Whats the Harm...

Originally posted by LemonJello
To first order here, that S knows P just means (1) P is true & (2) S believes P & (3) S is justified in believing P & (4) another condition here, the Gettier condition, the exact details of which are not important here. There is absolutely nothing in there that says S has to be absolutely certain and eliminate all possibility that not-P. That S is justi ...[text shortened]... e and eliminate all possibility of not-P (again, otherwise we would know virtually nothing).

Forgive me for intruding, but item (1) there, "P is true", appears to me to be not given if P is the premise "There is no god." What bbar has indicated is (2) and (3) -- and I'll assume (4) is a given -- but what of (1)?

Even though I'm a staunch atheist with absolutely no doubt as to the veracity of my atheism, in my view (1) is, and ever will be, open to debate. You cannot entirely dismiss Sumydid's charges because you cannot lay claim to having (1) "in the bag".

Certainly there may be multiple lines of argument and pieces of evidence that could be brought to bear which collectively make (1) a given with, say, the logical/philosophical equivalent of "6-sigma certainty" (the degree of certainty that must be attained to officially consider the Higgs boson as being "discovered''😉, and like bbar and you I would take that as being sufficient to grant (1); but it isn't sufficient for the staunch theists. All of us "know" that much!

We can only hope that logical arguments and scientific data may persuade tepid theists to give up the notion of a god.

Originally posted by sumydid
Pitiful. Your premise is absolutely wrong, so the whole post collapses on itself just a few words in. The only thing I'm confused about is why I even bothered to engage you in the first place. You say you know God doesn't exist. No you don't. Period.

It is clear to me, from your previous post, that you initially misunderstood bbarr. You claim to have taken his claim 'at face value' whilst knowing perfectly well that what you interpret as 'face value' is not what bbarr actually intended. You then call it a 'false statement' when in reality it is only false under your interpretation, not under the intended meaning.
It is clear that you do not understand what we mean when we say we know something, and you do not want to understand us. You want to push your own definition down our throats then call us out. I am afraid language simply doesn't work that way.

Originally posted by LemonJello
You "cry foul" about this claim because you are mistaken about what knowledge requires. (Well, you also cry foul because you think "one cannot verifiably prove a negative" but you are also mistaken on that, as I already commented.)

Certainly it is possible, and routine, to prove a negative in mathematics. I think it gets trickier to do so in the material world, though I assume that in non-mathematical contexts you use the word "prove" in a statistical sense wherein probabilities pile up at the doorstep of 1 even though they don't attain 1 exactly.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is clear to me, from your previous post, that you initially misunderstood bbarr. You claim to have taken his claim 'at face value' whilst knowing perfectly well that what you interpret as 'face value' is not what bbarr actually intended. You then call it a 'false statement' when in reality it is only false under your interpretation, not under the inten ...[text shortened]... ion down our throats then call us out. I am afraid language simply doesn't work that way.

We are still reckoning with a God of the Gaps. In this case, even though it may be reasonably proposed that god does not exist with probability 0.999, the god lives on in the gap between 0.999 and 1.000.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Forgive me for intruding, but item (1) there, "P is true", appears to me to be not given if P is the premise "There is no god." What bbar has indicated is (2) and (3) -- and I'll assume (4) is a given -- but what of (1)?

Even though I'm a staunch atheist with absolutely no doubt as to the veracity of my atheism, in my view (1) is, and ever will be, ope and scientific data may persuade tepid theists to give up the notion of a god.

Condition (1) is just the basic external truth condition on knowledge. I'm not sure what you're objecting to. I was outlinging what bbarr means when he says he knows that God does not exist. Do you mean that bbarr did not mean to imply that it is true that God does not exist when he says he knows that God does not exist? At any rate, I think we could safely say a couple things: it doesn't make much sense to deny the external truth condition on knowledge (which would entail that one could know a false proposition); and, secondly, if one claims that he knows P, it follows that he thinks (1) holds (since this is basically exactly what (2) holds).

Originally posted by Soothfast
Certainly it is possible, and routine, to prove a negative in mathematics. I think it gets trickier to do so in the material world, though I assume that in non-mathematical contexts you use the word "prove" in a statistical sense wherein probabilities pile up at the doorstep of 1 even though they don't attain 1 exactly.

"Prove" was a word that Sumydid imported into this discussion (which I think originated in another thread). Bbarr's claim does not hinge on "proving" a negative. It hinges on having sufficient evidence to justify belief.

But, at any rate, the claim "one cannot prove a negative" is just false, anyway. I also posted a link to an article that addresses this subject in the other thead.

EDIT: Here is that thread: Thread 149456

Originally posted by sumydid
Pitiful. Your premise is absolutely wrong, so the whole post collapses on itself just a few words in. The only thing I'm confused about is why I even bothered to engage you in the first place. You say you know God doesn't exist. No you don't. Period.

I (like bbarr) know God does not exist, and I have the arguments to back it up.

You can keep on just sticking your head in the sand.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Condition (1) is just the basic external truth condition on knowledge. I'm not sure what you're objecting to. I was outlinging what bbarr means when he says he knows that God does not exist. Do you mean that bbarr did not mean to imply that it is true that God does not exist when he says he knows that God does not exist? Surely he does, of course.

No, bring it down to Earth please:

(1) P is true.

In this context:
P = God does not exist.

Thus:
(1) It is true that God does not exist.

Anyway, all I'm saying is that our side cannot blithely claim to have (1) secured as a given. The opposition will cry foul, and already has. We can protest that (1) must be true with 99.999% certainty, but the opposition will not accept anything less than 100% certainty in this particular matter -- even though very little in life is ever known with 100% certainty. We may counter that the demand for 100% certainty is blinkered and completely at odds with how rational beings come to "know" anything, but the notion of a god is by its nature not a rational concept.

To expect people clinging to an irrational belief to give that belief up based on rational argumentation is sometimes overly optimistic.

As to your question, I would answer in the negative. Bbar is exceedingly careful in the construction of his arguments and appears to always mean what he says. My understanding is that Bbar "knows" there is no god with what he deems to be a sufficiently high probability as to preclude any reasonable objections. By "sufficiently high probability" I mean with a degree of certainty that virtually everyone would agree amounts to "proof" were the debate about almost any subject outside the realm of theology.

Originally posted by Soothfast
No, bring it down to Earth please:

(1) P is true.

In this context:
P = God does not exist.

Thus:
(1) It is true that God does not exist.

Anyway, all I'm saying is that our side cannot blithely claim to have (1) secured as a given. The opposition will cry foul, and already has. We can protest that (1) must be true with 99.999% certainty, but unts to "proof" were the debate about almost any subject outside the realm of theology.

Of course we cannot claim to have (1) as a given. That would just be question-begging. That's why bbarr added that he has the arguments to back it up. And of course we cannot claim to know (1) with absolute certainty (since we can claim this about virtually nothing); but that is pretty much irrelevant to the debate, which is exactly the point here. Sumydid cries foul because we cannot show (1) with absolute certainty. But, that is in no way any sort of reasonable demand on the debate. Sumydid, to be responsible, needs to actually assess the arguments we have on their actual merits. But he instead dismisses them under the totally unreasonable demand that they are not absolutely conclusive, which is simply hypocritical and inconsistent of him. I guess to be more precise, Sumydid cries foul that we can claim to know (1) without being absolutely certain that (1) is true. But, this is an absurd requirement on knowledge; and it is also a requirement that Sumydid applies inconsistently as it suits him.

I'm not understanding what you're actually arguing. Are you saying that the atheist cannot justifiably claim to know that God does not exist?

As to your question, I would answer in the negative.

Are you saying that bbarr would not make the claim "God does not exist"? Surely you'd be wrong about that. He thinks "God does not exist" is true. After all, he just claimed to know that God does not exist. Of course, absolutely nothing about any of this would commit bbarr to the idea that he knows God does not exist with absolute certainty.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I'm not understanding what you're actually arguing. Are you saying that the atheist cannot justifiably claim to know that God does not exist?

[b]As to your question, I would answer in the negative.

Are you saying that bbarr would not make the claim "God does not exist"? Surely you'd be wrong about that. He thinks "God does not exist" is t ...[text shortened]... would commit bbarr to the idea that he knows God does not exist with absolute certainty.[/b]

I'm not understanding what you're actually arguing. Are you saying that the atheist cannot justifiably claim to know that God does not exist?

Well, I'll just say that I was drawn into this because I was startled to read Bbar's statement "I know god does not exist." Most individuals, myself included, take "know" to indicate absolute certainty, or at least a degree of empirical certainty that equates with our understanding that grass is green and the sky is blue. I think the degree to which we know god does not exist is not quite that strong, simply because we are indeed attempting to "prove a negative" in a material reality.

I now understand that you and Bbar are using the word "know" in some esoteric sense that is a stock in trade among professional philosophers. Therein lies some of the confusion floating around here, but I get it now.

Are you saying that bbarr would not make the claim "God does not exist"? Surely you'd be wrong about that. He thinks "God does not exist" is true. After all, he just claimed to know that God does not exist. Of course, absolutely nothing about any of this would commit bbarr to the idea that he knows God does not exist with absolute certainty.

Bbar is saying, I think, that the nonexistence of god is very highly probable based on a variety of independent pieces of evidence and lines of argumentation. Whether he would rate god's nonexistence as more or less probable than, say, the theory of evolution, I would not hazard to guess.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Forgive me for intruding, but item (1) there, "P is true", appears to me to be not given if P is the premise "There is no god." What bbar has indicated is (2) and (3) -- and I'll assume (4) is a given -- but what of (1)?

Even though I'm a staunch atheist with absolutely no doubt as to the veracity of my atheism, in my view (1) is, and ever will be, ope ...[text shortened]... and scientific data may persuade tepid theists to give up the notion of a god.

You cannot entirely dismiss Sumydid's charges because you cannot lay claim to having (1) "in the bag".

I am having trouble understanding what you are actually arguing. But this statement of yours seems to cut to the heart I guess of what you are arguing. But, yes I can entirely dismiss Sumydid's charge. His charge, basically, is that one cannot claim to know that God does not exist if one cannot completely rule out all possibilities that God does exist. That's just false. That is a totally absurd requirement to place on a knowledge claim; and, in fact, it's one that Sumydid himself does not adhere to consistently (and how could he?).

Originally posted by Soothfast

I'm not understanding what you're actually arguing. Are you saying that the atheist cannot justifiably claim to know that God does not exist?

Well, I'll just say that I was drawn into this because I was startled to read Bbar's statement "I know god does not exist." Most individuals, myself included, take "know" to indicate absolute cert less probable than, say, the theory of evolution, I would not hazard to guess.

Most individuals, myself included, take "know" to indicate absolute certainty

No. Most individuals, like you or Sumydid or whomever, do not consistently take "know" to indicate that. Sumydid thinks he "knows" a crapload of stuff about which he doesn't think he has absolute certainty. This is exactly why his demand here is not only unreasonable, but also inconsistent on his part.

I now understand that you and Bbar are using the word "know" in some esoteric sense that is a stock in trade among professional philosophers.

It's not "esoteric". But, at any rate, the objection you raised was specifically with the external truth condition (1). So, you think (1) can be eliminated from the analysis of knowledge? You think it could be that one knows P, when P is in fact false?

Originally posted by Soothfast

I'm not understanding what you're actually arguing. Are you saying that the atheist cannot justifiably claim to know that God does not exist?

Well, I'll just say that I was drawn into this because I was startled to read Bbar's statement "I know god does not exist." Most individuals, myself included, take "know" to indicate absolute cert less probable than, say, the theory of evolution, I would not hazard to guess.

Bbar is saying, I think, that the nonexistence of god is very highly probable based on a variety of independent pieces of evidence and lines of argumentation.

What he is saying is that he knows God does not exist. And he is a fallibilist about knowledge, meaning that for him, to know P does not require that one be absolutely certain that P. Yes, he thinks it is very improbable that God exists, based on the evidence.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Most individuals, myself included, take "know" to indicate absolute certainty, or at least a degree of empirical certainty that equates with our understanding that grass is green and the sky is blue. I think the degree to which we know god does not exist is not quite that strong, simply because we are indeed attempting to "prove a negative" in a material reality.

Actually I would say that the degree to which I know that god does not exist is that strong. At least under my understanding of what 'god' means in this context. There are of course definitions for 'god' for which I may change my stance just as I may change my stance with regards to 'the sky is blue' should you state that you mean something different from what I understood it to mean. After all, the sky at night is not blue and most grass in Zambia at this time of year is brown.

I now understand that you and Bbar are using the word "know" in some esoteric sense that is a stock in trade among professional philosophers. Therein lies some of the confusion floating around here, but I get it now.
Actually I believe they meant it in the same sense that you claim to know the sky is blue.

Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.

Kay, Men in Black 1997