Sagan and anyone who care toreply (page 8)

Double Edge

People believe in the existence of God. They do not know that God exists, because God's existence hasn't been proven.

FunkyDerek.... I totally believe that according to your experience, what you say is true....for you.

AuldSoul

I hasten to add, knowledge encompasses proven facts, but is not limited to them (the earth is round). That is why you have been misunderstanding my intent.

Respectfully,
AuldSoul

jw

"Known" doesn't mean "proven" even in the world of science.

Actually science has proven a lot that is in the bible. But as for human existence they have proven that they can not create life with out what is already in existence. So basically, They can not create life.

funkyderek

AuldSoul:You seem hellbent on dragging this debate into the kind of pedantic tedium I'm trying to avoid. I simply don't want to be part of such a discussion, as interesting as it may be to you.

In any case, wherever I have used the words "known" or "unknown" in this discussion, feel free to replace them with the words "proven" and "unproven" respectively, making whatever minor adjustments are necessary in the interests of grammar or syntax. That way, we can continue what has the potential to be an interesting discussion.

AuldSoul

funkyderek,

I reject the notion that I cannot know something that has not been proven. Given that, I ask only that you respond to LittleToe's remark that he is as certain in his knowledge of the existence of God as he is in the existence of yourself.

It is a confidence which I share, and for some very specific reasons (some of which have been scientifically proven) although none of these reasons that cause me to know that God exists would form a collective basis of proof according to the Scientific Method. I would enjoy reading your reply to his statement.

All things proven are knowledge and known, all things knowledge and known are not yet proven. This is a logical construct you are probably familiar with, and the statement is true.

Respectfully,
AuldSoul

peacefulpete

Using your definition then, many things people "know" are untrue. Funkyderek wants to avoid this potential confusion and prefers to define know as that which is demonstratably true not just asssumed,perceived,imagined or believed with confidence. Do you fault his desire for clarity?

SixofNine

How is this "knowing" substantively different than a Jehovah's Witness' "knowing", or a Mormon's "knowing"?

AuldSoul

I fault his desire to label as belief everything that is not proven. If you call that "clarity" then, yes, I fault that. He says consensus means squat, but that is how meaning for words occurs. Through consensus. It doesn't happen any other way.

Language is a structure of beliefs, in itself, a system of conceptual associations that are unfailingly unique to the individual if probed deeply enough. Expressions of concepts, understood by me, may be understood differently by you. You associate the words used differently and draw different implications from them.

The exception to this—the only exception in all of language—is what we call "things". Nouns are objective language parts, everything else is subjective. Everything else. The semantic of the subjective is specific to the individual. Thus my raising of the nature of the Scientific Method to seek "thingification", to reduce everything into a "thing" even if it means creating a label and slapping it on something we don't understand at all.

Most of our "knowledge" is not as objective as we pretend.

Respectfully,
AuldSoul

peacefulpete

Most of our "knowledge" is not as objective as we pretend.

As you are defining the word "knowledge" ,Agreed. Perhaps the conversation would progress if you offer an alternative word to "know" that embodies your usage but is without the objectionable lack of clarity.

AuldSoul

sixofnine: How is this "knowing" substantively different than a Jehovah's Witness' "knowing", or a Mormon's "knowing"?

To my mind there is no sense in disputing this. There is no difference. Why? Unless you mean their "knowing" they have the truth...in which case the plentiful lies are proof to the contrary.

Do you have proof to the contrary of my knowing God exists?

Respectfully,
AuldSoul

Sagan and anyone who care toreply

Share this