Faith as epistemology ?

[footprints]

It’s true, you are intellectually dishonest: All your posts are the same: you twist and turn, change position and consistently refuse to back up your statements or answer questions (example below).

Simply put Descartes has been the closest to this knowledge than any other philosopher before or after. If you want to know what I mean by this passage, I would suggest you do some serious research. If you are not prepared to do this, then I am happy to leave you in your own knowledge.

You made this explicit statement, an assertion, actually:“Simply put Descartes has been about the closest to this knowledge than any other philosopher before or after” and you justified this by saying” “Knowledge is accumulated through the body senses, further knowledge is gained when this data is manipulated by human intelligence”, which is the very opposite of what Descartes wrote! And you comically continued to argue that point until you finally realised your error when it was pointed out to you. I'm finding now that I can even predict how you're going to back-track.

I will never back up your imagination. I find it distorted and dishonest at the best of times.

Read the paragraph again, don't put your own brain to it, just what is written. A full stop means I have stopped with that sentence and I am starting a new sentence. By saying Descartes was and is the closest, then putting a full stop, means end of sentence. That relationship of my thinking is over and a new sequence begins. I then go on to tell how humans derive knowledge, not how Descartes described it but how it is, I do not even say why Descartes was closest, this has come from your brain. Your imagination.

It was nothing of the sort. Here again is an exquisite example of your refusing to answer questions or give examples to support your claims. Where is your account of human perception and "how it works" It was your statement; so explain what you mean?

It was very self explanatory.

All you've done is to show your misunderstanding of the subject. Here's the chance for you to put it right.

I haven't missed the point at all, Faith is an absolute part in knowledge.

You just think I have missed the point because I will not align with distorted and dishonest knowledge.

Well then, if you disagree that is the ideal opportunity for you to challenge or question what I say. In fact, I expect you to do so!

I do not need to challenge what you say. I am very happy to leave you in your own knowledge.

That is not an answer!

Now kindly explain what is this ‘knowledge of knowledge’ that makes Hume’s analysis false?

That you will have to work out by your own intelligence.

A triangle has three sides by definition. If it doesn’t have three sides then it isn’t a tri-angle. And you’ve already agreed that in theory we could call a triangle a square and a square a triangle, and that could then be passed on to future generations without contradiction. But if an object’s three angles are equal to two right angles then that is what they must be, independent of any beliefs! It is demonstrably true, and a belief that it may be otherwise is demonstrably false. A triangle doesn’t have to exist, but where it does it will always be a three-sided polygon, even if we change the name to a ‘square’. This was Descartes’ fundamental point, if you read the Meditations.

Now that is blind faith. A triangle only has three sides by definition because somebody once gave it that made up definition. It has been held as a position of faith ever since.

You are just waffling. You said:

“Doubt is denial to a greater or lesser degree.” Denial is the dismissal or the refusal to accept a thing; scepticism is to doubt or to question it. (Surely you must know this!)

Only dumb sceptics, believe that sort of rubbish. It is their weak attempt to make themselves appear logical and rational. Of course if you talk to a sceptic long enough, you soon realise that they are only sceptical because they hold a counter belief, and it is there own belief, which makes them sceptical.

You never answer responses, you only give retorts.

A retort, response, answer, all amounts to the same thing. I don't know how many times I have to tell you this before it sinks in, I am happy to leave you with your own knowledge and intelligence. Some people even believe that the 1969 moon landing was false, I am happy to leave them with their own knowledge and intelligence too.

 

[footprints]

No, but circular reasoning and question begging is fallacious argumentation.

Then I would suggest you refrain from using circular reasoning and fallacious argumentation.

You are still missing the point to an extent that I find rather astounding. Fossils exist, where there are fossils it is entirely plausible that more fossils will be found; fossils belong the world of possible experience. The physical world exists, and we will continue discovering its secrets. But before we go looking for something we have to know what it is and where it is likely to be found. Objects concerning the physical world will be found within its boundaries. But ‘God is the end product of a metaphysical belief system, a concept that is held from faith and speculation. Where is the “search’ for God to begin and which God is it we are looking for? You are starting from the position that there is a God.

How is it supposed that we might find evidence for the existence of something that even believers cannot prove to themselves? We can pose the existence of anything and then say how do we know it doesn’t exist, since it might? Anything that doesn’t imply a logical contradiction is possible, but we don’t on that account go off and look for it. A Supreme Being is also a purely metaphysical concept that owes nothing to religious beliefs, and the arguments to such a concept are of a piece with all other metaphysical concepts which are outside the world of experience and cannot be demonstrated true or false. Why then must this same metaphysical hypothesis suddenly become ‘true’ when it is dressed in the mantle of religions? You can’t argue to an existential conclusion on the strength an assumed premise.

Fossils only exist because people went looking for them to seek the truth.

LOL I wish I had your crystal ball so I could just as easily define what is myth and what is legend. As for me, it has all been a lot of hard work and dedication.

So, are we then to believe is sprites, witches, demons, sirens, goblins, serpents and all the rest of the mythological entities that were believed to exist? And should we resort to sacrificing our children to the Sun god, and all on the premise that those notions were held to be true by ancient cultures?

It is up to you what you have faith in and what you believe, I personally do not really care about your religious beliefs or the dogma you use, it is nothing I haven't heard a 1,000 times before. As for me, I only seek knowledge and truth.

So speaks the Asserter-in-Chief!

Your reply doesn’t make sense regarding what I’ve written. And what do you mean ‘God per se’?

LOL so much for your general understanding.

 

[footprints]

I think my IQ just dropped 5 points. I am finished entertaining your nonsense.

LOL anything which shows your logic and reason categorically wrong, has to be nonsense to your intelligence, otherwise, you woudn't be half as smart as you would like to think you are.

LOL what colour is the sky? You know it takes a great deal of blind faith to say blue.

Faith is an absolute part in how we gain knowledge and how we hold it. There is absolutely no difference between the person who holds faith in a deity, without ever having seen or witnessed that deity, than a person who holds faith in science, without ever having conducted the experiments and reached a conclusion based on their own knowledge.

My apologies if real knowledge blows a hole in your epistemology garbage.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

What happened to Dunemeister?

Before my thread had a huge crap taken all over it by a certain troll, we seemed to be making progress.

Again, what qualitatively separates one unevidenced proposition from another? Why can one 'know' of the abrahamic god through faith, but not, say, Thor or Loki?

 

[cottage]

LOL anything which shows your logic and reason categorically wrong, has to be nonsense to your intelligence, otherwise, you woudn't be half as smart as you would like to think you are.

What is it you refer to that is 'categorically wrong'?

LOL what colour is the sky? You know it takes a great deal of blind faith to say blue.

Still missing the point by a mile. We know the sky exists and we know there are colours, even though we might disagree what those colours are, or what is meant by 'colour'. But what and where is God; where is the universal agreement that we acknowledge in the case of the existent sky and the colour spectrum?

Faith is an absolute part in how we gain knowledge and how we hold it. There is absolutely no difference between the person who holds faith in a deity, without ever having seen or witnessed that deity, than a person who holds faith in science, without ever having conducted the experiments and reached a conclusion based on their own knowledge.

There is a fundamental difference! Science is founded on probabilities. Nobody claims science is indubitable or certain truth, and the reasoning behind experiments and the conclusions can be tested, argued over, improved and even rejected. But we take things on trust, that the sun will rise tomorrow, on the reasoning that it has done so in the past. On that same basis someone can place trust in the engine of their car to start and run, without know the least thing about internal combustion engines. The trust isn't taken from a speculative belief, or faith in a spiritual entity, but from experience.

My apologies if real knowledge blows a hole in your epistemology garbage.

Did you not realise that you too are proposing epistemological explanations, even though you're not clear about what they are?

 

[cottage]

[/color][/size][/font][/font][/color]

Then I would suggest you refrain from using circular reasoning and fallacious argumentation.

I don’t think you even know what those terms mean. For an explanation and an example, see your own words and my response (below).

Fossils only exist because people went looking for them to seek the truth.

You’re still doing it! <laughter> This is what Russell described as ‘the finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance’.

“Fossils only exist because people went looking for them to seek the truth.” You are saying: The truth exists as fossils. If we find fossils we will have found the truth. We have found fossils; therefore we’ve found the truth. That is question begging!

Here is the correct version: People went looking for the truth and found that fossils exist. IOW, we had no knowledge of fossils until the first fossils were discovered; thereafter, people searched for and found further fossils. Notice that I didn’t begin from: ‘There are fossils; fossils exist.’ 'Fossils exist' is a conclusion established by discovering them in experience, not an a priori opening premise.

LOL I wish I had your crystal ball so I could just as easily define what is myth and what is legend. As for me, it has all been a lot of hard work and dedication.

Okay then, so you’ve discovered what…that sprites and sirens exist? Just stand up for your statements instead of just throwing empty statements around.

It is up to you what you have faith in and what you believe, I personally do not really care about your religious beliefs or the dogma you use, it is nothing I haven't heard a 1,000 times before. As for me, I only seek knowledge and truth.

More words that say absolutely nothing! Justify your statements for once. Explain what this 'religion' of mine is in your esteemed opinion? And then explain what is knowledge and ‘truth’.

LOL so much for your general understanding.

So explain what it was supposed to mean? Bet you can't?

 

[cottage]

I will never back up your imagination. I find it distorted and dishonest at the best of times.

Read the paragraph again, don't put your own brain to it, just what is written. A full stop means I have stopped with that sentence and I am starting a new sentence. By saying Descartes was and is the closest, then putting a full stop, means end of sentence. That relationship of my thinking is over and a new sequence begins. I then go on to tell how humans derive knowledge, not how Descartes described it but how it is, I do not even say why Descartes was closest, this has come from your brain. Your imagination.

You misunderstood Descartes, which is why you wrote this: “Simply put Descartes has been about the closest to this knowledge than any other philosopher before or after”. The next sentence: “Knowledge is accumulated through the body senses, further knowledge is gained when this data is manipulated by human intelligence” which confirms the error you made in the first sentence. And in due course yougive a further example of your misunderstanding: “Descates ended up in scepticism, a position of doubt and knew there was no logical way out.“ by repeating the error in the first statement! And there are more examples (I shall introduce them one at the time).
You are utterly predictable. This is how your back tracking proceeds. You make a bald assertion. You receive a response that challenges the assertion. You realise you’ve made an error. You then try to justify the assertion. The justification doesn’t work. You then state that you meant something entirely different. When that fails, you then come back by saying everything is perception, and the perceiver is resorting to blind faith. The final stage is to say you’re not arguing but ‘I’m happy to leave you in your own knowledge’.
Time and time again I’ve watched you use this disingenuous method in discussions.

It was very self explanatory.

No it wasn’t. You gave a simplistic generalisation. Now be good enough to explain yourself, if you can?

I haven't missed the point at all, Faith is an absolute part in knowledge.

You just think I have missed the point because I will not align with distorted and dishonest knowledge.

As usual, you misunderstand arguments and then try to slime away from giving answers by saying something irrelevant to the question.

I do not need to challenge what you say. I am very happy to leave you in your own knowledge. That you will have to work out by your own intelligence.

I would be very surprised had you said anything different to that! You made an assertion, but don’t have the graciousness to back up your statements. Very predictable!

Now that is blind faith. A triangle only has three sides by definition because somebody once gave it that made up definition. It has been held as a position of faith ever since.

You don’t understand. A thing that is demonstrably true doesn’t require faith. God and gods are not demonstrable, and the notion must be held as an article of faith. But even if we believe that two right angles are not equal to a triangle’s three angles, demonstration immediately proves us false in our belief.

Only dumb sceptics, believe that sort of rubbish. It is their weak attempt to make themselves appear logical and rational. Of course if you talk to a sceptic long enough, you soon realise that they are only sceptical because they hold a counter belief, and it is there own belief, which makes them sceptical.

Well, that’s highly amusing, considering that you are a sceptic by your own admission! It’s plain that you have no idea what your argument is, or where it is supposed to lead!

A retort, response, answer, all amounts to the same thing. I don't know how many times I have to tell you this before it sinks in, I am happy to leave you with your own knowledge and intelligence. Some people even believe that the 1969 moon landing was false, I am happy to leave them with their own knowledge and intelligence too.

‘Moon landings’? Non sequitur!

And I don’t know how many times I have to remind you how obvious it is that you are not at all happy with my criticisms of your unqualified statements and assertions.

 

[Troublemane]

Religion says, "If you believe, you will understand!"

Science says, "If you understand, you will believe!"

But the trouble with both is, in order to be taken seriously by one you must appear to forsake the other! To give yourself to science you must sacrifice your soul, or to give yourself to religion you must sacrifice your mind?...If both had their way the world would be filled with soulless/mindless zombies! LoL

 

[footprints]

What happened to Dunemeister?

Before my thread had a huge crap taken all over it by a certain troll, we seemed to be making progress.

Again, what qualitatively separates one unevidenced proposition from another? Why can one 'know' of the abrahamic god through faith, but not, say, Thor or Loki?

LOL your trolling won't work with me.

The answer to your question is faith. Faith is an inherent part of the knowledge process. Without it we wouldn't have knowledge.

I ask you again:

Which way is Down, and which way is Up?..... Faith will provide you a subjective answer.

What colour is the sky?.... Faith will provide you a subjective answer.

Who is the terrorist and who is the freedom fighter?... Faith will provide you a subjective answer.

Does a deity exist?..... Faith will provide you a subjective answer.

Is your own knowledge wrong or right?.... Faith will provide you a subjective answer.

 

[footprints]

Religion says, "If you believe, you will understand!"

Science says, "If you understand, you will believe!"

But the trouble with both is, in order to be taken seriously by one you must appear to forsake the other! To give yourself to science you must sacrifice your soul, or to give yourself to religion you must sacrifice your mind?...If both had their way the world would be filled with soulless/mindless zombies! LoL

Religion and science are one in the same. Only extremists keep them seperated.

Just as easily written, and just as perceptually true: Science says, "If you believe, you will understand.!" and Religion says, "If you understand, you will believe!"

 

[footprints]

What is it you refer to that is 'categorically wrong'?

Human perception.

Still missing the point by a mile. We know the sky exists and we know there are colours, even though we might disagree what those colours are, or what is meant by 'colour'. But what and where is God; where is the universal agreement that we acknowledge in the case of the existent sky and the colour spectrum?

If you don't get the basics right, you will never get the complex right. You want to give yourself excuses for the faith you hold pertaining to up and down, what colour is the sky et al. Denying facts only builds a false foundation.

Get the facts of faith right first, then you may stand half a chance.

There is a fundamental difference! Science is founded on probabilities. Nobody claims science is indubitable or certain truth, and the reasoning behind experiments and the conclusions can be tested, argued over, improved and even rejected. But we take things on trust, that the sun will rise tomorrow, on the reasoning that it has done so in the past. On that same basis someone can place trust in the engine of their car to start and run, without know the least thing about internal combustion engines. The trust isn't taken from a speculative belief, or faith in a spiritual entity, but from experience.

What a load of circular reasoning and fallacious argumentation. Science like any other man made organisation is based on the perceptual reasoning of those involved in it. Trust is just another name for faith. Use the term Faith, it will not kill you.

Religion is based on base root ancient cultures. The job of science is to uncover the knowledge of these base root cultures. A sceptic never will, unless of course it is by accident and nothing to do with their own intelligence.

You do know of course that when we see the sun rise, we are not seeing the sun rise to that position, that we are seeing past history?

Did you not realise that you too are proposing epistemological explanations, even though you're not clear about what they are?

Epistemology is for intellectually inept. I am not proposing epistemological explanations, I am trying to explain to epistemology, flat earth, society members, that knowledge has moved on without them. Twits will still be debating epsistemology when we have completely dismantled the human genome and rebuild it from scratch using base materials from the earth, or created a female from a male rib bone.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

LOL your trolling won't work with me.

I have noticed every time someone points out one of your flaws you instantly try to reflect it back. It's one thing to be blatantly dishonest with others, but you seem to be indulging in a comically reactionary form of self deception. This is a good example of that as it is impossible to troll my own thread. You might want to work on that. Moving on...

Although I have given up on the chance you might actually provide anything of substance or a coherent, on topic response, your further trolling does provide an opportunity to illustrate some of the problems with faith based 'thinking'(and I use that term VERY generously).

The answer to your question is faith. Faith is an inherent part of the knowledge process. Without it we wouldn't have knowledge.

Continuously asserting something over and over doesn't make it the truth. But then again, based on your 'contributions' so far, it would be consistent for you to believe that it would. Most faith based types at least admit that evidence exists, whereas you seem to discount it completely.

I ask you again:

Which way is Down, and which way is Up?..... Faith will provide you a subjective answer.

Until you step off a building and meet the reality of the situation, at which point the believer and non believer alike will pancake into a bloody mess. Reason, evidence, logic...not faith.

What colour is the sky?.... Faith will provide you a subjective answer.

Colors can be physically measured. Light refractions interacting with light receptors of the eye. If you take 100 people of different backgrounds, upbringings religious educations and intelligence levels, and individually show them cards of different colors, the results will show uniformity. Evidence. Not faith.

Who is the terrorist and who is the freedom fighter?... Faith will provide you a subjective answer.

'Terrorist' and 'freedom fighter' are terms that describe the same phenomenon, much as 'faith' and 'superstition' do. Regardless, this is a silly example because those are words that inherently describe subjective positions, and have no counterpart outside of the human mind.

Does a deity exist?..... Faith will provide you a subjective answer.

And here is where you (yet again) showcase your lack of critical thinking. Which deity? If I believe in an all evil, malevolent goat deity that demands sacrifice of three virgins each full moon, by your 'logic' (again, using this word VERY loosely) that evil deity exists because I believe it does. To take your position one step further into incoherence, if someone else has 'faith' that my evil god does 'not' exist, what then? The universe splits into two? Everyone is right and nobody is wrong? Water will stop freezing in my icetray because I believe it will? Part of the reason I say you are a troll is because nobody with a three digit IQ could possibly hold this position.

Is your own knowledge wrong or right?.... Faith will provide you a subjective answer.

Until you put washer fluid in your gastank and get to wondering why your car won't start.

You can have 'faith' in anything. You can only 'know' through reason and evidence.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Now to try to drag things back on topic, again, an epistemology is a method through which true concepts can be separated from untrue concepts. Inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning, apriori reasoning, the scientific method, et al are all examples of tools we can use to decipher what is true from what is not. These things can be applied to any idea, concept or claim and the truth can be rooted out.

For instance, you can take two contradictory claims, such as 'a rubber ball will not bounce on concrete' and 'a rubber ball will bounce on concrete', and test them (by throwing the ball down on the concrete) and observe the results. The test, and the results, are repeatable. You would learn that it is true that a rubber ball bounces on concrete.

Just how would we learn whether or not the ball will bounce using 'faith'?

 

[footprints]

I don’t think you even know what those terms mean. For an explanation and an example, see your own words and my response (below).

I can agree with that statement. I don't think you think either, but plagiarise the thinking of other people.

You’re still doing it! <laughter> This is what Russell described as ‘the finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance’.

“Fossils only exist because people went looking for them to seek the truth.” You are saying: The truth exists as fossils. If we find fossils we will have found the truth. We have found fossils; therefore we’ve found the truth. That is question begging!

Here is the correct version: People went looking for the truth and found that fossils exist. IOW, we had no knowledge of fossils until the first fossils were discovered; thereafter, people searched for and found further fossils. Notice that I didn’t begin from: ‘There are fossils; fossils exist.’ 'Fossils exist' is a conclusion established by discovering them in experience, not an a priori opening premise.

What a very unreasoned question begging.

Only from a very illogical and irrational viewpoint, and providing of course, based on faith, you swallow the power of suggestion attached to it.

Very good, we had no knowledge of fossils till fossils were found and we had a knowledge of what fossils were. Prior to that, if a fossil were found, it may have been kicked around as a funny stone or as the ancient Australian aboriginal said, pictures of the Dreamtime. LOL then the anglo-saxon/european came along and discovered the already discovered and called it a fossil. LOL they did the same with Australia and the Americas, discovered the already discovered.

Religion is the conclusion, based on the evidence collected and past on by base root, ancient cultures. LOL not the myth which circulates in your head.

Do you know that the results from a survey in England found, a fair percentage of their population thought Churchill was a myth and Sherlock Holmes was real. This just goes to show how quickly a legend can turn to myth, and myth into legend. It all pertains to human perception.

If right now, due to a catastrophic climate change, all the knowledge of science was lost and mankind was reduced to a very small population of survivors, the base knowledge of what would be passed on to future generations, would be primarily based on the survivors perception. That within a few generations, our fossil records which we have now, could be reduced to mere myth and we would have to start the whole process again. In effect, mankind would become Hunters and Gatherers again.

Okay then, so you’ve discovered what…that sprites and sirens exist? Just stand up for your statements instead of just throwing empty statements around.

LOL you are a perceptual person.

More words that say absolutely nothing! Justify your statements for once. Explain what this 'religion' of mine is in your esteemed opinion? And then explain what is knowledge and ‘truth’.

My words will always say nothing to you, and why I do not bother, I already have this knowledge, that your own intelligence will stop you from learning. Only when you know yourself, will you know. Until that time, I am very happy to leave you in your own knowledge.

So explain what it was supposed to mean? Bet you can't?

LOL I will leave that to your own intelligence to figure out.... LOL it looks your own intelligence already has.

 

[footprints]

You misunderstood Descartes, which is why you wrote this: “Simply put Descartes has been about the closest to this knowledge than any other philosopher before or after”. The next sentence: “Knowledge is accumulated through the body senses, further knowledge is gained when this data is manipulated by human intelligence” which confirms the error you made in the first sentence. And in due course yougive a further example of your misunderstanding: “Descates ended up in scepticism, a position of doubt and knew there was no logical way out.“ by repeating the error in the first statement! And there are more examples (I shall introduce them one at the time).
You are utterly predictable. This is how your back tracking proceeds. You make a bald assertion. You receive a response that challenges the assertion. You realise you’ve made an error. You then try to justify the assertion. The justification doesn’t work. You then state that you meant something entirely different. When that fails, you then come back by saying everything is perception, and the perceiver is resorting to blind faith. The final stage is to say you’re not arguing but ‘I’m happy to leave you in your own knowledge’.
Time and time again I’ve watched you use this disingenuous method in discussions.

LOL only your brain is relating the first sentence to the second. There is a relationship there though, one: That Descartes has been the closest to being correct, albeit I do not give a reason for this, and second: that knowledge is gained through the body senses or manipulation of this knowledge by human intelligence.

LOL the rest wasn't quoting Descartes, the rest was quoting you.

No it wasn’t. You gave a simplistic generalisation.

Now be good enough to explain yourself, if you can?

Either you got it the first time, or you didn't. I know you didn't, and this post is evident of that. It would take too long to explain it to you, not worth my time or the effort. I am happy to leave you with your intelligence and belief.

As usual, you misunderstand arguments and then try to slime away from giving answers by saying something irrelevant to the question.

LOL Faith is very relevant to the OP. You have a lot of Faith.

I would be very surprised had you said anything different to that! You made an assertion, but don’t have the graciousness to back up your statements. Very predictable!

I couldn't be more respectful to you if I tried. Leaving you with your own knowledge and intelligence is the most respectful thing a person can do.

You don’t understand. A thing that is demonstrably true doesn’t require faith. God and gods are not demonstrable, and the notion must be held as an article of faith. But even if we believe that two right angles are not equal to a triangle’s three angles, demonstration immediately proves us false in our belief.

LOL you don't understand that for something to be demonstated as true, requires faith to believe it is demonstrated as true.

Deities et al, will never be demonstated (even on a perceptual basis) for any person who a) doesn't go seeking the knowledge with an open mind and, b) for any person who lives in instant denial. Gods per se, must be aligned with available evidence, just like anything else in the universe around us, evidence alone gives a faith of belief in an alleged deity, probability.

We have already dealt with your silly triangle analogy.

Well, that’s highly amusing, considering that you are a sceptic by your own admission! It’s plain that you have no idea what your argument is, or where it is supposed to lead!

LOL a sceptic lives on doubt, I live on acceptance. A sceptic sees the world as cup half empty, others see the cup as half full, I see the cup as half, neither full nor empty but somewhere in between.

LOL knowledge leads to more knowledge and an open mind. Scepticism on the other hand leads to subjectivity and a closed mind.

‘Moon landings’? Non sequitur!

And I don’t know how many times I have to remind you how obvious it is that you are not at all happy with my criticisms of your unqualified statements and assertions.

LOL and I don't know how many times I have to tell you, your knowledge doesn't bother me at all. That I am happy to leave you in your own knowledge and with your own intelligence, I leave others just like you (moon landing conspiracies et al) with their own knowledge and intelligence as well.

 

[footprints]

I have noticed every time someone points out one of your flaws you instantly try to reflect it back. It's one thing to be blatantly dishonest with others, but you seem to be indulging in a comically reactionary form of self deception. This is a good example of that as it is impossible to troll my own thread. You might want to work on that. Moving on...

LOL don't try and project crap in the first place, and it cannot be reflected back. Simple really.

Your blantant dishonesty as it pertains to faith, and the amount of faith you personally inject into your belief, says it all.

Although I have given up on the chance you might actually provide anything of substance or a coherent, on topic response, your further trolling does provide an opportunity to illustrate some of the problems with faith based 'thinking'(and I use that term VERY generously).

LOL this said from a person trolling and who has a lot of faith in their belief.

Continuously asserting something over and over doesn't make it the truth. But then again, based on your 'contributions' so far, it would be consistent for you to believe that it would. Most faith based types at least admit that evidence exists, whereas you seem to discount it completely.
Until you step off a building and meet the reality of the situation, at which point the believer and non believer alike will pancake into a bloody mess. Reason, evidence, logic...not faith.

You haven't even tried to argue against the fact that you could never have gained your first bit of knowledge if it wasn't for faith. That you held this knowledge in place, based on face value and blind faith acceptance.

Very intelligent of you to try and ignore this, it would have only made your argument weak and shown your own intellectual dishonesty. Intelligent minds are very deceptive.

Colors can be physically measured. Light refractions interacting with light receptors of the eye. If you take 100 people of different backgrounds, upbringings religious educations and intelligence levels, and individually show them cards of different colors, the results will show uniformity. Evidence. Not faith.

So what is your point? That both the religious and the non-religious, have the same level of intelligence? I couldn't agree more with this. Good point. That both rely on the same position of logic and reason, another good point, which I couldn't agree more with.

'Terrorist' and 'freedom fighter' are terms that describe the same phenomenon, much as 'faith' and 'superstition' do. Regardless, this is a silly example because those are words that inherently describe subjective positions, and have no counterpart outside of the human mind.
And here is where you (yet again) showcase your lack of critical thinking. Which deity? If I believe in an all evil, malevolent goat deity that demands sacrifice of three virgins each full moon, by your 'logic' (again, using this word VERY loosely) that evil deity exists because I believe it does. To take your position one step further into incoherence, if someone else has 'faith' that my evil god does 'not' exist, what then? The universe splits into two? Everyone is right and nobody is wrong? Water will stop freezing in my icetray because I believe it will? Part of the reason I say you are a troll is because nobody with a three digit IQ could possibly hold this position.

LOL human perception is often subjective. This is because we have more faith in our own personal perception, than we do in anothers personal perception.

Personally I am not interested in your warped religious values. Some religious extremists will take things to extremes, your use of extremism turned the other way is just as irrational and illogical.

By the way, Terrorist and Freedom fighter are projected into the world around us and extraneous to and from the mind. Another delusion you falliciously project.

Most of the reason you say I am a troll is because epistemology is a fools game now that knowledge of knowledge is available to us. And if you cannot discredit the knowledge, try and discredit the poster.

Until you put washer fluid in your gastank and get to wondering why your car won't start.

Did you do that? LOL. I bet you know now why your car didn't start for you. Experience can be a very good teacher.

I did it the easy way, I just listened to the people who knew better and learned from them. I used their experience as my experience, so used petrol and not washer fluid like you.

You can have 'faith' in anything. You can only 'know' through reason and evidence.

To have faith, you must have reason and evidence. The universe and all it contains is enough reason and evidence for many believers.

Our initial stance on faith is Love and Trust, this is our reason and evidence as we accept knowledge from parents/guardians at face value (faith) and put a lot of faith into that knowledge as we keep it and use it. Only if this knowledge given us proves to be incorrect in the future by any means, will we swap the initial faith value and replace it with another faith value. This faith value becomes our belief, and that which we project as knowing, into the reality around us.

Your attempts at trying to make yourself more reasoned than a believer is what we know as Ego. You try to make yourself look better by putting another group of people down and in order to do this you need to highlight the most negative and extremist values, it can't make any logical or rational sense any other way, which says the extemism in your own value and illogical position of your reasoning.

Religion is the end resultant of knowledge and evidence as handed down by base root, ancient cultures, be this the base root culture of the ancient Hebrew or the Australian aboriginal. A good deal of this knowledge handed down by base root ancient cultures, is now supported by scientific evidence, theories and hypothesis. As one example; The use of meditation helps to relieve stress, the Hindu, Buddhist, Jew, Australian aboriginal et al, put this another way, they say it removes the negative in you and makes you healthier. There is a direct correlation between stress and heart disease, between stress and cancer and between stress and many other illnesses known to mankind. Instead of scientists listening to these base root cultures, they lived in denial of them, and for this reason had to do things the hard way and prove it for themselves. The good news is, science has eventually caught up with this ancient knowledge and perhaps now can be utilised for the betterment of mankind.

Personally I find it hilarious, due to our own intelligence we thought we knew better, so denied the knowledge of ancient cultures. We then set out on a long process of discovery and evidence to discover that which ancient cultures had already concluded and discovered before us. It would have been a shorter process, to study the ancient culture, but what can I say, we thought we were more intelligent. The Spanish did the same with the Maya, their calandar and their maps of the cosmos just had to be incorrect, it didn't align with the Spanish (European) intelligence at the same time, so they destroyed the knowledge of the Maya. It took hundreds of years for the rest of the world to find out, the Maya had it closer than they did at the same time. So much for human intelligence.

 

[footprints]

Now to try to drag things back on topic, again, an epistemology is a method through which true concepts can be separated from untrue concepts. Inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning, apriori reasoning, the scientific method, et al are all examples of tools we can use to decipher what is true from what is not. These things can be applied to any idea, concept or claim and the truth can be rooted out.

For instance, you can take two contradictory claims, such as 'a rubber ball will not bounce on concrete' and 'a rubber ball will bounce on concrete', and test them (by throwing the ball down on the concrete) and observe the results. The test, and the results, are repeatable. You would learn that it is true that a rubber ball bounces on concrete.

Just how would we learn whether or not the ball will bounce using 'faith'?

Still all in all, your epistemoligial premise boils down to a postion of faith. Reason in itself is based on human perception.

Scientific method is not a method which we can use to decipher what is true and what is not. There is no scientific method in data analysis or human interpretation of the perceived data. Scientific method is great value for the experiment, it falls flat on its face as soon as humans try to determine truth from it. The truth determined from it will always align with the perception of the person or group of people who determine the data and draw a conclusion from it. Some look at the data from biological evolution and see Darwin, others look at this same data and knowledge and see a Deity. Truth is perception based.

Whether a rubber ball bounces on concrete is perception based, you assume the rubber is hardened and treated. Dropping pure rubber onto concrete, be it in the shape of a ball or not, and it just goes splat. A bit like your argument.

In order to learn, you must first assume you have knowledge to learn with. It is impossible for the human brain to learn from anything which it considers rubbish or garbage, the human intelligence would just dismiss it. It is just as impossible for the human brain to learn from something which it does not know. So in order to learn we must first have faith in the knowledge we already know. A person doesn't need science to tell them that a tennis ball will bounce if thrown toward a harder surface, all they need is faith, and to try it. Throw it at the ground and see what happens, either that or they can take it on face value (faith) from somebody who has already concluded this same experiment.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

You are quite the oddity. Listen, you just aren't getting it. I am going to for a second assume you have some sort of coherent point, and that you are just a poor communicator. The benefit of the doubt, if you will.

If you are trying to make the case that we need an initial level of faith in an idea before we can begin to test it, all that would do is add another condition to what knowledge is. That has nothing to do with using 'faith' to separate knowledge from untruth.

If you are trying to say even after an idea is tested and found to be true faith is required to hold that belief, that still says nothing of faith being itself the mechanism for truth-sorting. You are arguing for a condition of knowledge, not a condition of attaining it.

A person doesn't need science to tell them that a tennis ball will bounce if thrown toward a harder surface, all they need is faith, and to try it.

Science, in this instance, IS trying it. Trying it is how you know if it works or not.

In other words, the case you are arguing (if indeed I have deciphered you correctly), is completely beside the point, and off topic. Do you understand now?

Then again, if I have only succeeded in sharpening my eisegetical skills and you are, in fact, a raving lunatic, then by all means continue.

 

[footprints]

You are quite the oddity. Listen, you just aren't getting it. I am going to for a second assume you have some sort of coherent point, and that you are just a poor communicator. The benefit of the doubt, if you will.

How big of you. LOL.

If you are trying to make the case that we need an initial level of faith in an idea before we can begin to test it, all that would do is add another condition to what knowledge is. That has nothing to do with using 'faith' to separate knowledge from untruth.

That is not the point at all. It is faith which seperates truth from untruth. Your faith proves what is true and untrue to you, another persons faith proves what is true and untrue to them. In this respect you are both the same and both equal.

Truth is perception based.

If you are trying to say even after an idea is tested and found to be true faith is required to hold that belief, that still says nothing of faith being itself the mechanism for truth-sorting. You are arguing for a condition of knowledge, not a condition of attaining it.

LOL you have to have taken that faith in, to draw the conclusion that it is true in the first place. Albeit faith is inside your own mind all the time, it is part and parcel of human intelligence. Nothing gets inside your brain without first being deciphered by your intelligence. We cannot gain, or attain knowledge without faith.

You are just trying to make out that a faith in religion or a deity is something different. I get the point you are trying to make as well as your rediculous analogies.

Science, in this instance, IS trying it. Trying it is how you know if it works or not.

And the religious are trying the religion. Trying it is how you know if it works or not. So what is your point, that Science is just like Religions on this point? I couldn't agree with you more.

In other words, the case you are arguing (if indeed I have deciphered you correctly), is completely beside the point, and off topic. Do you understand now?

I understand, that your intelligence will stand between you and knowledge as long as you keep your current intelligence and the ego you have to go with it.

You gained/attained your very first piece of knowledge through faith. This was either mum, mum, mum, bub, bub, bub, or dad, dad, dad, or something very similar. You gained/attained your last bit of knowledge, whatever that was, through faith.

Then again, if I have only succeeded in sharpening my eisegetical skills and you are, in fact, a raving lunatic, then by all means continue.

Ah human intelligence is great, that is why I don't mind telling the truth to intelligent people, they won't accept it anyway and I have no fear or worry that I will change them against their own will. Their own faith will dismiss truth and evidence which goes against their belief every time and their own intelligence will stop them from learning.

Faith is an inherent part of epistemlogy. We cannot gain or attain knowledge without it. Further to this, it is faith which gives our own knowledge gained and attained reason and credit and keeps this knowledge as sacred within our own brain. It is faith which dertermines that which we believe true and that which we believe untrue. And it is further due to faith which we project this knowledge back into reality, or keep it to ourselves as our own personal knowledge.

After the initial stage of infant development, where we accept (gain,attain) all knowledge on a purely Blind Faith value, we move to the stage of Faith, where we start using our own intelligence and not that of our parent(s) and or guardians. Nothing after this stage gets into the human brain without faith, it also says how the knowledge will be related to, in either the positive or negative context.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

You do know that faith means belief without evidence right? You are basically saying that all belief is equally as true as any other belief. We verify beliefs as true through reason and evidence. It is only beliefs we have no evidence for that are faith based.

Also, there is such a thing as the objective universe, which behaves as it will regardless of our 'perceptions' or "faith of belief"(???) or whatever else, as per my "rediculous" (ridiculous..) examples.