Your Purpose in Life

Originally posted by twhitehead
I agree that saying something doesn't instantiate truth. But to say 'you can go no further than that' with regards to peoples thoughts implies that we cannot be sure of our thoughts. I disagree.

[b]And the reason i said 'especially in regards to God' was to differentiate from the more simplistic examples Fetchmyjunk always provides in these situations. ...[text shortened]... specific definitions of God that are not that much different from cars in terms of specificity.

We can certainly be sure of our own thoughts, but can not build any 'universal truth' claims upon them as FMJ would have us believe. (New information for example would have us rethink our previous conclusions).

Your second point needs further clarification, as you seem to be comparing God to a Ford Capri.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
(New information for example would have us rethink our previous conclusions).

Would it? Would 2+2 no longer equal 4 in the light of new information?

Your second point needs further clarification, as you seem to be comparing God to a Ford Capri.
If 'God' is defined as 'a Ford Capri' parked in FMJ's driveway, then its existence, or non-existence can be established in the the same that you would do for a Ford Escort parked in the same location. Similarly if God is defined as many Christians do, then its existence may be determined by similar methods as those used for the Ford Capri. You make a prediction based on its existence then check whether that prediction matches the evidence. If it isn't then you conclude it doesn't exist or most likely doesn't exist depending on the strength of the prediction and evidence.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
New information for example would have us rethink our previous conclusions.

For many things that we strongly believe we know, the only possible 'new information' that could change that view, would be the information that we are delusional or incapable of rational thought. But the moment we accept such new information we are faced with the strong possibility that the same may occur again, and we must conclude that we can know nothing. Even 'I think, therefore I am' becomes suspect.

Originally posted by twhitehead
For many things that we strongly believe we know, the only possible 'new information' that could change that view, would be the information that we are delusional or incapable of rational thought. But the moment we accept such new information we are faced with the strong possibility that the same may occur again, and we must conclude that we can know nothing. Even 'I think, therefore I am' becomes suspect.

Take for example the earlier belief that the Earth was flat. I'm sure many people strongly believed this to be a fact, until new evidence came to light that the Earth was actually spherical. (Which would result in a rethinking of ones previous belief).

It is the sign of a healthy mind, not a delusional mind, to modify one's belief based on new compelling evidence. It's the way we progress as a species. Only a closed mind defensively and fearfully holds onto their believes in the face of new information not available when the initial belief was formulated.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Take for example the earlier belief that the Earth was flat.

That that belief was largely prevalent is largely a myth.

I'm sure many people strongly believed this to be a fact, until new evidence came to light that the Earth was actually spherical. (Which would result in a rethinking of ones previous belief).
Except the belief (for those that actually held it) wasn't based on evidence or much thought on the matter. Those that did think about it, mostly came to the conclusion that it wasn't flat.

Seriously, your best example of an idea that may need revising is no different than a belief in fairies. Sure, plenty of people believed in fairies, but that is hardly equivalent to my belief that 2+2=4, or even to my belief that the earth is close to spherical.

It is the sign of a healthy mind, not a delusional mind, to modify one's belief based on new compelling evidence.
It is also a sign of a healthy mind to be able to determine certain facts that will never need revising.

Only a closed mind defensively and fearfully holds onto their believes in the face of new information not available when the initial belief was formulated.
Now you are confusing two totally different issues:
1. Whether a person should change their mind in the face of new evidence.
2. Whether a person can determine certain facts to such a point that they can be certain no new evidence will ever arise that will contradict those facts.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That that belief was largely prevalent is largely a myth.

[b]I'm sure many people strongly believed this to be a fact, until new evidence came to light that the Earth was actually spherical. (Which would result in a rethinking of ones previous belief).
Except the belief (for those that actually held it) wasn't based on evidence or much thought o ...[text shortened]... point that they can be certain no new evidence will ever arise that will contradict those facts.[/b]

It was a casual example (by no means my best example) but could easily give thousands of similar examples where new information disputes previous thinking that was thought to be definitive. (I think you know that already).

The notion that you can determine a fact to a point where no new information will ever contradict it is rather whimsical. - There was a chap in the 19th century who proudly declared that everything that could be invented 'had' been invented. You remind me a bit of him.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
It was a casual example (by no means my best example) but could easily give thousands of similar examples where new information disputes previous thinking that was thought to be definitive. (I think you know that already).

Actually, no, I do not know that already. I think the reason you chose such a poor example is because all examples will be poor examples and there are in fact no good examples of previous thinking that was thought to be definitive by real intellectuals that was later changed by new information.

The notion that you can determine a fact to a point where no new information will ever contradict it is rather whimsical. - There was a chap in the 19th century who proudly declared that everything that could be invented 'had' been invented. You remind me a bit of him.
That I remind you of someone does not help your argument - and is in fact dangerously close to an attempt at a strawman since it is patently clear that I am not, in any way, arguing that everything has been invented or that everything is known.
You on the other hand appear to be claiming that in the light of new information, it may one day turn out that the moon isn't real. And no, 'whimsical' is not how I would describe that sort of thinking.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
My brain thinks. All I can offer you is thoughts.

It's you who speaks of truth, even when that truth is beyond your finite comprehension.

So if truth is beyond our finite comprehension, how do you know that the statement, "truth is beyond your finite comprehension" is true?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So if truth is beyond our finite comprehension, how do you know that the statement, "truth is beyond your finite comprehension" is true?

If one doesn't understand and recognizes the fact then one knows one doesn't understand it.

Originally posted by DeepThought
If one doesn't understand and recognizes the fact then one knows one doesn't understand it.

He is claiming that no one can comprehend truth, if that is true how did he comprehend the supposed truth that no one can comprehend truth?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
He is claiming that no one can comprehend truth, if that is true how did he comprehend the supposed truth that no one can comprehend truth?

That's not what Ghost was saying. Knowledge, at least knowledge of propositions, is a justified belief that is true (pace Gettier), so one must have a belief which one can justify and it has to be true. There are a few problems with this, there must be constraints on the justification not being confounded (this is why I mentioned Gettier) and it must be true. The justification part is not the big problem. The big problem is the question of whether it is true or not. Beyond logical tautologies there is a basic epistemological problem - we may think something is true, but we can never be 100% certain. So we must lower our standards and accept defeasible truth tests. Particle physics results are among the best tested things in science, they are not accepted until the probability that the result could come about by chance is one part in around 500 million - but there is still that one chance. I think that that is what Ghost was talking about, it's not a matter of comprehension but of being sure we know what we think we know because it may not be true.

Originally posted by DeepThought
That's not what Ghost was saying. Knowledge, at least knowledge of propositions, is a justified belief that is true (pace Gettier), so one must have a belief which one can justify and it has to be true. There are a few problems with this, there must be constraints on the justification not being confounded (this is why I mentioned Gettier) and it must b ...[text shortened]... ter of comprehension but of being sure we know what we think we know because it may not be true.

Do you have to be 100% certain to know that something is true?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Do you have to be 100% certain to know that something is true?

It depends, suppose one intends to cross the road. One sees a car coming, does the car really exist or is it a figment of one's imagination? Well, I think in that circumstance one may as well accept the evidence. But at a philosophical level we do not have any really good grounds for claiming 100% certainty that the car exists. We are faced with defeasible truth tests and are forced to live our lives with them. So in practical terms all our knowledge is uncertain, but there is no point in worrying about it, and mostly we can be so certain that the residual uncertainty is negligible. So we can claim knowledge, but not absolute knowledge, except of our own personal existence, which for each individual is absolute. In the case of religious claims then, other than books and claims of religious experiences others make, there is no evidence certainly not testable evidence, so there is good reason to doubt.

Originally posted by DeepThought
It depends, suppose one intends to cross the road. One sees a car coming, does the car really exist or is it a figment of one's imagination? Well, I think in that circumstance one may as well accept the evidence. But at a philosophical level we do not have any really good grounds for claiming 100% certainty that the car exists. We are faced with defe ...[text shortened]... rs make, there is no evidence certainly not testable evidence, so there is good reason to doubt.

If our knowledge is uncertain, how can we be claim with certainty that our knowledge is uncertain?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If our knowledge is uncertain, how can we be claim with certainty that our knowledge is uncertain?

Because that is the way conditionals work, it's a logical tautology. If A then A is absolutely certain, it is necessarily true and doesn't depend on contingent facts for its truth. So if our knowledge of contingent facts is uncertain then we can be absolutely certain that our knowledge of contingent facts is uncertain.