Do You Believe In God?

[bi388]

Technically faith is one of the (6?) ways of knowing. You can know god exists through faith and therefore not he agnostic or know he doesn't through faith and not be agnostic. That doesn't mean you're right though.

 

[Lacius]

@chaoskagami and @Lacius

I believe there is a big difference between 'believing that something definitely does not exist' and 'not knowing whether you believe it exists or not'. One means 'no', and the other means 'I don't know'. Consider a more factual situation: without using a calculator or working it out by hand, tell me if the square root of 15,544,104,976 is 124,676. If you don't know already what the answer is, then you'll have to answer 'I don't know'. You're not telling me that it isn't, but that you don't have sufficient knowledge to tell me one way or another.

I agree with everything you just said. However, believing that something definitely does not exist is not the same thing as saying you don't believe something exists. Let's use an analogy similar to yours. I just flipped a coin and covered the result with my hand. Nobody has seen the result. We will call the belief that the coin landed heads theism. If I ask, "Do you believe the coin landed heads?" the correct answer is no, since you have no reason to think it actually landed heads. In this example, that would be atheism. That does not mean you believe it is not heads, and it definitely doesn't mean you know for a fact that it's not heads. You can still acknowledge that the odds of it being heads are 50%. In this example, that would be agnostic atheism; the two terms are never mutually exclusive, since they deal with different questions.

As I've said numerous times before, saying one is agnostic does not answer the question of whether or not that person believes a god exists; it only tells me that the person doesn't know if a god exists, and a person can believe or not believe regardless of whether or not he or she claims knowledge.

Technically faith is one of the (6?) ways of knowing. You can know god exists through faith and therefore not he agnostic or know he doesn't through faith and not be agnostic. That doesn't mean you're right though.

Faith is, demonstrably, not viable way to discern between fact and fiction. While one can cite faith is his or her 'reason' for belief, since a person can believe for good or bad reasons, it is not a justification for knowledge, and a person cannot claim to know something on the basis of faith. That's not what knowledge is.

 

[gnmmarechal]

I agree with everything you just said. However, believing that something definitely does not exist is not the same thing as saying you don't believe something exists. Let's use an analogy. I just flipped a coin and covered the result with my hand. Nobody has seen the result. We will call the belief that the coin landed heads theism. If I ask, "Do you believe the coin landed heads?" the correct answer is no, since you have no reason to think it actually landed heads. In this example, that would be atheism. That does not mean you believe it is not heads, and it definitely doesn't mean you know for a fact that it's not heads. You can still acknowledge that the odds of it being heads are 50%. In this example, that would be agnostic atheism; the two terms are never mutually exclusive, since they deal with different questions.

As I've said numerous times before, saying one is agnostic does not answer the question of whether or not that person believes a god exists; it only tells me that the person doesn't know if a god exists, and a person can believe or not believe regardless of whether or not he or she claims knowledge.

However, why do you insist on there being only two answers? "I don't know" is a valid answer. "I don't know", not as in "I don't know if God exists"; but as in "I don't know if I believe in God". What about that? A not-true statement is not false given there are three options (True, False, and Not-True). While False is Not-True, Not-True isn't necessarily False.

 

[Lacius]

However, why do you insist on there being only two answers? "I don't know" is a valid answer. "I don't know", not as in "I don't know if God exists"; but as in "I don't know if I believe in God". What about that? A not-true statement is not false given there are three options (True, False, and Not-True). While False is Not-True, Not-True isn't necessarily False.

"I don't know if a god exists" does not answer the question "Do you believe a god exists?" because "I don't know if a god exists" answers the question "Do you know if a god exists?" Knowledge is a subsection of belief.

I agree with you completely regarding your point about not-true statements; in fact, it's my point entirely. Since this is a true dichotomy, there are only two possible answers to the question "Do you believe a god exists?" and those answers are yes and not-yes. If you had read my post above, you would have seen my explanation about how failure to accept a claim does not necessarily mean a person accepts the claim is false.

Edit: As for the answer "I don't know if I believe a god exists," that's not agnosticism. "I don't know if a god exists" is agnosticism. It is, at least for at time, still a failure to answer yes to the question "Do you believe a god exists?"

 

[gnmmarechal]

"I don't know if a god exists" does not answer the question "Do you believe a god exists?" because "I don't know if a god exists" answers the question "Do you know if a god exists?" Knowledge is a subsection of belief.

I agree with you completely regarding your point about not-true statements; in fact, it's my point entirely. Since this is a true dichotomy, there are only two possible answers to the question "Do you believe a god exists?" and those answers are yes and not-yes. If you had read my post above, you would have seen my explanation about how failure to accept a claim does not necessarily mean a person accepts the claim is false.

I did read it. However, I refuse to merge False and Not-True. Also, "I don't know if I believe in God" does answer the question.

 

[Lacius]

I did read it. However, I refuse to merge False and Not-True. Also, "I don't know if I believe in God" does answer the question.

I also refuse to merge false and not-true.

And as I said in my edit, "I don't know if I believe in a god" does indeed answer the question "Do you believe a god exists?" The answer is still not-yes.

 

[chaoskagami]

I also refuse to merge false and not-true.

And as I said in my edit, "I don't know if I believe in a god" does indeed answer the question "Do you believe a god exists?" The answer is still not-yes.

How hard is it to accept 'insufficient data at this point in time to draw a conclusion' as a valid answer? It isn't a third answer, it's abstaining from an answer.

I feel like this is the halting problem in CS.

 

[bi388]

Faith is, demonstrably, not viable way to discern between fact and fiction. While one can cite faith is his or her 'reason' for belief, since a person can believe for good or bad reasons, it is not a justification for knowledge, and a person cannot claim to know something on the basis of faith. That's not what knowledge is.

I agree faith is not a way to discern fact from fiction. However you can know something from faith. Back when I was in high school I was in the International Bachelorette program which is a large worldwide college level curriculum and in it we had to take a philosophy class. In it we (and everyone else in this program across the world) learned that faith is one of the ways of knowing. Doesn't make you right but the idea of knowledge isn't as simple as "I have proof of something so I know it." People will believe things for various reasons some of which don't make sense.

 

[gnmmarechal]

I agree faith is not a way to discern fact from fiction. However you can know something from faith. Back when I was in high school I was in the International Bachelorette program which is a large worldwide college level curriculum and in it we had to take a philosophy class. In it we (and everyone else in this program across the world) learned that faith is one of the ways of knowing. Doesn't make you right but the idea of knowledge isn't as simple as "I have proof of something so I know it." People will believe things for various reasons some of which don't make sense.

That's... not something I can agree with. I can't accept faith as knowledge.

 

[Lacius]

How hard is it to accept 'insufficient data at this point in time to draw a conclusion' as a valid answer? It isn't a third answer, it's abstaining from an answer.

I feel like this is the halting problem in CS.

I think you need to reread my post on how dichotomies work, because I agree that is a valid answer. Not answering yes is still, by definition, not answering yes. When atheism is defined as not answering yes, then insufficient data to say yes is still atheism. A person who has never even heard of the god concept is still an atheist until he or she a.) becomes aware of the concept, and b.) accepts it as true.

I agree faith is not a way to discern fact from fiction. However you can know something from faith. Back when I was in high school I was in the International Bachelorette program which is a large worldwide college level curriculum and in it we had to take a philosophy class. In it we (and everyone else in this program across the world) learned that faith is one of the ways of knowing. Doesn't make you right but the idea of knowledge isn't as simple as "I have proof of something so I know it." People will believe things for various reasons some of which don't make sense.

No, you cannot know something from faith. Faith can (as a bad reason) lead to belief, presupposition, etc., but it cannot lead to knowledge. By definition, knowledge requires justification, and faith is, by definition, a lack of justification.

 

[bi388]

That's... not something I can agree with. I can't accept faith as knowledge.

No, you cannot know something from faith. Faith can (as a bad reason) lead to belief, presupposition, etc., but it cannot lead to knowledge. By definition, knowledge requires justification, and faith is, by definition, a lack of justification.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_knowledge_(IB_course) faith is one of the accepted ways of knowing.

 

[gnmmarechal]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_knowledge_(IB_course) faith is one of the accepted ways of knowing.

Not by me, and possibly by many others.

 

[Lacius]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_knowledge_(IB_course) faith is one of the accepted ways of knowing.

Then they're redefining faith, knowledge, or both. A common colloquial definition of faith that comes up a lot in these conversations is confidence or trust that isn't necessarily without justification. When we're defining faith as belief without sound reason, which is almost always the definition in a religious context, then it cannot be a source of knowledge.

 

[TeamScriptKiddies]

However, why do you insist on there being only two answers? "I don't know" is a valid answer. "I don't know", not as in "I don't know if God exists"; but as in "I don't know if I believe in God". What about that? A not-true statement is not false given there are three options (True, False, and Not-True). While False is Not-True, Not-True isn't necessarily False.

Where inside a computer simulation, only true and false statements are valid, your gbatemp has executed an illegal instruction and must close......

Lol in all seriousness, I'm a Christian but I'm very open minded. IDC what others believe as long as they don't harm themselves or others in th name if their beliefs. That's just plain messed up

 

[bi388]

Then they're redefining faith, knowledge, or both. A common colloquial definition of faith that comes up a lot in these conversations is confidence or trust that isn't necessarily without justification. When we're defining faith as belief without sound reason, which is almost always the definition in a religious context, then it cannot be a source of knowledge.

No they arent. Someone can know their faith is true and be wrong but still know it. The definition of knowledge is "facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject" and a religious person can have education or practical understanding and therefore know.

 

[gnmmarechal]

I'm a Christian but I'm very open minded. IDC what others believe as long as they don't harm themselves or others in th name if their beliefs. That's just plain messed up

There, we can agree.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

No they arent. Someone can know their faith is true and be wrong but still know it. The definition of knowledge is "facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject" and a religious person can have education or practical understanding and therefore know.

No, they don't know it. Because they won't have the practical understanding or education of the subject if said faith is wrong.

Believing that something is true it completely different than knowing something is true.

 

[Lacius]

No they arent. Someone can know their faith is true and be wrong but still know it. The definition of knowledge is "facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject" and a religious person can have education or practical understanding and therefore know.

This isn't a matter of whether or not the knowledge is actually true of reality; it's a matter of whether or not it's knowledge. In epistemology, knowledge is defined as justified true belief. Colloquial definitions often get in the way of these types of discussions, and it's important we agree what words mean before we can have these kinds of discussions.

 

[bi388]

No, they don't know it. Because they won't have the practical understanding or education of the subject if said faith is wrong.

Believing that something is true it completely different than knowing something is true.

This isn't a matter of whether or not the knowledge is actually true of reality; it's a matter of whether or not it's knowledge. In epistemology, knowledge is defined as justified true belief. Colloquial definitions often get in the way of these types of discussions, and it's important we agree what words mean before we can have these kinds of discussions.

I'm citing sources of people who write world wide college level class curriculums and you're just telling me they're wrong without giving any sources.

 

[chaoskagami]

I'm citing sources of people who write world wide college level class curriculums and you're just telling me they're wrong without giving any sources.

So if I believe gravity doesn't exist, does it not exist?

I dunno, my feet seem pretty planted on the ground here.

 

[bi388]

So if I believe gravity doesn't exist, does it not exist?

I dunno, my feet seem pretty planted on the ground here.

No, you can know gravity doesn't exist but you would be wrong