The atheist delusion.

[Tercon]

"Non sequitur" is this your latest misunderstood term.
Yes, belief is required for knowledge. You say "I believed the truth about God". How did you come to this belief?

Sure I do.
Non sequitur: a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

And since belief is necessary to know anything about the truth and reality, then belief must come before knowledge.

 

[Tiburon]

Sure I do.
Non sequitur: a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

And since belief is necessary to know anything about the truth and reality, then belief must come before knowledge.

And so you misapplied "Non sequitur".
Where did your belief in God come from?

 

[Tercon]

And so you misapplied "Non sequitur".

No, if you can't know the truth and reality without belief, then knowledge must come from belief. And if belief is what makes the truth and realty known, then belief must be a form of knowledge.

Where did your belief in God come from?

Belief is a gift of God.

 

[Tiburon]

No, if you can't know the truth and reality without belief, then knowledge must come from belief. And if belief is what makes the truth and realty known, then belief must be a form of knowledge.

No, belief is not a form of knowledge. Belief is a part of knowledge.

Belief is a gift of God.

So God hasn't given everyone this gift? Interesting. Have you always had this gift?

 

[Tercon]

No, belief is not a form of knowledge. Belief is a part of knowledge.

If belief is the only thing that can make the truth and reality known to us, then belief must be the true knowledge that connects us to reality.

So God hasn't given everyone this gift? Interesting.

If you have a disbelieving mind and disbelieve belief is capable of making the truth and reality known to you, then you have rejected the only only means by which the truth and reality is made known to you.

Have you always had this gift?

No, God had to make me believe too.

 

[Tiburon]

If belief is the only thing that can make the truth and reality known to us, then belief must be the true knowledge that connects us to reality.

Knowledge requires belief but belief doesn't require knowledge.

If you have a disbelieving mind and disbelieve belief is capable of making the truth and reality known to you, then you have rejected the only only means by which the truth and reality is made known to you.

No, God had to make me believe too.

If I have a disbelieving mind it's because God hasn't made me believe.
How did God make you believe?

 

[Tercon]

Knowledge requires belief but belief doesn't require knowledge.

Irrelevant, because I am only referring to and denoting knowledge of the truth and reality.

So, if knowledge of the truth and reality requires belief, then knowledge of the truth and reality must come from belief.

If I have a disbelieving mind it's because God hasn't made me believe.

No, if you "have a disbelieving mind it's because" you are disbelieving what you are supposed to be believing in order to know the truth and reality of God. Belief and/or faith is a gift of God, belief is the only way in which all truth and reality is known to people. And God is the original believing Mind.

How did God make you believe?

Belief is involuntary, because the truth demands it in order to make reality known to you.

If you want to know the truth and reality of God, then ask Him to make you believe.

 

[mikeT]

The truth and reality is the result of God's mind.

Thanks for your unfounded opinion, but the rest of us would prefer that you deal with the contradiction in your claim:

If reality originates in God's mind, then God's mind can't originate in reality - and thus cannot exist.

Where did God's mind originate, if not from reality?

 

[mikeT]

Knowledge requires belief but belief doesn't require knowledge.

I've argued - and will continue to do so - that in some cases belief is not a requirement for knowledge. For example, a child burning her hand on a hot stove for the first time. She has no conception of a hot stove being dangerous, but she learns it instantly - without the formation of belief - that it is.

To your point, though: there are many examples of knowledge being based upon belief, of course. I'm arguing that you're not entirely right, rather than that you're entirely wrong.

 

[mikeT]

If the only way and place that reality can be known to exist and occur is in and with a believing mind

It's not.

Next?

 

[Tiburon]

Irrelevant, because I am only referring to and denoting knowledge of the truth and reality.

So, if knowledge of the truth and reality requires belief, then knowledge of the truth and reality must come from belief.

Not irrelevant. Knowledge of the truth and reality requires what is known, to be true and real. Belief on it's own isn't sufficient to arrive at that.

No, if you "have a disbelieving mind it's because" you are disbelieving what you are supposed to be believing in order to know the truth and reality of God. Belief and/or faith is a gift of God, belief is the only way in which all truth and reality is known to people. And God is the original believing Mind.

Belief is involuntary, because the truth demands it in order to make reality known to you.
If you want to know the truth and reality of God, then ask Him to make you believe.

If Belief is involuntary then surely disbelief is also involuntary.
If the truth demands belief and God is truth, how can I disbelieve?

 

[Tiburon]

I've argued - and will continue to do so - that in some cases belief is not a requirement for knowledge. For example, a child burning her hand on a hot stove for the first time. She has no conception of a hot stove being dangerous, but she learns it instantly - without the formation of belief - that it is.

To your point, though: there are many examples of knowledge being based upon belief, of course. I'm arguing that you're not entirely right, rather than that you're entirely wrong.

It comes back to knowledge being defined as "Justified true belief" (a common but somewhat argued definition). In the instance of the child burning her hand, for example, her belief that a hot stove is dangerous would be arrived at through experience, not a pre-existent belief.

 

[mikeT]

It comes back to knowledge being defined as "Justified true belief" (a common but somewhat argued definition). In the instance of the child burning her hand, for example, her belief that a hot stove is dangerous would be arrived at through experience, not a pre-existent belief.

Right, but her first realization of the dangerousness of a stove would be experience - not justified true belief.

For a while, I've been arguing against the "justified true belief" definition. It's popular here, and I'm obviously in the minority in advocating against it. However, it's not that I think it's completely wrong; instead, I think it's unworkable in some situations.

Not all; some.

ps. I'm honestly not trying to reopen that debate.

 

[Tiburon]

Right, but her first realization of the dangerousness of a stove would be experience - not justified true belief.

For a while, I've been arguing against the "justified true belief" definition. It's popular here, and I'm obviously in the minority in advocating against it. However, it's not that I think it's completely wrong; instead, I think it's unworkable in some situations.

Not all; some.

ps. I'm honestly not trying to reopen that debate.

I think the take is, that experience generates a "justified true belief" I don't think there is any rule on what comes first.
If you have another take on what constitutes knowledge I won't argue with you. Unless of course, like Tercon, you think belief alone is all that is required.

 

[Tercon]

Thanks for your unfounded opinion, but the rest of us would prefer that you deal with the contradiction in your claim:

You are projecting your own contradiction.

If reality originates in God's mind, then God's mind can't originate in reality - and thus cannot exist.

Strawman. If the only way and place that reality can be known to exist or occur is in and with a believing mind, then reality must have originated in God's mind. God's mind must be the origin of reality.

Also, as pertaining to your contradiction; if the truth and reality can't be known to occur or exist outside of or without a believing mind, then a believing mind must be the foundation of the truth and reality.

Where did God's mind originate, if not from reality?

Non sequential. The only way and place that everything can be known to exist, occur or originate is in and with a believing mind, including the truth and reality. Outside of a believing mind nothing can be known to exist or occur.

And none of you have been able to show otherwise.

 

[Tercon]

I've argued - and will continue to do so - that in some cases belief is not a requirement for knowledge. For example, a child burning her hand on a hot stove for the first time. She has no conception of a hot stove being dangerous, but she learns it instantly - without the formation of belief - that it is.

To your point, though: there are many examples of knowledge being based upon belief, of course. I'm arguing that you're not entirely right, rather than that you're entirely wrong.

Actually I have never burned myself on a hot stove, because I believed my parents when they told me that the stove is hot and will burn me if I touched it.

And ALL knowledge of the truth and reality is based upon belief, without exception. And in reality, that's what counts. A matter of fact; the truth and reality demands a believing mind in order to be known.

It comes back to knowledge being defined as "Justified true belief" (a common but somewhat argued definition). In the instance of the child burning her hand, for example, her belief that a hot stove is dangerous would be arrived at through experience, not a pre-existent belief.

The key word in "Justified true belief" is belief", as in reality Justified true beliefs are still beliefs. And if knowledge is defined as "Justified true belief", then belief must be knowledge of the truth and reality.

 

[Tercon]

Right, but her first realization of the dangerousness of a stove would be experience - not justified true belief.

For a while, I've been arguing against the "justified true belief" definition. It's popular here, and I'm obviously in the minority in advocating against it. However, it's not that I think it's completely wrong; instead, I think it's unworkable in some situations.

Not all; some.

ps. I'm honestly not trying to reopen that debate.

I think the take is, that experience generates a "justified true belief" I don't think there is any rule on what comes first.
If you have another take on what constitutes knowledge I won't argue with you. Unless of course, like Tercon, you think belief alone is all that is required.

"Justified true beliefs" are still beliefs.

Give just one example of the truth and reality that you disbelieve.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

No, if you can't know the truth and reality without belief, then knowledge must come from belief. And if belief is what makes the truth and realty known, then belief must be a form of knowledge.

Two falsehoods there. Firstly, let's assume taht it's truth that "you can't know the truth and reality without belief". It does not follow from that that "knowledge must come from belief". You can't bake a cake without flour; that does not mean that the cake comes from the flour. Flour is one of the ingredients necessary for the cake; belief is one of the ingredients necessary for knowledge.

Secondly, let's assume (despite the fact that we've just proven it false) that belief is what makes the truth and realty known. That does not mean or make belief a form of knowledge. A microscope is what makes bacteria known; that does not make a microscope a form of bacteria.

Belief is a gift of God.

Since you cannot demonstrate the existence of any god, irrelevant.

 

[Tercon]

Two falsehoods there. Firstly, let's assume taht it's truth that "you can't know the truth and reality without belief". It does not follow from that that "knowledge must come from belief".

If belief is necessary in order for the truth and reality to be known, then it does follow that knowledge of the truth and reality 'must come from belief', because without belief the truth and reality is unknowable.

You can't bake a cake without flour; that does not mean that the cake comes from the flour. Flour is one of the ingredients necessary for the cake; belief is one of the ingredients necessary for knowledge.

Not analogous at all. You can exclude flour from a cake and still get a cake by using some other ingredients other than flour. So, flour isn't necessary to get a cake.

But if you can't have any knowledge of the truth and reality without belief, then knowledge of the truth and reality must come from belief. So, you can't exclude belief from knowledge and still get the truth or reality. The truth is the result of a believing mind, because it is only in and with believing mind that the truth and reality can comprehended.

Secondly, let's assume (despite the fact that we've just proven it false) that belief is what makes the truth and realty known.

You have “proven” no such thing. Do you even understand what the statement 'belief is necessary for knowledge' means?

That does not mean or make belief a form of knowledge.

Not only is belief a form of knowledge, but it is the ONLY form of knowledge that links us to the truth and reality.

A microscope is what makes bacteria known; that does not make a microscope a form of bacteria.

No-one said it does.

But it does make “a microscope” 'a form of knowledge'.

Since you cannot demonstrate the existence of any god, irrelevant.

But I can account for the fact that the truth, logic, consciousness, reality and “existence” itself is a form of knowledge that is only made possible in and through a believing mind and you can't account for anything.

So, if the truth and reality is the product of a believing mind, because the truth and reality isn't knowable anywhere else but a believing mind, then a believing mind is the only thing that can account for the truth and reality.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

If belief is necessary in order for the truth and reality to be known, then it does follow that knowledge of the truth and reality 'must come from belief', because without belief the truth and reality is unknowable.

Not analogous at all. You can exclude flour from a cake and still get a cake by using some other ingredients other than flour. So, flour isn't necessary to get a cake.

But if you can't have any knowledge of the truth and reality without belief, then knowledge of the truth and reality must come from belief. So, you can't exclude belief from knowledge and still get the truth or reality. The truth is the result of a believing mind, because it is only in and with believing mind that the truth and reality can comprehended.

You have “proven” no such thing. Do you even understand what the statement 'belief is necessary for knowledge' means?

Not only is belief a form of knowledge, but it is the ONLY form of knowledge that links us to the truth and reality.

No-one said it does.

But it does make “a microscope” 'a form of knowledge'.

But I can account for the fact that the truth, logic, consciousness, reality and “existence” itself is a form of knowledge that is only made possible in and through a believing mind and you can't account for anything.

So, if the truth and reality is the product of a believing mind, because the truth and reality isn't knowable anywhere else but a believing mind, then a believing mind is the only thing that can account for the truth and reality.

All nonsense. Belief is not a form of knowledge; that is amply demonstrated by the fact that people believe things that are false.

You have not demonstrated and cannot demonstrate that "truth and reality is the product of a believing mind". You continue to not understand the difference between recognition of something and generation of that something.