Those who say, "I know god exists" or "I know god does not exist" are misusing the term "know."

Hmmmm.... ok... Uhh....I conclude no God exits.

Is that acceptable?

Those who say, "I know god exists" or "I know god does not exist" are misusing the term "know."

I don't believe this is correct.

"Know" does not mean to "know beyond all possible doubt." We know nothing about the world beyond all possible doubt and can know nothing about the world beyond all possible doubt.

Gettier examples aside, "know" means, at the very least, that we have epistemic justification to believe that a true proposition is true.

This means that when we say that we "know" God exists or "know" that He doesn't, we don't mean that we "know" this infallibly and incorrigibly. We mean only that we have good, rational reasons to justify either belief or disbelief in the proposition "God exists."

Whether the reasons that support the belief either way really are good or rational is a matter for debate.

The parents example is a bad one, because there are broad definitions of the term parents. You can say you know who your parents are without specifically identifying the people you think of as your parents as your biological parents. Also, in what context would this question even arise? The only thing I can think of is someone is questioning whether your parents are truly your birth parents. If you don't have the DNA tests, and really why would you, the best you could say is I have pictures of what they tell me is me as a baby, I have my birth certificate, I have the word of my parents, and I have whatever legal documents. You of course would have a much more convincing case than, say, Christians about the parentage of Jesus, but saying "I know this to be true" would still not be an accurate statement.

There are plenty of things we can say we know with certainty. I know if I jump up while standing on Earth I will fall back to the ground. I know if I stand in the rain without something covering me I will get wet. I know in New York the average temp. in January will be lower than the average temp. in June. I know the earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun. I know the earth is the third planet in the solar system.

This list could go on indefinitely. These are not things that have a 99% chance of happening. These are not things I believe will happen based on the evidence. These are things I know will happen, 100%, no chance of error. This is why we should really think about what we mean before deciding to say "I know" or "I believe." It is the basic difference between fact and opinion, and just because one thing is more likely to be true than another does not mean we should say we know it to be true, unless we are absolutely certain that it is true.

"There are plenty of things we can say we know with certainty"

Is 'know with certainty' a separate category of 'knowing' ?  Are you saying that another category might be 'know with uncertainty'?  

"These are things I know will happen, 100%, no chance of error."

I'd like to see an example of what you mean.

Uhh, I gave a list in the paragraph above the one in which I made that statement. See, it helps if you read posts from top to bottom

Hi Ragnar.

The only things we can know with absolute certainty have nothing to do with this world. They have nothing to with our experience.

We know that if A is taller than B and if B is taller than C, then A is taller than C. We know this without ever observing an "A" or a "B" or a "C". We know it because it is a truth of logic and has to be true in every possible world not just the one we live in. The same is true about the statement "It is either raining in my backyard or it is not." No one has to look into my backyard to know that statement is true. It is true by virtue of the definitions of the words in the statement.

"A bachelor is an unmarried male." Again, this is absolutely true because of the meanings of the words in the sentence, not because of any feature of our particular world. "A triangle has three sides" is another such absolutely true statement.

OTOH, any claim that we make about the world that is based on our experience in the world is always only probably true but is never absolutely true. If we jump into the air through our own power, the probability is extremely high that we will rise only a few inches (or feet, in the case of great athletes) before we return to earth. But this is not absolutely known. There is always the chance, however minute, that we will continue to rise or will freeze in midair.

Same thing with the sun coming up in the east tomorrow morning. It probably will, but it's not impossible that it won't.

All of our knowledge about the world is based on observation and observation can be mistaken -- any observation and all observation. What's more there is always the possibility that some observation in the future will be different or outright contradict those made in the past.

Anything that you can imagine being different than it is, may possibly be different than it is. This is why, try as you may, you cannot even imagine a round square. A round square is an impossibility. A person who runs the 100 meters in 2 seconds is not an impossibility. He's only extremely unlikely to exist on our planet (although he may).

You can imagine the sun coming up in the west tomorrow or jumping into the air and hovering a few inches off the ground. This is because those things are always possible even while at the same time being extremely unlikely. A proposition's being extremely unlikely even to the highest degree possible is not the equivalent to that proposition's being impossible.

"Cogito - I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong."

He isn't.

"Gravity is a constant."

But this is known only a posteriori.  See Harry's furtive attempts in the 'Harry's Huckleberry' thread for an interest contrast in approaches among atheists.  We observe that gravity is a constant, but it does not follow that it really is, or that it will always remain so.

"Just because you can imagine something does not mean it is possible."

I again refer you to my thread with Harry.  But you've effectively made my summary argument against macro-evolution.  It's ironic, because I just made this same analogy (jumping) with Harry.

"There is no conceivable way that people could start floating on their own or that the earth will stop rotating and revolving."

I think you haven't really grasped the nature of reality.  I refer you to an atheist you have compared me with recently- Bertrand Russell, and his "Problems in Philosophy."  You won't be able to say the man is biased, and I am afraid you'll find no support for your views on these matters from him.  Quite the opposite, in fact.

"These things are physical impossibilities."

As far as we can know, there is no such thing.  I now refer you to Paul Davies "The Mind of God," which describes this problem.  There is a confusion that exists when we talk about 'laws' of nature, where sometimes we accidentally think of these laws as though it were something we legislated.  In fact, they are merely patterns we have derived and codified, and this only by observation.

In other words, we observe a gravitational constant, and our 'laws of gravity' have only been formulated with precision in recent centuries.  It is logically possible that the laws of gravity were different before we started making precise measurements, will be different tomorrow, and in fact, are not accurately understood even right now.

I think we have two ships passing in the night (where have I said that before? ).

Cogito says that only the a priori is absolutely certain.  There are two basic rationales for this position: 1) The solipsism issue -- one doesn't know to an absolute certainty anything about the physical world.  We could be in the matrix.  2) the ignorance issue -- there could be some fact of the physical world of which we are ignorant that could wreck havoc with the functioning of the world as we know it.  Gravity works, unless a rogue planetoid suddenly enters our solar system and sweeps close enough to the Earth to dictate otherwise.  Or God comes and suspends gravity.  Only the a priori is immune to this because it is a matter of definition.  2 + 2 = 4 because we have defined it that way.  I think Cogito's position overlooks the question of existence and awareness.  I know I exist and am aware: two a posteriori propositions of which 100% certainty can be acheived.  But this is a minor point which Cogito may be perfectly willing to acknowledge.

Ragnar's position is that we practically discount these solipsism and ignorance issues, and once we do, some things are certain.  And Ragnar need not completely discount ignorance but only does so for events that have an extraordinarily low level of probability.  Yes, it's possible that a rogue planetoid has escaped our detection and is headed to pass near Earth, but it's extremely unlikely.  So we can count on gravity.  

At least, that's how I see things shaping up.

Cimics, I was the most recent one to post.  I don't know if you were lumping me with Cogito, or not.

"When you view the world from the perspective that the supernatural does not exist, as I do, then gravity is and always will remain a constant force."

Why?  What is it about there not being no supernatural realities that require gravity to always remain constant?  Why is a constant gravitational attraction a requirement for a naturalistic universe?

"I suppose it is possible that it fluctuates to such a small extent that no one ever notices, but this amounts to the same thing as not changing at all."

But this is really a softening of your view, if not a reversal.

"I don't see what my statement has to do with macro-evolution. Macro-evolution is perfectly possible."

Why?  Because you can imagine it?  Because it is required by your worldview?  Because it is evidence driven?  Is the evidence driving macro-evolutionary theory of the same sort and the SAME weight as gravity?  Would you say your confidence in gravity is of the same level as your confidence in evolution?   This is a line of rhetorical questions- because you have already said that you think it is less strong than gravity.

The connection I made between your statement and macro-evolution is simply that in my mind, the evidence is sufficient to conclude that it is as impossible as hoping Harry can jump over the Sears Tower, no matter how much time he takes.

There are a series of obstacles to macro-evolutionary theory that exist today that are, more or less agreed by all, insurmountable.  It is posited- or hoped, or assumed- that these obstacles did not exist at one time.  In my mind, that is like assuming that gravitational attraction five thousand years ago was different then it is now, in order that the impossible can become possible, in order that Harry can finally jump the Tower.

"To be honest, I am not at all familiar with the writings of BT. I do know that Rand disagreed with many of his ideas, and I get the feeling that I would, as well."

On politics, sure.  Philosophy is a different matter.  Even I agree with Russell on most everything he said in his book on philosophy.

"My comparison of him to you was an off the cuff remark that was not really meant to be taken seriously. I probably shouldn't have wrote it."

Shucks.  :)  I thought you really meant it.  :)

sntjohnny wrote:

""These things are physical impossibilities.""

"I agree that they are not accurately understood, but I disagree with everything else you said here. It is not logically possible that the force of gravity fluctuates, because no one in the history of earth has ever documented such a change."

lol.  I leave it to wiser heads- Paul Davies, Bertrand Russell, and even Copernicus, to explain the fallacy here.  It goes to the difference between a posteriori and a priori.  

Would you say that 'cause and effect' is also logically impossible to ever be invalidated?

"If the gravity of earth suddenly became half what it was for a minute, the entire planet would have noticed and someone would have written about it."

What about before there was anyone to observe it?

But I totally don't dismiss your viewpoint out of hand.  In fact, that's a bit how I feel about a global flood.  If it the entire planet was covered in water, someone would have noticed and would have written about it.  And they did.

"The way we do this is through logic - by thinking through possibilities and determining what is possible and what is not."

I can get behind this comment and what you said just prior, but I think you have over-looked a number of very important distinctions in arriving to this position, which must be taken into account.

The problem here is that every argument given to support any physical law (or for that matter, any other observation made about our universe) is always an inductive argument and no inductive argument can lead to absolute certainty. Only a deductive argument can do that.

Quibble:  absolute certainty that the conclusion follows or does not follow from the premises.  Proofs can be valid but unsound. Deductive proofs are essentially a matter of syntax--moving symbols around in a way that preserves truth.  If a premise is false, then the conclusion is not necessarily true.

Some philosophers go so far as to contend that we have no justification to accept the conclusion of an inductive argument. I personally don't go that far, but the problem of the justification for inductive argument is far from a settled matter.

These are the philosophers who live in Plato's cave.