Originally posted by LemonJello

and that what i took issue with. the conclusion that god does not exist follows from premises 2 and 3. premises with which i didn't agree. hence me complaining. change the conclusion to "therefore, god as depicted through 2 and 3 cannot exist", and i will have nothing to complain about, will pack up my stuff and leave

Oh my god....

I think you were trying to express this...

https://images.encyclopediadramatica.es/f/fd/Picard-no-facepalm.jpg

Originally posted by googlefudge

"If belief in your god is not required"
do you abstain from murdering children because it is required or because it is the decent thing to do. those that believe in god out of fear of punishment are cowards.

Wahey, we're mixing up a load of separate issues here.

I don't murder children because... Well I don't want to for starters... ...[text shortened]... l holds.

Your god should demonstrate to people it exists. And make clear what it's rules are.

I don't murder children because... it's immoral.
yes. and one should not worship god because he is a god.


"You cannot derive morality from a god, and so if all it wants is for people to act morally then belief in the aforementioned god is absolutely not required"
i agree.

"of no use to determining how to live morally."
i wouldn't say that. religions had a great impact on defining morality. just that atheists propose one could have that morality without defining a god.


"knowledge that there is a punishment for behaving immorally and a
reward for acting morally would add EXTRA reason and incentive to be moral"
that is not being moral, that is adhering to the rules o society in order to continue to be a part of it. but yes, it would add an extra reason.


"belief is just a waste of time and energy, as well as rationally un-justified"
love is also just a waste of time and energy as well rationally unjustified. one could enter a contract with another to gain financial security, to provide a good environment to raise children and to satisfy a need for company. no love needed. why do we still do it? because it feels good.

"I can make my own mind up, I don't need you to do it pre-emptively for me."
i was stating the obvious from numerous of your previous posts. no need to get itchy.


"What is it?"
historical account of jesus having existed, religions appearing all over the world. the complexity of the universe. all of this "evidence" could be explained away, of course. religions appearing all over the world could be explained by the need of humans to see patterns and explain the unexplained. some choose to explain it by god influencing mankind subtly towards... something.

"I should have said "no NET benefit"."
i don't think being happier can't be considered a net benefit, even believing in something that turns out to be false.

"But it's wrong"
why? how does it prevent me from fulfilling my potential anything? how does it influence me negatively other than making me happier?
and of course we could discuss at length how you can't say for sure something doesn't exist. you can say for sure only that something with a given set of characteristics doesn't exist.


"believing wrong things increases the likelihood of making wrong decisions based on those beliefs."
i don't make decisions based on faith. just like people don't make decisions based on their potted plants. they are just there, they are tended in our spare time. they brighten our lives. but i don't do stuff because my chilli plant commands it.

"complete lack of all of the above displayed by many believers."
people evolve. things get better. i can have my faith without being compelled to go on crusades, burn witches or go jihading on other believers or atheists.


"Those are functions of morality which has nothing to do with gods."
yes, i agree. one can have morality without faith.


"you are believing something that isn't rationally justified about the world."
there are many things that aren't rationally justified that we believe in. as long as nobody is hurt, what is the problem?

"corrode your ability to determine truth from falsity."
it is a concession i make for my faith. nothing else.


"You have said/implied that your god requires certain behaviours as a price for entry into a good afterlife"
only to simplify the discussion. yes, if there is a good afterlife and a bad one, it should stand to reason people don't end there randomly. (we hope). however we could simply be lacking understanding of what happens after death. eternal bliss might not be very nice, because it is eternal. as such, i don't really believe in heaven and hell, at least not how it is viewed so far



"Your god should demonstrate to people it exists. And make clear what it's rules are"
because he doesn't do that, i believe the rules are quite different than what we think. maybe there is no punishment in the afterlife, just a leaderboards with high scores, where martin luther king is at the top, and a redneck that drank beer all his life and accomplished nothing is to be laughed at.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Do you know anything about set theory?


Knowledge is a subset of belief, you can believe things without knowing them,
but you can't know things without believing them.


This definition has been shown to be incomplete, but knowledge is traditionally
defined as being a "Justified, True, Belief".

Belief is very much a part of knowledge.

Th ...[text shortened]... true without BELIEVING that
it's true?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justified_true_belief

you have the RGB definition of black expressed in hex like this: #000000(R:00 G:00 B:00). If you increment each value (gaining knowledge in this analogy) you would have increasingly darker shades of gray until you get to #FFFFFF aka black. Now you know something. is it also gray? does it have white in it?

Originally posted by googlefudge
I think you were trying to express this...

https://images.encyclopediadramatica.es/f/fd/Picard-no-facepalm.jpg

i don't respond to oh my god. if he makes his case without resorting to insults, i would respond. until then, he can omg all he wants.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
you have the RGB definition of black expressed in hex like this: #000000(R:00 G:00 B:00). If you increment each value (gaining knowledge in this analogy) you would have increasingly darker shades of gray until you get to #FFFFFF aka black. Now you know something. is it also gray? does it have white in it?

What you are talking about is the level of justification required for knowledge.

Which is quite a debate all on it's own.

However it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether or not you have
to believe something to be true in order to know whether it's true.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i don't respond to oh my god. if he makes his case without resorting to insults, i would respond. until then, he can omg all he wants.

I don't know that he was expecting a response...

Just expressing generalised despair at your posts.

Originally posted by googlefudge
What you are talking about is the level of justification required for knowledge.

Which is quite a debate all on it's own.

However it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether or not you have
to believe something to be true in order to know whether it's true.

i don't know how to explain it more.

if you have a full glass of water i guess you could also say you have a 76% filled glass of water. but nobody does that. it is useless. you could also say you X atoms of hydrogen. that is also technically true.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I don't know that he was expecting a response...

Just expressing generalised despair at your posts.

because of his despair, unsupported by actual arguments, 0 fuks were given that day.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i don't know how to explain it more.

if you have a full glass of water i guess you could also say you have a 76% filled glass of water. but nobody does that. it is useless. you could also say you X atoms of hydrogen. that is also technically true.

Huh?

What has that got to do with anything?

I now have no clue what you are talking about.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
no it doesn't. you know or you believe. belief is without knowing. would you like a dictionary?

No, the basic analysis of knowledge is that the following conditions are each necessary and collectively sufficient for S's knowing P: (1) P is true (2) S believes P (3) S is justified in believing P (4) some version of Gettier condition.

Do you see condition (2)????

So, again, if you know that P, then you believe that P. That follows from the analysis of knowledge. So, if as you claim, you know that the sun rises in the east every day, then it follows that you believe the sun rises in the east every day. So, again, when did you first choose this belief? And, according to you, you continue to choose this belief every day? Nonsense.

Perhaps we are just on different wavelengths with the terms 'belief' and 'knowledge'. No matter. The salient point with respect to the argument at issue is the following. You agree that God is such that it is His design intention that His human creatures be in a position to freely decide whether or not to relate with Him. That sort of free deliberation about wether or not to relate with God requires, minimally, in that case these creatures have some mental state such that (1) the content of this mental state is the proposition that God exists in the first place and (2) these creatures take this proposition to be true. Do you agree with this or not? If not, why not? If yes, we can continue....

Originally posted by LemonJello
No, the basic analysis of knowledge is that the following conditions are each necessary and collectively sufficient for S's knowing P: (1) P is true (2) S believes P (3) S is justified in believing P (4) some version of Gettier condition.

Do you see condition (2)????

So, again, if you know that P, then you believe that P. That follows from the anal ...[text shortened]... ition to be true. Do you agree with this or not? If not, why not? If yes, we can continue....

do you understand the gettier problem?

he tries to argue exactly for the contrary. that justified belief is NOT knowledge. how the fudge have you taken that to mean knowledge is believing when gettier tries to prove the contrary.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Huh?

What has that got to do with anything?

I now have no clue what you are talking about.

if you have trouble understanding, i was replying to something . try rereading that.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
do you understand the gettier problem?

he tries to argue exactly for the contrary. that justified belief is NOT knowledge. how the fudge have you taken that to mean knowledge is believing when gettier tries to prove the contrary.

Do YOU understand the Gettier condition? Apparently not. Gettier considerations add another necessary condition on to the analysis (condition (4) ); they do not somehow get rid of condition (2). So, Gettier considerations do not in any way attempt to show that belief is not necessary for knowledge. So, again, if you know P it follows that you believe P. That's just part of what it means for belief to be necessary for knowledge.

And I never said "knowledge is believing". I said that knowledge is as outlined by the analysis I provided, in which belief is a necessary condition. And it's just bizarre that you think I am stating something contrary to Gettier: his condition is included in the analysis I provided, for Chrissakes!

EDIT: You also did not address this:

Perhaps we are just on different wavelengths with the terms 'belief' and 'knowledge'. No matter. The salient point with respect to the argument at issue is the following. You agree that God is such that it is His design intention that His human creatures be in a position to freely decide whether or not to relate with Him. That sort of free deliberation about wether or not to relate with God requires, minimally, in that case these creatures have some mental state such that (1) the content of this mental state is the proposition that God exists in the first place and (2) these creatures take this proposition to be true. Do you agree with this or not? If not, why not? If yes, we can continue....

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
if you have trouble understanding, i was replying to something . try rereading that.

No my problem is that your post makes no sense GIVEN I read what I had posted that you replied to.

It makes no sense on it's own, and bares no relation to what we were discussing.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No my problem is that your post makes no sense GIVEN I read what I had posted that you replied to.

It makes no sense on it's own, and bares no relation to what we were discussing.

i BELIEVE otherwise.