What do you include or qualify as knowledge? Natural, supernatural, invisible, tangible things? Things in an encyclopedia?
Is it only justified true beliefs that refer to the truth and denote reality?
- Thread starter Tercon
- Start date
Temujin
Well-known member
We can include or exclude them depending on context and agreement between the participants. The essential element in any conversation, which this thread and all the similar ones that precede lack, is agreement on what terms mean.
The things you mention have reality in the mind of the individual who holds them. If we were sufficiently advanced we could see where in the brain such concepts occur and even manipulate them. So certainly there is a physical presence of sorts. On the other hand, such things cannot be measured or observed objectively. They have no lasting substance. I would just call them an emergent property of the brain and leave it at that.
You're right. Justified true beliefs can be different for each of us which makes our truth and reality different.
But there is a lasting element of them if our memories remain intact.
Everything that exists and occurs in reality, including knowledge of physicality; I guess this is what you are referring to when you say "Natural". And all supernatural and invisible things. As all knowledge of the truth and reality is the result of a believing mind.
Does that mean that atheists do not know reality including the knowledge of physicality?
It means that atheist don't know that everything including the truth, reality and physicality is the result of and originated in and with God's Mind.
Temujin
Well-known member
Atheists certainly do not know this, but then you do not know this either. You believe this, and think that your belief is justified and true and constitutes knowledge. But it is yet to be shown that your belief actually is true, or indeed that it is justified. You feel it is justified, but atheists do not see the evidence such as it is, as reaching the threshold for justifying such a belief. It may be that you have access to thoughts, dreams and experiences that the atheist lacks. Or it may be that you are imagining things.
The agnostic would say that we do not know these things, so the belief in God is unjustified. The atheist would say, in addition, that this is not just an unjustified belief, but I believe that it cannot be true either. I refuse to hold a belief for which I see no justification and which I think cannot be true. There is nothing unreasonable about any of the positions on God. People come to the concept of God from different start points and with different interpretations of the information available, which is often nebulous and intangible. It is inevitable that a range of conclusions will be reached.
Tiburon
Well-known member
No. So what? That does change the fact that they are still "beliefs"
You are conflating belief and knowledge.
Tiburon
Well-known member
No. Your definition is just something you made up and isn't recognised by anyone else.
If you are going to use words try to use them correctly.
You can't win an argument by redefining words.
So, are justified true beliefs beliefs?
Does justified true beliefs define knowledge?
Strawman and projection. I didn't redefine 'belief', because justified true beliefs are beliefs in reality.
Now, you on the other hand; you believe that "false beliefs" and unjustified beliefs are beliefs in reality.
Haven't you learned yet; that belief is necessary in order to make the truth and reality known to you? So, the only reason you don't know is because your unbelief (atheism) keeps you in the ignorance of God's reality.
Strawman. No, I believe that it is true and justified, as that is how and why the truth and reality is known to everyone, including you. And you can ONLY have access to the truth and reality in and with a believing mind; and without a believing mind the truth and reality is unknowable to you.
Illogical foolishness and the conflation of belief and unbelief. You can't "believe that it cannot be true", because you can ONLY disbelieve something is true.
That's right; you "refuse to hold a belief" that the truth and reality represents God..
It is when the truth and reality originated in and with God.
Not true. There is only One reality and He shares His reality ONLY with His own children (believers).
There are many "different" minds, but there is only One truth that leads to His reality.
Reality like consciousness can only be experienced in the present tense.
Temujin
Well-known member
Haven't you learnt yet that while belief is necessary, it is not sufficient. To reveal truth and reality a belief must be true and reflect reality. You have not even attempted to show that this is the case with God.
Sure, you believe it. I believe that your belief is misplaced. You believe one thing. I believe the opposite. Stalemate. Shall we consider evidence?
I can believe that the opposite is true. I believe that the God you believe in doesn't exist. You believe He does exist.. My belief is as authentic and as valid as yours. We will not discover the truth by just believing. We need evidence.
I believe that God does not represent truth and reality.
You have nothing to show that truth and reality originated in God, or even that God is true or real. Your belief is insufficient, because counter beliefs are as strong, as authentic and as valid.
Bob Carabbio
Well-known member
Truth is truth - that's an absolute. "Justified" is a meaningless qualification.
Temujin
Well-known member
Justification refers to the method of arriving at the truth. The difference between a justified true belief and an unjustified one, is that the latter is a lucky guess. So no, not a meaningless qualification. If one accepts that what you believe about
God is true, then if you arrived at it via a lucky guess, then others who don't hold the same "truth" need not be held to account.
I think it was Upton Sinclair who said, "it's difficult to get a man to understand something, when his whole Internet schtick depends on his not understanding it."
Last edited:
Bob Carabbio
Well-known member
Meaningless. Truth is an absolute. Whether anybody "Arrives at it" or not is unimportant. It IS what it is.
Physics proves this wrong, Bob.
Here's an example: as I sit typing this, I am motionless (except for my fingers and hands, and whatever small body movements come with the process of breathing.
The above italicized statement is true, but only relatively. Even though I feel I'm motionless, I'm actually aboard a planet spinning at roughly 1000 miles an hour. That spinning planet is rotating around the sun at roughly 67,000 miles per hour.
Truth is always and forever relative. Not absolute.
Temujin
Well-known member
It matters to other people, principally the ones who abuse or discriminate against those whose lucky guess is different from their own.
Eightcrackers
Well-known member
Minor correction - it is the method of arriving at the belief.
A belief can be justified and false.