then what you have is belief, but not knowledge. But knowledge, by definition, can't be wrong.

The irony, of course (and one not lost on philosophers) is that although we can have knowledge, we can never be certain that we have knowledge, because a belief-based-on-evidence might well be wrong. From our perspective, all we can be certain of having is belief... but hat doesn't deny the existence of knowledge.

But the central point that you keep dodging is that knowledge is just a form of belief. It's a belief, based on evidence, that is true. A belief, even if it happens to be true, is not "knowledge" unless you can justify it (i.e. it is based on evidence).

 

[Huntster]

The way you determine that the fuel gauge is wrong is by noting that the evidence (stalled car) contradicts it. You however, seem to hold evidence in disdain....

I do not hold evidence in distain. I love evidence.

I just don't proclaim that if there is no evidence, than it just isn't so.

 

[Huntster]

The other day I was waiting for an elevator when I realized that elevator may crash and I would die. Does that mean I should do an inspection every so often on elevators I ride?

Not unless you're really afraid of dying in a crashing elevator.

However, do you believe that the government requirements for elevator owner/operator to have their elevators inspected and certified on a scheduled basis serves to protect you?

Do you believe that the inspection/certification guarantees that you will never be killed in a crashing elevator?

Do you believe that the evidence of the certification (posted inside every elevator) is your guarantee of safety?

Or do you just get in the damned thing and push the button for the correct floor?

 

[ruach1]

What was so ignorant about that statement?

The completely part. Saying his sister-in-law is completely ignorant of the topic at hand shows an even greater lack of understanding of how it can be understood. Not knowing a few facts of biblical history (about which Merc was correct) does not mean his sister-in-law doesn't have a grasp of New Testament principles--principles which are, IMO, more important than said facts.

 

[ruach1]

Perhaps you should explain yourself. My sis-in-law was ignorant of the history of the bible. Do you disagree with that? Iacchus has repeatedly been pointed to the experimental literature on dreams and consciousness, yet he refuses to look--he remains steadfastly, intentionally ignorant.

I won't go into the "superiority is certain" bit, because it is wholly irrelevant.

No I do not--at least in this specific area.

I cannot deal with Iacchus. Reading and responding to him is like playing baseball in a thick fog at night with no stadium lights.

See previous post.

 

[Huntster]

I quite agree. What, exactly, do you mean by the word "knowledge"?....
....Knowledge is defined as a justified true belief -- with emphasis, in this case, on true....

Knowledge:The state or fact of knowing.
Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study.
The sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned.
Learning; erudition: teachers of great knowledge.
Specific information about something.
Carnal knowledge.

I don't see the word "belief" anywhere in that definition.

If you believe (based on evidence) that your gas tank is half-full, and it is, then you've got "knowledge."

No you don't. You have a belief, because you truly don't "know". You "believe" what the gauge is telling you. It might be true, and it might not.

If you believe, based on evidence, that your tank is half-full, when the gauge is stuck and you're really running on fumes,.... well, then what you have is belief, but not knowledge.

Correct. You won't have the knowledge until the car stops running, you check the tank, and find no gas in it.

But knowledge, by definition, can't be wrong.

Correct, if you truly have that knowledge.

So, in order to know, beyond any doubt, that there is gas in the tank, you must open the lid, look inside, see the gas, smell it, and (if you're a real stickler for knowledge), take some to the lab and have it analyzed.

I don't need to do that. I believe my gauge until something indicates to me that it's not working. I believe.

A true skeptic must check the tank, at the very least.

Are you a true skeptic?

But the central point that you keep dodging is that knowledge is just a form of belief. It's a belief, based on evidence, that is true. A belief, even if it happens to be true, is not "knowledge" unless you can justify it (i.e. it is based on evidence).

I'm not dodging anything. I'm leading you on my own merry-go-round, discussing gas gauges, gas tanks, etc as if it's some profound subject.

Hasn't it been fun?

Did we learn anything?

 

[drkitten]

I do not hold evidence in distain. I love evidence.

I just don't proclaim that if there is no evidence, than it just isn't so.

What a bizarre mental world you seem to inhabit.

I don't think anyone here has proclaimed that "if there is no evidence, then it just isn't so." What a lot of people have proclaimed is that "if there is no evidence, there is no reason to believe that it is so." That's one of the reasons that the scientifically-educated on this thread are berating Iacchus for his insistence on being able to describe conditions before the Big Bang, while steadfastly refusing to state what they believe conditions were before the Big Bang. The standard scientific stance, if you want to call it a stance, is that the phrase "before the Big Bang" is not meaningful, and that it makes no more sense to talk about conditions "before the Big Bang" than it does to ask a childless woman what her son's favorite colour is.

In the case of religious beliefs, however, there is evidence -- albeit of a rather weak kind. Religion has a long-standing track record of making statements that were untestable at the time they were made and later turned out to be contradicted by later evidence. For example, the creation of the universe in six days, the flatness of the Earth, the historic events of the Exodus, and so forth. Very few untestable statements at the time they were made have turned out to be true. Based on this track record, untestable statements such as "God exists" that remain untestable can be inferred to be untrue as well. In the absence of better information, this evidence is sufficient to provisionally reject God and Christianity.

 

[drkitten]

I don't see the word "belief" anywhere in that definition.

Then get a better definition.

No you don't. You have a belief, because you truly don't "know". You "believe" what the gauge is telling you. It might be true, and it might not.

Um. Wrong. If the gas gauge is true, then I "know" that I have gas.

I'm not dodging anything. I'm leading you on my own merry-go-round, discussing gas gauges, gas tanks, etc as if it's some profound subject.

Hasn't it been fun?

Did we learn anything?

I learned that you need to re-take some philosophy classes, yes.

 

[Tricky]

That the guy who wrote the book of Revelation is either an abject liar or he isn't.

So anybody who writes fiction is an abject liar? How do you know it wasn't meant to be an allegory? Are you good buddies with the writer?

Were you lying when you called yourself Dionysus, or was that a metaphor?

 

[ruach1]

What a bizarre mental world you seem to inhabit.

I don't think anyone here has proclaimed that "if there is no evidence, then it just isn't so." What a lot of people have proclaimed is that "if there is no evidence, there is no reason to believe that it is so." That's one of the reasons that the scientifically-educated on this thread are berating Iacchus for his insistence on being able to describe conditions before the Big Bang, while steadfastly refusing to state what they believe conditions were before the Big Bang. The standard scientific stance, if you want to call it a stance, is that the phrase "before the Big Bang" is not meaningful, and that it makes no more sense to talk about conditions "before the Big Bang" than it does to ask a childless woman what her son's favorite colour is.

In the case of religious beliefs, however, there is evidence -- albeit of a rather weak kind. Religion has a long-standing track record of making statements that were untestable at the time they were made and later turned out to be contradicted by later evidence. For example, the creation of the universe in six days, the flatness of the Earth, the historic events of the Exodus, and so forth. Very few untestable statements at the time they were made have turned out to be true. Based on this track record, untestable statements such as "God exists" that remain untestable can be inferred to be untrue as well. In the absence of better information, this evidence is sufficient to provisionally reject God and Christianity.

What is this? Do I see a pot calling a kettle black?

All untestable statements can be inferred to be untrue?

And this is evidence to reject God and Christianity?