[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] A problem at the bottom of reason

[quatona]

It is always strange to see how the ultra-faithful suddenly become hyper-skeptical when it suits their narrative.

Yes, "either my God...or epistemological nihilism" never ceases to amaze me.

 

[KCfromNC]

Yes, "either my God...or epistemological nihilism" never ceases to amaze me.

If we can't know anything with 100% airtight certainty, then any guess has to be as good as any other, right? I can't prove beyond any doubt that reality isn't all in my head, therefore it is perfectly reasonable to believe that everything happens because magic invisible gnomes make it happen.

Seems that some people are carrying their black and white thinking to some pretty extreme places.

 

[Chriliman]

If we can't know anything with 100% airtight certainty, then any guess has to be as good as any other, right? I can't prove beyond any doubt that reality isn't all in my head, therefore it is perfectly reasonable to believe that everything happens because magic invisible gnomes make it happen.

Seems that some people are carrying their black and white thinking to some pretty extreme places.

Do you come across a lot of people who insist magic invisible gnomes created the universe? I'd hope not. My thoughts are based on my belief in God, there is nothing extreme or unusual about that, seeing as how humans have believed in God since well forever. The concept of God is separate from any other concept that you use to compare it to, like magic gnomes.

 

[Chriliman]

First, using children in epistemology is usually not a good sign. What is good for children to do epistemically is not good for us. He may not have a reason to do things like this, but he has probably not have had knowledge of people lying to him. My point is exactly what you said, he might have no reason right now to question his beliefs.

However, my entire argument is that we, rational adults aware of philosophy and discussions of skepticism and the limits of knowledge, do not have that luxury. No matter how hard I try, I can no longer ignore the possibility that my perceptions are being lied to and that I am actually a brain in a vat. Assumptions come when we start to realize that we are fallible; that we are prone to error and that we can make mistakes. Once when your son grows older and discovers people lie, he can no longer rationally believe every single person he meets will tell him the truth. If he did, he would be naive and foolish. Therefore, he has to assume others are telling the truth. He may not consciously do it; often, we don't consciously to decide at all. However, when I play the skeptic and push him against the intellectual wall, he must admit that there is the possibility that anyone he knows is secretly lying to him; this possible world might be so far-off that it seems weird to even consider it, but the world is still a possible one. He must acknowledge that there is a chance, no matter how small, that the possible world is the actual one. He is rationally justified in making this assumption; so rational, in fact, that we consider it epistemically obligatory that he do it in some cases. But there will always be the assumption, no matter how well justified and rational, when it comes to the limits of our knowledge.

Beliefs do not influence reality. If someone believes in God, what does it matter for the actual existence of God? If someone does not believe in God, what does it matter for the actual existence of God? Merely because you believe me to be a conscious human being and I claim to be one does not make me one; I still might be a philosophical zombie. To use substitution to show the absurdity of this position, a member of the Peoples Temple might have believed Jim Jones to be a proper religious figure, and Jim Jones claimed to be a proper religious figure. However, this alone does not indicate that it is true that Jim Jones is a proper religious figure.

Beliefs alone do not generate knowledge. Justification does. And no system of justification is without its limitations.

This is why I brought up the question in my OP. What about the first self aware "adult" humans? There reasoning could not have been based on an assumption. Only after they'd been lied to by something beyond themselves did they begin assuming things about reality. This is exactly what's described in Genesis when Eve was lied to by satan. Just think about it.

 

[Chriliman]

Yes, several times.



No, as I have no reason to accept the Bible as true just because there is some vague similarity between some idea of mine and something in the Bible.

The Hindu religion is fond of describing vast lengths of time, even in terms of millions or billions of years -- just like Science(!!!!!) -- but that is no reason to accept Hinduism as true.

We're not talking about vast lengths of time, we're talking about timelessness. There is a major difference.

Sorry, but that isn't unambiguously a claim of timelessness. Not that it really matters.

I believe it does matter. Only a fool would ignore a concept described thousands of years ago that just now science is discovering. Let the truth speak for itself.

That makes me "timeless". I existed in the past, exist in the present, and will exist in the future. I will not do so for all of time, but your quote doesn't specify that.

Correct you are now timeless, meaning from the point you were created into eternity, you will never cease to exist.

(Incidentally, this is not what I mean when I call the universe timeless. I mean that the universe doesn't exist in a larger context of time.)

How does this make sense exactly?

Yes, I was a baby at one time. That baby that I was no longer exists. Why? Change.

But it is true that you were a baby and therefore will always be true that you were a baby. Which means its true that you grew from being a baby to who you are now, but this does not mean that you as a baby did not exist, its just that your existence is now you as an adult.

There is no contradiction. I said that I don't believe that there was ever a time in which nothing at all exists. That's not at all the same thing as believing that something can cease to exist as a particular entity.

If something exists, what would cause it to not exist? You can't say change, because change would be part of that somethings existence.


eudaimonia,

Mark[/QUOTE]

 

[Chriliman]

The entire "believe that it´s true" stuff isn´t accurately describing my notions. At this point it seems to me that you are a conscious being - I might eventually find it more plausible that you are a bot, though. Or that it doesn´t matter to me if you are a conscious being or not.

Can you imagine what the world would be like if everyone thought that it didn't matter if anyone else was conscious? Talk about a selfish world. I want no part of that world, I will continue believing what I believe because it empowers me to love others and even consider others as greater than myself.

God bless!

 

[Chany]

This is why I brought up the question in my OP. What about the first self aware "adult" humans? There reasoning could not have been based on an assumption. Only after they'd been lied to by something beyond themselves did they begin assuming things about reality. This is exactly what's described in Genesis when Eve was lied to by satan. Just think about it.

It does not require a deliberate lie. We can learn to question our beliefs by experiencing things that contradict them.

Let's say Adam was playing with some animals for the first time in his life. He decides to pet a dog. He finds that the dog is fluffy and furry, so he believes that all of the dogs feel the same way. He then finds a dog of different breed. He believes the new dog will feel the same as the old dog, despite the physical differences. However, the new dog's hair is much coarser and, therefore, feels different. Adam then learns that he should question his belief. All of this is done without anyone lying to Adam.

This is just an example meant to illustrate the point: every single human starts the path down discovering these differences this way since their birth. Obviously, Adam would have been doing this since he was brought into existence. Children form erroneous beliefs, then have them contradicted by experience. We continue to have this in our adult lives. Lies by agents are only a very small percentage of the reasons to question beliefs. The second we realize our beliefs are not infallible, however, we must admit that there is, for all but the most particular propositions, always a chance that one is in error about one's belief and the claim to knowledge. The most obvious example are Gettier problems, which show that even people with justified true beliefs sometimes cannot claim knowledge.

 

[Kirsten]

Your reasoning is based on one of the two statements below:

1. I assume reality is real, therefore I accept the truth of reality.

2. I accept the truth that reality is real.

Many will say that our reasoning is based on the assumption that reality is real. To this I pose the question: Were the first self aware humans capable of basing their reasoning on an assumption about reality? Do you think they were even intellectually capable of even considering reality to not be real?

Or is it more reasonable to think that they based their reasoning on the belief or acceptance of truth that reality is in fact real? If this is the case then our human reasoning as a whole is not based on an assumption, but rather based on the belief that reality is real.

Or do you think making an assumption about reality is the same as accepting the truth about reality?

Reality is relative. Truth is absolute.

 

[Chriliman]

It does not require a deliberate lie. We can learn to question our beliefs by experiencing things that contradict them.

Let's say Adam was playing with some animals for the first time in his life. He decides to pet a dog. He finds that the dog is fluffy and furry, so he believes that all of the dogs feel the same way. He then finds a dog of different breed. He believes the new dog will feel the same as the old dog, despite the physical differences. However, the new dog's hair is much coarser and, therefore, feels different. Adam then learns that he should question his belief. All of this is done without anyone lying to Adam.

This is just an example meant to illustrate the point: every single human starts the path down discovering these differences this way since their birth. Obviously, Adam would have been doing this since he was brought into existence. Children form erroneous beliefs, then have them contradicted by experience. We continue to have this in our adult lives. Lies by agents are only a very small percentage of the reasons to question beliefs. The second we realize our beliefs are not infallible, however, we must admit that there is, for all but the most particular propositions, always a chance that one is in error about one's belief and the claim to knowledge. The most obvious example are Gettier problems, which show that even people with justified true beliefs sometimes cannot claim knowledge.

If you truly believe that Adam was brought into existence by God, then the only truth Adam would know is the truth of God. God does not assume things, God knows everything. If you believe this then you must also believe that the truth of God was hidden by something beyond Adam, but allowed by God. That something is satan, satan has a will, but he cannot know the truth because there is no truth in him. Satan can only attempt to deceive others because he has completely deceived himself first. He's trying to deceive me right now, thankfully I know the truth of Jesus Christ. He's also trying to keep you deceived right now as well. This is a very real problem, that you'll eventually realize. But If you don't believe any of this, all I can do is pray for you.

God bless!

 

[Chriliman]

Reality is relative. Truth is absolute.

I agree. Do you believe it's absolutely true that reality exists?

 

[Chany]

If you truly believe that Adam was brought into existence by God, then the only truth Adam would know is the truth of God. God does not assume things, God knows everything. If you believe this then you must also believe that the truth of God was hidden by something beyond Adam, but allowed by God. That something is satan, satan has a will, but he cannot know the truth because there is no truth in him. Satan can only attempt to deceive others because he has completely deceived himself first. He's trying to deceive me right now, thankfully I know the truth of Jesus Christ. He's also trying to keep you deceived right now as well. This is a very real problem, that you'll eventually realize. But If you don't believe any of this, all I can do is pray for you.

God bless!

God is an infinite being who is omniscient by definition. Adam is a limited, finite being. I do not believe in God, but even if I did, I certain would not believe God made omniscient human beings by design and that only reason we do not know things is because of deliberate lies. I do not know, for example, what is going to happen tomorrow in my life, but none of this means I am being lied to by a supernatural entity. It simply means that I am a limited human being without the ability to see into the future or know everything.

Also, truth is not a substance. It's a description of a state of affairs that reflect actual circumstances.

I have a feeling you are not interested in actual epistemology and truth, however. You are simply using word games and falling back onto bizarre religious beliefs to avoid my arguments at this point. You have yet to show any distinction between a rational assumption based on probability, reason, etc. and what you appear to be doing: declaring something true and ignoring the possibility you are wrong because, based on the probability. When I explain how I am using the word "assumption", you continue to treat the word as it is used in another context. The only reason I can think of for your stance is that you believe your beliefs to be, at their core, infallible and that the posters on this site, such as myself, are poking holes in this and showing how our beliefs are, at their core, fallible. Therefore, you must come up with wordplay that will protect this belief from outside influence.

 

[Eudaimonist]

We're not talking about vast lengths of time, we're talking about timelessness. There is a major difference.

You were suggesting that a similarity between science and Christianity is supportive of Christianity. However, if that is the case, then a similarity between science and Hinduism should also be supportive of Hinduism. Here we have science "supporting" two quite different religions. Something is clearly broken with that logic.

I believe it does matter. Only a fool would ignore a concept described thousands of years ago that just now science is discovering. Let the truth speak for itself.

That is only cherry-picking. Just because someone long ago might have come up with an idea of timelessness, that doesn't mean that there was some special knowledge back then. Democritus came up with an idea of the "atom" thousands of years ago, but that doesn't mean that he did anything more than make a reasonable speculation.

Correct you are now timeless, meaning from the point you were created into eternity, you will never cease to exist.

No, that's crazy. I did not come to existence "in eternity", but in a finite, changing universe. The universe does not exist at any "point" in eternity, because the universe is the context of time, and therefore of points in time. (See more just below.)

How does this make sense exactly?

The universe is the context of time, not something that exists in a larger reality that gives it a context of time. So, while time may pass in the universe because it changes, one cannot speak of the universe as having a time when it came into being, such as for the false idea that it popped into existence out of a pure nothingness after "billions" of years where nothing took place.

But it is true that you were a baby and therefore will always be true that you were a baby.

Yes, I agree with that! The reality is now different (the baby no longer exists) but the truth about what was remains true.

Which means its true that you grew from being a baby to who you are now, but this does not mean that you as a baby did not exist, its just that your existence is now you as an adult.

We seem to be on the same page here.

If something exists, what would cause it to not exist? You can't say change, because change would be part of that somethings existence.

Change is not part of something's existence. Change is a power that something has. It was a power of the baby to grow older, and thus to no longer exist as a baby. It is in that sense that I can talk about something no longer existing. I don't mean that the baby vanished into thin air.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chriliman]

God is an infinite being who is omniscient by definition. Adam is a limited, finite being. I do not believe in God, but even if I did, I certain would not believe God made omniscient human beings by design and that only reason we do not know things is because of deliberate lies. I do not know, for example, what is going to happen tomorrow in my life, but none of this means I am being lied to by a supernatural entity. It simply means that I am a limited human being without the ability to see into the future or know everything.

Also, truth is not a substance. It's a description of a state of affairs that reflect actual circumstances.

I have a feeling you are not interested in actual epistemology and truth, however. You are simply using word games and falling back onto bizarre religious beliefs to avoid my arguments at this point. You have yet to show any distinction between a rational assumption based on probability, reason, etc. and what you appear to be doing: declaring something true and ignoring the possibility you are wrong because, based on the probability. When I explain how I am using the word "assumption", you continue to treat the word as it is used in another context. The only reason I can think of for your stance is that you believe your beliefs to be, at their core, infallible and that the posters on this site, such as myself, are poking holes in this and showing how our beliefs are, at their core, fallible. Therefore, you must come up with wordplay that will protect this belief from outside influence.

I admit I'm fallible by claiming that I have to believe. The very definition of belief is to accept something as true, meaning you accept the truth of it and realize you don't necessarily know the entire truth. You do the very same thing everyday. I just happen to believe in Jesus and you do not.

Also, there is nothing wrong with trying to not assume I know the truth about anything. I simply accept truth.

 

[Chriliman]

Change is not part of something's existence. Change is a power that something has. It was a power of the baby to grow older, and thus to no longer exist as a baby. It is in that sense that I can talk about something no longer existing. I don't mean that the baby vanished into thin air.

I'm sorry, I'm tired of pointing out your contradictions. You say change is not a part of "something's" existence and then in the very next sentence to say that "something" has the power to change. How does it have the power to change, if change is not a part of it's existence? Wouldn't the change have to exist along with the something? Or do you think change is nonexistent when the "something" exists?

 

[Chany]

I admit I'm fallible by claiming that I have to believe. The very definition of belief is to accept something as true, meaning you accept the truth of it and realize you don't necessarily know the entire truth. You do the very same thing everyday. I just happen to believe in Jesus and you do not.

Also, there is nothing wrong with trying to not assume I know the truth about anything. I simply accept truth.

The point I am making is that you cannot avoid assumptions under the way I am describing assumptions. Again, I care little for textbook definitions, especially because philosophy can use words in contexts we do not use in everyday life. Part of the process of accepting a belief as true is the assumption that the far-off possibilities and skeptical scenarios are not happening. You are rational in this assumption specifically because these possibilities are so far off. However, ignoring them does not make them go away, so we must acknowledge them. Hence, I am saying that, in order to acknowledge them, we have to acknowledge the probabilistic way we are approaching things when it comes to inductive reasoning. And because almost all of what we call "knowledge" is gained through inductive reasoning, I am technically making assumptions about all of my knowledge.

As my main point: what you call accepting truth I call rationally ignoring distant error possibilities by assuming they are not happening. If you are not aware of these distant error possibilities on a philosophical level, they are things like skeptical scenarios and Gettier cases.

 

[quatona]

Can you imagine what the world would be like if everyone thought that it didn't matter if anyone else was conscious?

No - and this has nothing to do with what I said.

Talk about a selfish world. I want no part of that world, I will continue believing what I believe because it empowers me to love others and even consider others as greater than myself.

That´s what I talked about: "pragmatic reasons" for adopting a view. It´s useful to hold certain notions.
I was under the impression that you were trying to make a case for something else.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I'm sorry, I'm tired of pointing out your contradictions.

That's fine, I don't tire of pointing out how they aren't contradictions.

You say change is not a part of "something's" existence and then in the very next sentence to say that "something" has the power to change. How does it have the power to change, if change is not a part of it's existence?

There is a difference to my mind between saying that change is part of something's existence, and that the power to change is part of something's existence. With the latter it is reasonable to say that something ceases to exist when it changes, because it has changed into something else. A has the power to change into B. A had existed, and now B exists instead. A has been replaced by B. A is therefore no longer in existence. There is no contradiction in that.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[madera23]

If we can't know anything with 100% airtight certainty, then any guess has to be as good as any other, right? I can't prove beyond any doubt that reality isn't all in my head, therefore it is perfectly reasonable to believe that everything happens because magic invisible gnomes make it happen.

Seems that some people are carrying their black and white thinking to some pretty extreme places.

Too bad you can't go to those places.
Of course you can't prove those magical places.
Miracles do happen there whether you know it or not.

 

[madera23]

If we can't know anything with 100% airtight certainty, then any guess has to be as good as any other, right? I can't prove beyond any doubt that reality isn't all in my head, therefore it is perfectly reasonable to believe that everything happens because magic invisible gnomes make it happen.

Seems that some people are carrying their black and white thinking to some pretty extreme places.

Exposure to the light of truth terrifies the guilty. Every corrupted soul shields itself with massive lies and excuses to avoid the burning light of conscience. To reject reality and accept the lie as truth requires energy, and that energy is always covert resentment, or overt rage. Conversely, the proper energy of defense against wicked accusations is found in the divine energy of grace -- love.

 

[bhsmte]

Exposure to the light of truth terrifies the guilty. Every corrupted soul shields itself with massive lies and excuses to avoid the burning light of conscience. To reject reality and accept the lie as truth requires energy, and that energy is always covert resentment, or overt rage. Conversely, the proper energy of defense against wicked accusations is found in the divine energy of grace -- love.

What reality? Can you demonstrate this reality to us?