Kantian Naturalist: You simply have not provided any account of truth, reason, and logic. Until you do, there is no reason for me to believe that a correct understanding of these concepts has anything at all to do with God.
Some initial first thoughts.
What would it mean to provide an account of truth, reason, and logic? Don’t all of us take all three of these for granted?
Can science settle the question of what would it take to provide an account of truth, reason, and logic?
If science cannot settle the question of what would it take to provide an account of truth, reason, and logic, what does that tell us about the question?
If science cannot settle the question of what would it take to provide an account of truth, reason, and logic, what does that tell us about science?
Who were the first scientists to ask and attempt to answer these questions and what answers did they offer?
Who were the first philosophers to ask and attempt to answer these questions and what answers did they offer?
Is the argument that because someone has not provided an account of truth, reason, and logic there is therefore no reason to believe that a correct understanding of these concepts has nothing at all to do with God a non-sequitur?
What is true. What is logical. What is reasonable. Are these not all inter-twined? Which of these can we dispense with while retaining the others?
I don’t care what Patrick thinks.
I googled them, there’s nothing that changes my position: Knowledge is belief justified by evidence or logic. Opinion is belief that might or might not be justified; opinion can be knowledge, or purely subjective or self-serving.
sean s.
At some point, every model (like evolution) is either falsified or reaches a point where it can no longer be easily disproved. Creationists like to ignore the fact that there was a time, from it’s inception through the early 1900’s that evolution could have been falsified.
Evolution makes predictions that in the mid and late 1800’s were counter intuitive.
Evolution predicted that the earth had to be billions of years old; not the millions that physicists said, not the thousands that religions said. Evolution was proved right.
Evolution predicted that creatures could and did possess and pass on to their off-spring traits they did not themselves display. This was counter intuitive in the 19th century: mixed trait creatures tend to display mixed traits. Evolution was proved right; it turns out that we can have recessive traits that do carry on in later generations.
Evolution predicted a physical mechanism of inheritance, one that not only could preserve and pass on traits, but also was subject to “random” mutations that could drive the development of new traits. And genetics turns out to supply that predicted mechanism. Evolution was proved right.
Evolution predicted that new traits had to arise from modifications of prior structures or mechanisms; which means all life forms must share some traits due to their common descent. This was not expected or necessary without evolution, and it turns out to be so. Evolution was proved right.
At this point, everything evolution ACTUALLY predicts or needs (not to be confused with misconstruals of the model by creationists) has either been verified or is still in play.
Evolution can still be disproved, but it is beyond the point where that is as simple as a pre-Cambrian rabbit.
The roundness of the Earth can be disproved, but it would take a really, REALLY amazing discovery to do it. Heliocentrism; likewise. And Evolution too.
sean s.
I like this comment; it clearly demonstrates how muddled your thinking is.
sean s.
Then there is no knowledge available to us; there’s only tested guesses.
We’ll have to settle for that because knowledge (as you define it) is out of our reach.
sean s.
Truth is not a force, it is not a thing, it is not an attribute. Truth is the set of those things that are/were, or that happen(ed).
Am I nit-picking? If so, my apologies. But nit-picking seems all the rage here.
Truth is just a term we use to refer to those things that are or that happen. When referring to the past, Truth refers to those things that were or happened.
That’s really all there is to it. The problem is determining what those things are or were, what happens or happened.
sean s.
I agree with you. Now do you care what I think? 😉
Sadly, no. We agree this time. Next time … ?
; )
sean s.
It must be the total absence of any objective empirical evidence.
1) Is this claim true?
2) Is the set of those things that are/were, or that happen(ed) a thing? if not why not?
peace
sean samis,
Can you support this claim that new traits HAD to arise from modifications of prior structures. What structures did the muscle proteins actin, myosin, and titin evolve from?
Is a term a thing? If not why not?
If that is true how do you know this? How could you possibly know this?
I’m amazed that folks speak so confidently about the impossibility of their own knowledge.
Speak for yourself. I know things.
Of course you know things as well whether you want to admit it or not because truth exists and because he reveals things to you.
peace
You probably need to dig a little deeper, maybe past page one. 😉
In the mean time please justify your belief that knowledge is belief justified by evidence or logic with belief or logic.
I’m all ears
peace
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8007007
I’m all mouth. 😀
1) You are assuming that revelation does not happen and that the local curvature of the earth is the only evidence available to the majority of observers at some point in time.
2) ever been to the coast and saw a ship drop below the horizon
check it out
3) Just because somethings appears to be to true does not make it true.
peace
Physicists predicted and often still predict that the universe was of infinite age
https://www.google.com/search?q=steady+state+theory+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
http://www.livescience.com/49958-theory-no-big-bang.html
Reference please
I’d like to see that prediction. When IDers make such a prediction it’s called frontloading and it’s poo pooed by the average Darwinist
Actually that life forms must share some traits is both necessary and expected given monotheism
peace
Nope not assuming anything revelation. Did God reveal the curvature of the earth to you?
It seems reasonable that at least one person did, so for him it was a fact.
Yes, so? Do you think the people living in Kansas ever saw the ocean?
Nope,but some that do appear to be true turn out to be true. Without testing ,how do you know? Somebody tells you?
dazz,
Fibrogen originates in vertebrates for blood clotting and is said to be the precursor to some of titin repeats. How did we get these repeats in the first place. Then a motor protein myosin that attaches and creates contractions? There are many examples of evolutionary transitions that appear without precursors. Hearts, gills, lungs, bones, hair, scales, skin, feathers etc. Many appear first as complex systems like the respiratory system.
no to him is was an incorrect opinion that he presumptuously and arrogantly and mistakenly thought was a fact.
1) The majority of people did not live in Kansas
2) It’s reasonable to assume that people living in Kansas knew or knew of people who had seen the ocean.
3) Even if you lived in the vast flat Kansas it’s a good bet that you would know that the very tall Rocky mounts were to the west of you yet you could not see them rising above the horizon.
Yes just as he did to you. If you know anything at all it’s because of revelation.
peace
Can you back up that claim?
Testing and somebody telling you are not mutually exclusive categories.
In fact it’s often by testing that we recognize that somebody is telling us stuff
Peace
Correct, but irrelevant to your incorrect remark that what distinguishes opinion from knowledge is truth. That’s what I was responding to, and if opinions can be true without being knowledge, then it can’t be truth that distinguishes knowledge from opinion.
Thus, the appropriate response would have been something like “Oh yeah, I guess that’s right.”* For reasons I do not know (perhaps those so graciously spelled out in Veronica’s lovely OP on this subject), it seems that presuppositionalists, like followers of several other cults here, can’t seem to bring themselves to say stuff like that.
*Or silence. That would be OK too, occasionally.
I’d be perfectly happening calling what you call “truths” something like “actualities”, “events”, “things”, etc. — terms that clearly and unambiguously indicate the ontological status of the actual or real.
“Truths” is a term I’d rather reserve for the epistemological side of things — whatever is indicated as actual (whether now or in the past) by the conceptual framework currently in use, for empirical frameworks, or indicated as necessary or possible, for logical and mathematical frameworks.
But that’s just a distinction that I find useful — I don’t insist that others adopt it.
You really didn’t answer, does God tell you the earth is curved at the rate of 8 inches every mile? If not , how do you know if that is fact or a provisional fact?
Eta: sorry fifth missed your reply.
I don’t think it’s irrelevant and I don’t think my remark was incorrect. I think you misunderstood my remark
My observation was that truth was what distinguishes opinion from knowledge.
So it is relevant to point out that opinions are not knowledge unless they are true.
On the other hand I think it was irrelevant to the discussion we were having for you to point out opinions can be true with out being knowledge. I think that is completely besides the point
But perhaps that is just me.
let’s break it down with a syllogism
premise one; knowledge is opinion plus truth plus justification
premise two; justification is impossible if truth does not exist
conclusion; truth (and not justification) is what separates opinion from knowledge
what do you find wrong with that?
That’s what “correct” means.
You made a correct but irrelevant point and I acknowledged that it was correct but pointed out why it was irrelevant. What more do you want?
Honestly, Walto I really respect you and learn from you all the time.
It does however sometimes seem to me that you expect others to treat your pronouncements as the final word on a subject even if you are not directly addressing the subject at all.
peace
fifth,
Which is incorrect, as walto points out. Opinions can be true without qualifying as knowledge because they can be true without being justified.
again
opinions can be true with out being justified but they can’t be justified if truth does not exist.
that is because truth is what distinguishes opinion from knowledge
peace
I know you consider this stuff “deep”, fifth, but try to concentrate. It really isn’t that hard.
If an opinion can be true without being justified, then it follows that what distinguishes that true opinion from knowledge is not truth, but justification.
Observe:
A true opinion is an unjustified true belief. To qualify as knowledge, it would need to be a justified true belief.
What’s the difference between an unjustified true belief and a justified true belief? Justification, obviously. Not truth.
Your statement is incorrect:
no this is incorrect.
You have two possible candidates
1) truth
2) justification
Candidate 1 depends on truth by definition candidate 2 depends on truth by necessary implication
Justification is impossible with out truth. But truth is in no way dependent on justification.
Of course justification is necessary for knowledge but this observation is totally and completely beside the point of the discussion which was the importance of truth when it comes to distinguishing opinion from knowledge.
peace
keiths,
“Never try to teach a pig to sing. It’s a waste of time and it annoys the pig.”
The problem is that this pig thinks he can sing.
I know he’ll never sing; I just wish he realized it.
Unjustified with the knowledge we have now, justified with the knowledge he had. All the data indicated a flat earth, it was a provisional fact, like a scientific fact.
As knowledge increased people were able to better test the hypothesis . They were arrogant too. Just like cancer researchers today, arrogant and presumptuous
Maybe the God he worshiped wasn’t as chatty as your God.
And tries to teach us how to “sing.”
It’s annoying in reverse, too.
Glen Davidson
fifth,
You’ve already granted that
The difference between an unjustified true belief and a justified true belief is justification, not truth.
Who revealed this to you?
The only difference I see is the “un” in unjustified. Otherwise they look quite the same.
A traveler stopped at a farmer’s house, as he was talking to the farmer, he noticed a pig with a wooden leg.
“What the deal with that pig”
The farmer replied” Let me tell you about that pig, one night the house caught on fire, my whole family was overcome by smoke, one by one that pig went into the burning house and pulled myself ,my wife and our five children to safety . If it wasn’t for that pig we all would have perished”
“Wow” said the traveler “is that how he lost his leg?”
“No ” said the farmer. ” You don’t eat a pig like that all at one time”
Lord of the Flies.
We were not discussing the difference between unjustified true belief and justified true belief.
We were discussing what distinguishes knowledge from opinion. Clearly what distinguishes knowledge and opinion is truth.
To attempt to bring justification into the discussion is besides the point.
again
If a justified opinion is true it is knowledge
If truth does not exist then no opinion is knowledge.
peace
fifth,
Obviously not, because that would mean that opinions couldn’t be true.
Think, fifth.
All the data did not indicate a flat earth. No data indicate a flat earth. Data can’t indicate what is false.
The proper understanding of the data he had was either agnosticism or a spherical earth
His incorrect interpretation of some of the data lead his to erroneous assumption of a flat earth. If he concluded that the earth was flat that was a mistake of arrogance.
peace
That does not follow.
An opinion can be true but not yet recognized as true.
Once it’s recognized as true it is knowledge and not opinion
which is after all the point.
You remember the point about truth being what distinguishes knowledge from opinion. Don’t you?
peace
There is no such thing as a provisional fact. By definition there are facts and there are non-facts there aren’t temporary sort of facts
We are all arrogant and presumptuous. That does not make it right or praise worthy
peace
Who says that atheists aren’t gracious and tolerant with those who disagree?
peace
fifth,
Right, particularly if it lacks justification.
What’s distinguishes a belief like that — an unjustified true belief — from knowledge, which is justified true belief? The answer is justification, of course.
Fifth, we’re in the shallow end of the pool, but you’re treading water and about to go under. You simply aren’t cut out for apologetics, and your exertions aren’t bringing glory to God. Please find someone competent to replace you.
if we ever have a discussion about what distinguishes unjustified true belief from justified true belief I will be sure to let you know
There is your problem
You think we are discussing apologetics when we are talking about truth and it’s relationship to knowledge
peace
fifth,
We’re having that discussion right now.
An unjustified true opinion is an opinion. According to you,
That ‘s obviously wrong, because an unjustified true opinion and a justified true opinion are both true. Truth does not distnguish one from the other, as is obvious to anyone who is able to compare the word “true” in the first phrase to the word “true” in the second phrase.
You’re out of your depth, fifth.
dazz,
If you start with a yeast and transition to a vertebrate with your interim state invertebrates. You need to evolve many complex systems like respiration, digestion, muscles that have no precursors in single cell yeast. All these are major innovations that require large DNA sequences. Do you disagree?