Atheists: What if?

[LightTraveler]

What if you witnessed undeniable proof God exists. Would you hide it?

Yes, absolutely I would hide it, as it would be a death sentence. Considering that there are countless versions of God both historically and contemporary, we can assume that if an individual could prove the existence of God, it could only be one specific version of God. Regardless of which version was proven to exist, it would only satisfy a minority of humankind.
It may be unfair to say that all religious persons would react violently to proof that their version of God does not exist but many would. Many more would do all in their power to discredit such proof, while the person providing the proof would have to spend the remainder of their life in hiding.

I think the question is referring to the idea that an UNDENIABLE proof that God exists. Meaning, your attempt to hide it would prove useless.

 

[ArtieE]

"Funnily enough few if any of the atheists here ever seem to take a position of certainty."

Then I applaud them, but would have to ask them why they don't refer to themselves as agnostic instead.

Because agnosticism is about knowledge and atheism is about belief. An atheist just says "I have no belief in gods". An agnostic says "I don't know if gods exist or not."

 

[LightTraveler]

Because agnosticism is about knowledge and atheism is about belief. An atheist just says "I have no belief in gods". An agnostic says "I don't know if gods exist or not."

That was always my belief also. I don't see a purpose in any overlap. I once heard a woman say that she was a "republican independent". I didn't bother to tell her that it didn't many any sense. If you're an independent, by definition the description stands by itself.

Unfortunately though, many atheists go further than the belief discussion and trespass into the realm of knowledge where they don't belong.

 

[viole]

I have so much respect for agnostics in this world because at least they have the humbleness to say "I really don't know". Many atheists are just as dogmatic as certain religious fundamentalists who say "I know for certain just because I do".

Yes, i also have a lot of respect for people who are agnostic about the presence of invisible fairies in their garden.

For, how could they know for sure that there aren't any?

All those pesky a-fairist claiming to know that there are no invisible fairies in their garden. It is all so unfair.

What about you? Are you also agnostic about the existence of invisible fairies or the flying spaghetti monster? Would you be ready to proclaim your humble agnosticism about these things at a cocktail party or at a job interview?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

"Funnily enough few if any of the atheists here ever seem to take a position of certainty."

Then I applaud them, but would have to ask them why they don't refer to themselves as agnostic instead.

Because you are confusing knowledge with certainty.

The vast majority of things I know, I am not certain about. I know it is raining today in Lucerne, but I am not certain about it. I might be a brain in a vat dreaming about the weather in Lucerne, who knows?

Ciao

- viole

 

[LightTraveler]

When it comes to faeries and elemental spirits, I simply do not know the answer. But I pray that they are on the side of righteousness.

 

[LightTraveler]

Because you are confusing knowledge with certainty.

The vast majority of things I know, I am not certain about. I know it is raining today in Lucerne, but I am not certain about it. I might be a brain in a vat dreaming about the weather in Lucerne, who knows?

Ciao

- viole

Creation is complicated enough without this worthless nonsense. Sorry to be harsh, but we don't have time for this.

 

[Willamena]

Because you are confusing knowledge with certainty.

The vast majority of things I know, I am not certain about. I know it is raining today in Lucerne, but I am not certain about it. I might be a brain in a vat dreaming about the weather in Lucerne, who knows?

Ciao

- viole

Do you support that knowledge is true and justified belief? If so, how do you reconcile something true being uncertain?

 

[viole]

Do you support that knowledge is true and justified belief? If so, how do you reconcile something true being uncertain?

Because the alternative is global skepticism.

I know that gravity is always attractive, but I cannot possibly be absolutely certain about it. For what I know, some apples might fly into orbits when they fall from the trees. I cannot check every apple.

And science, which I acknowledge as our best tool to find truths is, by definition, not in the business of certainties.

To make an example, Newton was perfectly justified in his belief to have found new knowledge of truths, despite being proven fundamentally wrong today.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Creation is complicated enough without this worthless nonsense. Sorry to be harsh, but we don't have time for this.

Do you know that it is nonsense, or are you agnostic about it?

What happened to your humbleness?

Ciao

- viole

 

[LightTraveler]

Do you know that it is nonsense, or are you agnostic about it?

Ciao

- viole

Touche. But let's just say that I'm fairly certain of it. I don't follow the false doctrine that everything is an illusion.

 

[viole]

Touche. But let's just say that I'm fairly certain of it. I don't follow the false doctrine that everything is an illusion.

False docrine?

How do you know it is false? You seem to be certain and not so humble, after all.

You seem to appeciate humbleness when it does not call out your nonsense, but at the same time you do not seem to return the courtesy.

Ciao

- viole

 

[LightTraveler]

False docrine?

How do you know it is false? You seem to be certain and not so humble, after all.

You seem to appeciate humbleness when it does not call out your nonsense, but at the same time you do not seem to return the courtesy.

Ciao

- viole

Nonsense? NOW who is lacking in humbleness. I may be a bit blunt and curt some of the time, but at least I'm not a hypocrit like you are. CIAO!

How do I know it's false? Let's just say that I'm extremely intuitive. Unlike yourself, evidently.

 

[Willamena]

Because the alternative is global skepticism.

I know that gravity is always attractive, but I cannot possibly be absolutely certain about it. For what I know, some apples might fly into orbits when they fall from the trees. I cannot check every apple.

And science, which I acknowledge as our best tool to find truths is, by definition, not in the business of certainties.

To make an example, Newton was perfectly justified in his belief to have found new knowledge of truths, despite being proven fundamentally wrong today.

Ciao

- viole

But then how are you defining knowledge that you can claim that you know, rather than just believe? The "JTB" has always seemed to me to be the most defensible.

 

[viole]

Nonsense? NOW who is lacking in humbleness. I may be a bit blunt and curt some of the time, but at least I'm not a hypocrit like you are. CIAO!

I wonder why you get so emtional. After all, you started it.

But why do you think I am a hypocrit? I never said I am humble. I actually think i am not humble at all.

Or should I humbly admit that it is remotely possible that praying, so that invisible fairies are on the side of righteousness, is not completely nonsensical?

How do I know it's false? Let's just say that I'm extremely intuitive. Unlike yourself, evidently.

Well, I hope so. Intuition is a natural belief creation system. As such, it is adaptive and therefore geared for survival. Therefore, not particularly reliable when looking for objective truths that go beyond our everyday experiences in our classical little ecosystem.

Ciao

- viole

 

[LightTraveler]

I wonder why you get so emtional. After all, you started it.

But why do you think I am a hypocrit? I never said I am humble. I actually think i am not humble at all.

Or should I humbly admit that it is remotely possible that praying, so that invisible fairies are on the side of righteousness, is not completely nonsensical?



Well, I hope so. Intuition is a natural belief creation system. As such, it is adaptive and therefore geared for survival. Therefore, not particularly reliable when looking for objective truths that go beyond our everyday experiences in our classical little ecosystem.

Ciao

- viole

Well at least you admit your arrogance. How mainstream of you. I just hope you don't make the claim that you think for yourself. Because you don't. Enjoy your hive mentality. It's like, soooo now.

 

[viole]

But then how are you defining knowledge that you can claim that you know, rather than just believe? The "JTB" has always seemed to me to be the most defensible.

Let P be a proposition that might be true or not. I restrict here to synthetic propositions. Things like "the speed of light is constant", "gravity is attractive", "Napoleon was a French emperor", etc. Not to analytical ones like "2+2=4", "all bachelors are not married"...

How do I know that P is true?

I guess my knowledge must satisfy the following requirements, in order to be justified:

1) P is falsifiable
2) There have been independent and unsuccessful attempts to falsify it. Either intentional or unintentional.

The question is how many attempts we need before passing the test. Probably, that depends on the claim (P).

If P is not extraordinary, like for instance P = "it is raining outside", then I need only a couple ones to promote it
to knowledge.

If P is not obvious, like P = "the speed of light is the same for all observers", then I need a lot more.

But no matter how many attempts I grant, there could still be one I oversaw. I cannot be possibly sure that I
exhausted all cases. There could still be a "Black Swan" out there.

In the case of P = "God does not exist", the number of unsuccessful attempts to falsify it must be huge. Therefore, I am perfectly entitled to claim knowledge that God does not exist.

What about you? Do you know anything and, at the same time, have the absolute certainty that what you know is actually true without a single possible defeater?

If not, and you identify knowledge with certainty, what do you know?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Willamena]

Let P be a proposition... How do I know that P is true?

How do you define "know" that it side-skirts truth? That's what I'm asking. In other words, to know P with the JTB definition is for P to be true. If we populate P with a doubting of truth, what is its measure?

What about you? Do you know anything and, at the same time, have the absolute certainty that what you know is actually true without a single possible defeater?

Yes; hence truth exists.

 

[viole]

How do you define "know" that it side-skirts truth? That's what I'm asking. In other words, to know P with the JTB definition is for P to be true. If we populate P with a doubting of truth, what is its measure?

There will always be a residual doubt, no matter how small. That is the price we have to pay for any inductive inference we make. In other words: knowledge is inversely proportional to the residual doubt left that said knowledge might not be true. Nevertheless, this residual doubt is always bigger than zero and, consequently, knowledge can never equal certainty,

This is how science works, actually. No scientific theory, I am aware of, has the ambition to be the absolute, immutable truth for ever and ever. The business of certainties is left to theists and other people who are not comfortable, for some reasons, with the idea that what they know might not be true. But this is a psychological issue, not necessariy an epistemological one.

Yes; hence truth exists.

And what claim would that be that you know with absolute certainty; that is, with the complete absence of any conceivable defeater?

And that has nothing to do with the existence of truths. Of course truths exist. Their not existence will probably create logical absurdities, For starters, if there were no truths, then the proposition P = "there are no truths" would be true, against the premises.

And it is very likely that we found some of them, already. It is just that we will never know for sure which one it is.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Willamena]

There will always be a residual doubt, no matter how small. That is the price we have to pay for any inductive inference we make. In other words: knowledge is inversely proportional to the residual doubt left that said knowledge might not be true. Nevertheless, this residual doubt is always bigger than zero and, consequently, knowledge can never equal certainty,

This is how science works, actually. No scientific theory, I am aware of, has the ambition to be the absolute, immutable truth for ever and ever. The business of certainties is left to theists and other people who are not comfortable, for some reasons, with the idea that what they know might not be true. But this is a psychological issue, not necessariy an epistemological one.

What of propositions that are not inferences? Are you restricting knowledge to inference to make a point about science, and I missed some context in the conversation? I do that sometimes.

Still, how would knowledge be defined for inferences?

And what claim would that be that you know with absolute certainty; that is, with the complete absence of any conceivable defeater?

Any observation that doesn't rely on inference.

And that has nothing to do with the existence of truths. Of course truths exist.

I didn't mean truths, but truth.

Their not existence will probably create logical absurdities, For starters, if there were no truths, then the proposition P = "there are no truths" would be true, against the premises.

And it is very likely that we found some of them, already. It is just that we will never know for sure which one it is.

Ciao

- viole