The circular argument of God and miracles

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Even if your analogy actually happened, I'd still have to accept the fact that it was actually last years match, thus accepting that I was wrong in believing it was this years match. Acceptance must come before true knowledge of facts. The facts will still be presented, but one must accept them before they can confidently say that they know it's true.

What happens when you know the truth is another matter. The point is that until you are aware that your justification for belief is false, you have a justified true belief without knowledge. That's the philosophical problem.

The example I gave is one of several variations known as 'Gettier cases' after Edmund Gettier's paper 'Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?' in 1963. The problem is to find a way to 'fix' the definition to deal with them. One attempt suggested that since the justification involved a false belief (e.g. you falsely thought you were viewing the current finals, not the previous year's), knowledge must be true belief where the justification isn't based on false evidence; but you can find Gettier cases that satisfy this constraint and are still not knowledge. Another attempt suggests that you are missing some information or evidence that would falsify the belief (e.g. the information that what you saw was a repeat of last year's match); but again, there are Gettier cases that apply even if there's no missing information or evidence...

And so-on.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But that is the difference and the problem. Jesus does not lie. HE does not change What He promised today is steadfast and sure yesterday today and tomorrow. And HE does not have to do anything else and neither does the man need to do or to see anything beyond HIS WORD and PROMISE

Serena and Venus are "men" subject to change and error. What they do or have done today is not and will not be guaranteed to be the same tomorrow

I'm afraid you seem to have missed the point of an interesting philosophical problem; the Venus & Serena example was just an easy-to-follow example; Gettier cases need not involve people at all.

 

[Deadworm]

Lefty: "Before you claim a bear made a paw print, you need to show that bears exist. You can't point to the paw print and use that as evidence for the bear's existence."

More relevant are (1) the many footprints in woods that are alleged to have been made by some unknown hominid--Sasquatch--and (2) hair samples and scat also from some unknown forest species. Until an actual live population or skeleton is found, most people are skeptical of Sasquatch's existence. Then what should we make of all the eyewitness sightings? I don't believe these are all practical jokes from a guy in an ape suit, fabrications, or cases of mistaken identity. Absent skeletal remains, I'm more inclined to place these in the poltergeist category or in the category of aliens from parallel dimensions than I am to identify them as hidden hominids in the forest. The most important question is: Which explanation makes the best sense of all the relevant data? My present honest answer is: I don't know.

Yet if the same question is applied to God's existence, my current answer is: Some sort of supreme caring intelligence is the explanation that makes the most sense of all the relevant data. To understand why I say this, you'll need to read these 5 threads: "The Right Prayer Partner," "The Spirituality of Premonitions," "NDEs and ADCs: Awesome Verifications," "Speaking in Tongues and Spirit Baptism," and above all, "History's Most Spectacular Revivals."

Consider this claim and then accept my challenge to read all this material and watch all the attached videos. The claim: No skeptic has ever fully embraced my challenge and then discussed this material with me without feeling the need to embark on a serious spiritual quest into the truth of Christianity. You just could be the first. Or at least, you could stop me from making such a claim, which I have effectively used both in person and online.

 

[miknik5]

I'm afraid you seem to have missed the point of an interesting philosophical problem; the Venus & Serena example was just an easy-to-follow example; Gettier cases need not involve people at all.

You're right
The Truth is I don't really feel like following these things given that The Truth of God overrides all things as He is Sovereign over all things because they are just that. Things. Temporal subject to change and error. Never constant but ever changing. And God is not subject to these imperfect never constant ever changing conditions

 

[miknik5]

I'm sorry for interfering in the discussion. I am bowing out

 

[devolved]

I think that's the wrong way around. The warmer system (more disordered as it's atoms jiggle more) loses entropy to the colder system (less disordered, as its atoms jiggle less), which gains entropy.

Entropy is only roughly disorder; it's more a measure of uncertainty underlying a system's macro (thermodynamic) state; so, the number of possible microstates (arrangements of atoms, etc) that can give the same macrostate. Roughly, the number of possible ways its microscopic elements can be arranged to look the same from a distance.

Wouldn't there be more factors that play into the "macrostate" than heat exchange though? The entropy tends to be an illusive concept when we get into things like vitrification or gravitational collapse of gas into stars. It would seem rather strange to me that when we are talking about a "disorder", we wouldn't take certain structural variables into consideration that seem to be different for various arrangements of matter.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... (2) hair samples and scat also from some unknown forest species.

as I understand it, all tested samples of this type have turned out to be known species; I'd be interested if you can point me to any that have been sent for testing and not been identified.

...most people are skeptical of Sasquatch's existence. Then what should we make of all the eyewitness sightings? I don't believe these are all practical jokes from a guy in an ape suit, fabrications, or cases of mistaken identity.

Pareidolia?

Yet if the same question is applied to God's existence, my current answer is: Some sort of supreme caring intelligence is the explanation that makes the most sense of all the relevant data.

That vague an answer could explain pretty much anything, but it raises far more questions than it answers, and makes no testable predictions at all. It's not really an explanation, so much as another label in place of 'unknown'.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Wouldn't there be more factors that play into the "macrostate" than heat exchange though?

Yes, but the example was about heat exchange... and with solid objects there's not really much else of relevance.

It would seem rather strange to me that when we are talking about a "disorder", we wouldn't take certain structural variables into consideration that seem to be different for various arrangements of matter.

You've lost me - what structural variables are missing in the example we considered?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm sorry for interfering in the discussion. I am bowing out

You don't have to leave; the Gettier problem was just a side issue about the problem of knowledge, not particularly important - I just thought it might be interesting.

 

[Chriliman]

What happens when you know the truth is another matter. The point is that until you are aware that your justification for belief is false, you have a justified true belief without knowledge. That's the philosophical problem.

The example I gave is one of several variations known as 'Gettier cases' after Edmund Gettier's paper 'Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?' in 1963. The problem is to find a way to 'fix' the definition to deal with them. One attempt suggested that since the justification involved a false belief (e.g. you falsely thought you were viewing the current finals, not the previous year's), knowledge must be true belief where the justification isn't based on false evidence; but you can find Gettier cases that satisfy this constraint and are still not knowledge. Another attempt suggests that you are missing some information or evidence that would falsify the belief (e.g. the information that what you saw was a repeat of last year's match); but again, there are Gettier cases that apply even if there's no missing information or evidence...

And so-on.

I understand what you're saying, I'm saying that when I believed the match was from this year, I actually had false knowledge without realizing it was false(the fact that it was from last year was not presented to me).

So I believed it was from this year and gained false knowledge, then the true facts were presented and I believed it was from last year and gained true knowledge.

Again, belief first then knowledge, this isn't complicated to understand.

 

[quatona]

Ah, Chriliman coined a new concept: "false knowledge".

 

[Chriliman]

Ah, Chriliman coined a new concept: "false knowledge".

I'm sure you get my meaning. When you mistakenly believe something that is actually false, at the time you think you have correct knowledge, but it's actually not.

 

[quatona]

I'm sure you get my meaning. When you mistakenly believe something that is actually false, at the time you think you have correct knowledge, but it's actually not.

We don´t call that "knowledge".

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I understand what you're saying, I'm saying that when I believed the match was from this year, I actually had false knowledge without realizing it was false(the fact that it was from last year was not presented to me).

No, you had a justified true belief based on false information. It seems that you don't understand what I'm saying (unless you're just pretending to be obtuse). The point of the example is that a justified true belief based on false information doesn't constitute knowledge. There is no 'false knowledge', philosophically speaking. You might use that term colloquially and be understood, but in philosophy the terms are clearly defined for their particular usage.

So I believed it was from this year and gained false knowledge, then the true facts were presented and I believed it was from last year and gained true knowledge.

As I said before, what happens when the truth is known isn't relevant to this problem.

Again, belief first then knowledge, this isn't complicated to understand.

Of course that's simple, but it's not the problem in question. See the Gettier problem.

 

[Chriliman]

No, you had a justified true belief based on false information.

No, the information itself was not false, I may not have had all the information, but that doesn't mean the information is false. The problem was my interpretation of the information and my conclusion that the match was from this year(I had no reason to think otherwise), but this conclusion was incorrect and I didn't realize it until the true facts were revealed.

It seems that you don't understand what I'm saying (unless you're just pretending to be obtuse).

I understand full well that what you're trying to explain to me is not accurate as I've pointed out above.

The point of the example is that a justified true belief based on false information doesn't constitute knowledge.

A justified true belief based on information does constitute knowledge, but the knowledge may be inaccurate, which new information will make evident. As your hypothetical clearly illustrates.

 

[lesliedellow]

If something is thought to be impossible by people who disbelieve in God, but which is thought to be something divine intervention could accomplish, by people who do believe in God, and then that something happens, the latter group could rightfully claim it to be strong circumstantial evidence for their view being the correct one.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No, the information itself was not false, I may not have had all the information, but that doesn't mean the information is false. The problem was my interpretation of the information and my conclusion that the match was from this year(I had no reason to think otherwise), but this conclusion was incorrect..

The information was false in the context of your expectation in that it misinformed you, and yes, it was the misinterpretation that made it so. But that's a side issue.

A justified true belief based on information does constitute knowledge, but the knowledge may be inaccurate...

'False knowledge' is not knowledge (or, if you prefer, the discussion is about 'real' knowledge and 'false' knowledge isn't real knowledge); 'inaccurate knowledge' is ambiguous, it might be partial knowledge, you'd have to define it unambiguously, but anyhow, it doesn't apply to the tennis example.

In the tennis example, the justified true belief of the result of the current year's final, thought to be knowledge of it, wasn't actually knowledge of it - we can tell this because if the outcome of the current year's final had been different, the justified belief would not have been different (and it would no longer be true). However, this doesn't mean that the solution is to ensure that the belief is informed by the subject of the belief (e.g. the current year's final). Gettier cases can be found where that is the case, but the justified true belief informed by the subject of the belief is still not knowledge (is 'false knowledge' if you insist).

 

[miknik5]

Are you saying that if enough people believe it for long enough it must be true? The majority of religions have lasted longer than Christianity, so does that mean they correspond to truth too (or even more, if time is the measure)?[/qutoe]
[qutoe="miknik5, post: 69921350, member: 387982"]Frumious.
That same outpouring of The Holy Spirit on His Disciples then...is the same outpouring on His Disciples today

That is why the Truth is preached and the witnesses of That Truth still speak

That sir is the evidence. That God is the one who let His Ligjt shine and gave us the knowledge of His Glory, His Light, His Truth, His Grace, His Salvation all in the "face of Jesus"

I know at this point you have moved forward and there is too much discussion going on that I do not care to be a part of. I also am sorry but I do understand that all I can say is Truth is Truth regardless if one wants to believe or to argue it to debate or give their own reasons for or against it

It is and it will remain The Truth regardless.

You said in your above post that if people believe it long enough it becomes truth (I am sure you were mocking this as simply an unsubstantiated notion of superstitious men...as if these types of men lack knowledge and understanding and are somehow comfortable and naive enough to believe anything)

And this is why I said it is because Gods Spirit is doing the same thing today as He had done in the first Pentecost

And it is because the witnesses today still testify to The Truth of The Gospel by that Witness in us (who is The Holy Spirit) who testifies with our spirit to The Truth

 

[Chriliman]

The information was false in the context of your expectation in that it misinformed you, and yes, it was the misinterpretation that made it so. But that's a side issue.

'False knowledge' is not knowledge (or, if you prefer, the discussion is about 'real' knowledge and 'false' knowledge isn't real knowledge); 'inaccurate knowledge' is ambiguous, it might be partial knowledge, you'd have to define it unambiguously, but anyhow, it doesn't apply to the tennis example.


In the tennis example, the justified true belief of the result of the current year's final, thought to be knowledge of it, wasn't actually knowledge of it - we can tell this because if the outcome of the current year's final had been different, the justified belief would not have been different (and it would no longer be true). However, this doesn't mean that the solution is to ensure that the belief is informed by the subject of the belief (e.g. the current year's final). Gettier cases can be found where that is the case, but the justified true belief informed by the subject of the belief is still not knowledge (is 'false knowledge' if you insist).

I think we are in agreement. However, this entire side discussion started because you thought that my statement "If what you believe is actually true then you will know it's true." was not necessarily true, when in fact it is true, but you may have misunderstood what I meant.

What a meant was, if one is believing the true facts(the match was actually from last year) then they will know that what they believe is actually true.

 

[Chriliman]

The information was false in the context of your expectation in that it misinformed you, and yes, it was the misinterpretation that made it so. But that's a side issue.

It wasn't the informations fault that I became misinformed, it was my fault for misinterpreting the information. Now if someone deliberately or accidentally showed me last years match with this years date on it, then the information given could be considered false information.