What is the best argument for an atheist?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, I do.

And this implies that the first condition by itself is not sufficient for a thing to be knowledge.

So knowledge is subjective? I thought we knew that already.

Truth is objective. There can be more than one way to justify the same true thing, so in that respect, it's subjective.

Having faith means that you trust the world will tell you which is which. You don't have to figure it out yourself.

It's all fine and good if you think this will happen, but until "the world tells you which is which", you don't know. If it never happens, you never know.

 

[Gloone]

I would take a video, post it on Youtube and title it: "This has nothing to do with faith but a lot to do with reflexive self defense."

It is actually a prerequisite for Faith 101. You can either follow the straight and narrow path or you can laugh at the path everyone else chooses to take.

 

[Willamena]

Repeated observation that the proposition is true is not the same thing as the proposition itself.

Your proposition, though, is about gravity, not a proposition itself.

The problem isn't with your evidence, which is fine, it's with your proposition, which is essentially a restating of the evidence. It cannot be doubted, because of its tautology --it's automatically true. It requires no disbelief. In order to compose a decent proposition for this exercise, it has to be something for which belief in it can be doubted. It has to be disbelievable. That is the proposition that needs justifying.

 

[gnomon]

It is actually a prerequisite for Faith 101. You can either follow the straight and narrow path or you can laugh at the path everyone else chooses to take.

What?

Is this Glen Beck's course on Faith 101?

Billy Graham's Faith 101?

Gloone's Faith 101?

When a human being falls down and they grab out for something it's a reflex action. Probably because the body is trying to avoid pain.

 

[gnomon]

Best argument for an atheist?

It's in the definition.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

And this implies that the first condition by itself is not sufficient for a thing to be knowledge.

Please elaborate.

Truth is objective. There can be more than one way to justify the same true thing, so in that respect, it's subjective.

I think I said this before.

It's all fine and good if you think this will happen, but until "the world tells you which is which", you don't know. If it never happens, you never know.

There is no reason to doubt that something will happen. That's what faith is. Faith tells you not only that it will happen, but that its happened already. How and when are things you have to answer, not ask.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your proposition, though, is about gravity, not a proposition itself.

The problem isn't with your evidence, which is fine, it's with your proposition, which is essentially a restating of the evidence. It cannot be doubted, because of its tautology --it's automatically true. It requires no disbelief. In order to compose a decent proposition for this exercise, it has to be something for which belief in it can be doubted. It has to be disbelievable. That is the proposition that needs justifying.

I was thinking of a scenario where a person comes up with a hypothesis about how the world works, then tests it and confirms that it's true by observation.

I admit that "stuff falls down when you drop it" is a very simplistic hypothesis to test, and it would be hard for a person to function in the world without having realized that this happens, but I was assuming that the person believes but does not know that this occurs prior to testing the belief.

If you want something more substantial, how about this:

- I believe that when you drop something, it falls down at a constant acceleration rate if not for aerodynamic drag.
- I test this by rigging up a vacuum chamber (thereby eliminating drag) and dropping various objects in it in a systematic way.
- I observe that all the objects fall at the same acceleration rate.

At this point, I would be justified in believing that my hypothesis is true. Since I believe it and it is actually true, I would then know it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Please elaborate.

You said that faith is something that a person posesses. Tell me where the person posessing the faith enters into the first condition at all.

I think I said this before.

I'm not sure. This tangent's been going on for a while now.

There is no reason to doubt that something will happen. That's what faith is. Faith tells you not only that it will happen, but that its happened already. How and when are things you have to answer, not ask.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Willamena]

If you want something more substantial, how about this...

Mary believes that her father will die. We ask Mary, why do you believe your father will die? Mary replies that he has cancer.

P = Mary's father will die (the proposition, which is only possibly true)
S = Mary, with a belief that is disbelievable, that is we don't have to take her word for it until she supplies evidence
E = Mary's father has cancer, and cancer kills

Mary is justified in her belief by our belief in the evidence.

That is "how it works."

 

[strikeviperMKII]

You said that faith is something that a person posesses. Tell me where the person posessing the faith enters into the first condition at all.

It doesn't? I'm not sure where you are going with this. Whether we believe something, or not, it is what it is. It doesn't change with what we think, only what we think changes. That is why you only need the first condition. How we figure out whether P is true or not is irrelevant.

 

[gnomon]

There is no reason to doubt that something will happen. That's what faith is. Faith tells you not only that it will happen, but that its happened already. How and when are things you have to answer, not ask.

You mean the rapture has already happened?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

You mean the rapture has already happened?

Did I say that?

 

[gnomon]

Did I say that?

Essentially yes.

The rapture is a faith based belief. There is no evidence for such a thing. It is solely held on faith.

That's what faith is. Faith tells you not only that it will happen, but that its happened already.

According to the meaning of the terms, you are saying that faith tells us it's happened already. How can one have faith in the rapture if it's already happened? How can one have faith in heaven if they are already there? How can one have faith in God's coming judgment if it has already been passed?

To be honest, I'm playing with the terminology.

I have never heard a religious believer state that faith tells us it has already happened. I've heard enough from the Southern Baptists around us about faith in events they claimed happened, such as Jesus' sacrifice, but not that their faith tells them that future events planned by God have already happened.

 

[Willamena]

Which is this:

1. P is true
2. S believes that P is true, and
3. S is justified in believing that P is true

(where S is a person and P is a proposition)

I'd shorten that definition to the first line. That's all you need. Faith is knowing that regardless of lines two and three, line one will win out. It has to. If something is true, then no amount of thinking its not true will change it.

I'd agree that believing "P is true" without justification represents faith.

It does not represent knowledge.

 

[Gloone]

I'd agree that believing "P is true" without justification represents faith.

It does not represent knowledge.

Would you say it is knowledge if someone were to say faith is knowledge of the unknown?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

I'd agree that believing "P is true" without justification represents faith.

It does not represent knowledge.

I never said it did. But somehow, we got into this debate about it...

 

[Willamena]

I never said it did. But somehow, we got into this debate about it...

You did in the post I quoted three above. The first line, the proposition, represents knowledge.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Would you say it is knowledge if someone were to say faith is knowledge of the unknown?

What exactly is "knowledge of the unknown"? If something is unknown, how can a person have knowledge of it?

I never said it did. But somehow, we got into this debate about it...

Yes... it started when you made the suggestion that wisdom was obtainable through faith.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

You did in the post I quoted three above. The first line, the proposition, represents knowledge.

I yield.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Yes... it started when you made the suggestion that wisdom was obtainable through faith.

I think I said it can be obtained through faith. But you are right, I did make an erroneous claim. My bad.