Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[chaoticag]

He's basing it on experience, since he's probably seen more millionares in non-fictional action than unicorns.

[Andir]

It would be like having a die that you can only see the number being rolled... If you roll it 1 billion times and you never came up with a 100, it's a likely chance that there is no 100 on the die.

[Kebooo]

But that goes back to the notion how does he know he wasn't created this morning, given his entire life's memory to believe he's seen more millionaires than unicorns?  How does he know his experiences were even real?  I'd say every little point of our lives is based in belief and assumptions.  I'm not advocating we stop having these beliefs and assumptions, in fact, I am arguing for them.  We should make a distinction between "I believe X" and "I believe X has been proven".  I don't see why belief requires absolute proof, when we can't have absolute proof.

[Andir]

But that goes back to the notion how does he know he wasn't created this morning, given his entire life's memory to believe he's seen more millionaires than unicorns?  How does he know his experiences were even real?  I'd say every little point of our lives is based in belief and assumptions.  I'm not advocating we stop having these beliefs and assumptions, in fact, I am arguing for them.  We should make a distinction between "I believe X" and "I believe X has been proven".  I don't see why belief requires absolute proof, when we can't have absolute proof.

No, but we can be pretty sure that die doesn't have a number 100 on it... and there's no real point believing it's there.  (ie: you wouldn't bet your friend that it will roll 100 this next time.)

[MrWiggles]

Belief doesn't require absolute proof. It should require proof though. Empirical when available.

[Ampersand]

And what are you basing certainty on?  Probability?  What are you basing that probability on?  Belief?  More probability?  So how do many probabilities lead to greater certainty?  Can you be certain they lead to greater certainty?  I would say you can't.  I think I'm having a difficult time getting my point across because of the limitations of language.

You definitely do not believe I am a billionaire.
I definitely do not believe in a divine creator.

So if I say, do you believe I am not a billionaire, or that unicorns do not exist, you must answer no, going by your line of reasoning.  But why does belief have to have certainty?  When did belief mean we have, without any shred of doubt, absolute certainty?  One of its working definitions is an opinion.  What is the purpose of the word belief if we cannot positively believe anything?  Do you believe in anything with certainty?  If so, what and why?

Probability has absolutely nothing to do with it. ALL claims must be backed up by evidence. If I say "Unicorns do not exist", I still have to provide evidence to demonstrate that claim as True. I never mentioned anything about probability, and I have no idea why you brought it up.

There is nothing one can hold with absolute certainty, save perhaps the law of identity, that an object is always equal to itself, and never equal to what it is not. My computer is itself, and not a panda.

Beyond that, I cannot even hold my own senses as being accurate. In fact, I know my senses do not provide an accurate depiction of reality as it really is.

The short of it is, I do not hold any claim to be absolutely true because I actually know how logic works.

[Kebooo]

But that goes back to the notion how does he know he wasn't created this morning, given his entire life's memory to believe he's seen more millionaires than unicorns?  How does he know his experiences were even real?  I'd say every little point of our lives is based in belief and assumptions.  I'm not advocating we stop having these beliefs and assumptions, in fact, I am arguing for them.  We should make a distinction between "I believe X" and "I believe X has been proven".  I don't see why belief requires absolute proof, when we can't have absolute proof.

No, but we can be pretty sure that die doesn't have a number 100 on it... and there's no real point believing it's there.  (ie: you wouldn't bet your friend that it will roll 100 this next time.)

Would you believe the die does not have a 100 on it?  I just need a yes or no to that question because that is the real question, whether someone can believe in a truth or falsehood without absolute certainty.  I am arguing yes, people can and should believe in truth or falsehood without absolute certainty, because belief doesn't mean you have factual, absolute knowledge.  It doesn't mean you claim you are irrefutable, that it cannot be wrong, it is simply a belief, a hunch, an opinion.  Do you believe I am one person at this computer?

[chaoticag]

Yeah, people believe things without absolute certainty all the time. Except some people are willing to change their beleifs once it has been disproven, or shown to be very likely.

(Example of disproven: The world being flat (For all practical purposes of course, assuming that the senses are reliable enough))

[Kebooo]

And what are you basing certainty on?  Probability?  What are you basing that probability on?  Belief?  More probability?  So how do many probabilities lead to greater certainty?  Can you be certain they lead to greater certainty?  I would say you can't.  I think I'm having a difficult time getting my point across because of the limitations of language.

You definitely do not believe I am a billionaire.
I definitely do not believe in a divine creator.

So if I say, do you believe I am not a billionaire, or that unicorns do not exist, you must answer no, going by your line of reasoning.  But why does belief have to have certainty?  When did belief mean we have, without any shred of doubt, absolute certainty?  One of its working definitions is an opinion.  What is the purpose of the word belief if we cannot positively believe anything?  Do you believe in anything with certainty?  If so, what and why?

Probability has absolutely nothing to do with it. ALL claims must be backed up by evidence. If I say "Unicorns do not exist", I still have to provide evidence to demonstrate that claim as True. I never mentioned anything about probability, and I have no idea why you brought it up.

There is nothing one can hold with absolute certainty, save perhaps the law of identity, that an object is always equal to itself, and never equal to what it is not. My computer is itself, and not a panda.

Beyond that, I cannot even hold my own senses as being accurate. In fact, I know my senses do not provide an accurate depiction of reality as it really is.

The short of it is, I do not hold any claim to be absolutely true because I actually know how logic works.

Evidence is probability unless you are positing an absolute truth.  How else would you describe evidence?  If it is possible an evidence can be untrue, then that by definition means your evidence is based in a measure of probability since there is a chance it is not true. 

You do not hold any claim to be absolutely true, but do you believe anything to be true?  Is it absolutely true that you believe no claim is absolutely true (obviously language gets broken here)?  Why must belief be based in absolute truth and evidence?

[chaoticag]

We need a philosophy thread.

[Bauglir]

There's a difference between "My senses tell me X, Y, and Z are all true, and A, B, and C are all false", which is what the probabilities of something like you being a billionaire or not are ultimately based on, and "My senses tell me absolutely nothing about X, Y, Z, A, B, or C", which is what anything about there being a God or not is based on. If your senses all tell you something, that's evidence that it's accurate (if not proof). If your senses cannot tell you one thing or another, then that is no evidence in favor or against. Generally, if your senses can't tell you one thing or another, it doesn't matter, because for all intents and purposes it works out the same as far as you can tell. Afterlives are different in that if they exist, your senses will EVENTUALLY tell you, so it makes a difference, but your senses can't tell you anything one way or the other. You can't logically endorse either outcome, you can only say "This question is unanswerable" and move onto something productive. That's not the same as saying "I don't believe in afterlives", even if you live your life in exactly the same way as consequence.

EDIT: I threw in the logical appeal bit cause I forgot that somebody else had introduced it, and you said something to the effect of "That seems like a pretty silly reason to call somebody moronic", which due to my forgetfulness came off as you basically saying "Either you agree with me or you're calling people morons and so you're bad and you should feel bad". Sorry bout that, my bad. I'll go strike it out.

But here's what I'm saying: you assume your senses are real, not delusions, you assume your memory is real, you assume reality itself is here and not just a trick you're being strung along with in some matrix-esque machine.  You have to make many assumptions about things, that if true, you'd have no means to ever know for certain, in the same way we have no way to analyze the truth of god or an afterlife.  Why assume your senses are accurate or that your memory is true?  Because it's practical and makes sense to you, I assume.  For me, it's practical and makes sense to disbelieve in something I see no reason at all to believe in.  That doesn't mean I believe my position is proven, because as this argument shows, every belief we take is an unproven one.

Well, actually, I assume them because it makes no difference whether I'm right or wrong. If I'm wrong, it's not like I'll ever know about it, if my senses are unable to detect it. With the question of a God/afterlife, the general rule is that, at some point, I'll know, so I can't really make the same claim. And once I'm past those basic assumptions, further assumptions that are necessary for life are based on probabilities that I've observed (or, arguably, am biologically disposed to use); I have no such probabilities in the case of a God, so I can't make any conclusions about what's likely to be true or false.

But if you die and there's nothing there, then you won't ever "know" because you cease existing.  Perhaps the people that run the simulation would make you aware of it right before we die.  Or suppose there is no afterlife, why do you assume there must be an afterlife if there is a divine creator?  Your question would only pertain to whether there is an afterlife or not.

Yes, but that just means that if there is no God I'll never know it. If the people running the simulation make me aware of it as I die, then they're synonymous with God for the purposes of debating their existence. All evidence points to a God that doesn't exist, or doesn't want to be found, but to a non-omnipotent perspective there's no way to discern between the two. I mostly brought up the afterlife because it's the only situation in which a divine creator's existence would affect me in any way discernable from the laws of nature.

Basically what I'm saying is, there's no difference between reality and the Matrix. They're only different if reality is fiddling with the Matrix in ways beyond just letting the program execute.

[Ampersand]

Evidence is probability unless you are positing an absolute truth.

what.

How else would you describe evidence?  If it is possible an evidence can be untrue, then that by definition means your evidence is based in a measure of probability since there is a chance it is not true.

What's your point?

You do not hold any claim to be absolutely true, but do you believe anything to be true?  Is it absolutely true that you believe no claim is absolutely true (obviously language gets broken here)?  Why must belief be based in absolute truth and evidence?

I either know that something is true, or I don't know if something is true. There is no middle.

[Kebooo]

I either know that something is true, or I don't know if something is true. There is no middle.

You said this: "There are practical degrees of certainty. I am more certain, for example, that unicorns do not exist, than I am that you are not a billionaire."

I am disputing the notion you have any reason to be more certain besides probability.  Because what absolute truth do you have to make that claim?  If you are claiming that the certainty has any relevance in judging the truth of things, then how is that not based in a measure of probability in the evidence?  Something from your argument must not be translating to me, because I don't understand how you could be more certain of something based on evidence if you do not know the evidence is true. 

[Ampersand]

I don't know what this argument is even about anymore Kebooo. I feel like I'm talking in circles trying to explain what logic is to you. This is just getting ridiculous.

Of course I have a reason to be more comfortable with accepting that you are a billionaire than I am with accepting that Unicorns exist; for one thing, I know that there is such thing as a billionaire. The fact that billionaires do exist is supporting evidence for the claim, even though it is not final proof, because it lends credence the claim that you are one. More evidence must be supplied in order to prove it though.

But if you're calling into question the idea that finding supporting evidence to support a claim is a valid way of determining the truth, I'm going to have to call it quits.

[Kebooo]

No need to be condescending, I perfectly understand logic.  I'm not sure you're understanding my point.

I am working under the assumption you do not absolutely know for certain billionaires exist.  How can you know it as a fact?  The fact would be an absolute truth.  For all you know, you could be a crazy guy that has deluded himself into thinking people were talking about billionaires or had billions of dollars when they never did.  I am not calling into question that real evidence supports the truth of a claim, I am calling into question the validity of the evidence.  If it is not absolutely certain, absolutely true, then you are doing one of two things: assuming it is true, or measuring the probability that it is true. 

Here, answer these questions, if you truly profess to follow logic:

1) Do you know, without any shred of doubt, that is it absolutely true billionaires really exist?

2) If you don't, then is it not simply a hunch, a measure of probability?  You would believe that it was probable billionaires really do exist because of your senses, your experiences, your memory, even if all of these things, in turn, could be doubted, questioned.  Could you be absolutely certain?  How do you measure the level of a certainty if it is not absolute?  In probability, of course, there is no other way to do it by the very nature of the words we're using.  That is what I meant by probability - you are assuming, for the sake of practicality, truth, based on what you find most probably true and real, no?  If the evidence is to be taken as true, to be assumed to be true, then is that not a belief, a positive belief in the evidence, or a positive belief in the probability of the evidence?  Explain to me how that is not a belief.  I feel like you are not addressing these points.