Quote Originally Posted by Brenus View Post
Ooops, an empty box is not empty… Of course, it is full of nothing…. I perhaps mess up concepts, but not facts.
there is an empty box, this is a fact as you like to point out all the time, then there is a person which experiences that empty box. Now you can either say that this empty box and the experience are two different things, or you can say that they are the same (aka most likely that the box only exists as long as we experience it) many people find the latter conclusion absurd. please explain to me how we can know that the box is empty without also believing that the box is empty, because if we do not believe the box to be empty then we must believe the opposite, aka we must believe that the box is not empty (or we must suspend judgment) how can we know that the box is empty while we believe that the box is not empty and how can we know anything if we suspend judgment?
“I simply do not see how 1 and 2 follow from theology providing proof.” Sorry, nothing I can do about it. I tried, and failed.
you didnt try at all, you said something strange and incomprehensive and i asked you to clarify that. you make alot of claims but provide no further arguments or justification for these claims. you said 1 and 2 follow from theology providing proof you did not say WHY.
“can you please clarify what you conceive a fact to be?” When I drop a stone, it falls. Birds fly. Fish live in the water (mostly). Earth turns around the Sun… Is it enough?
do facts have truth value or do we assign this value to it?


“proof in theology take the form of logical conclusions drawn from arguments” A long sentence to tell there are no proofs in theology.
so there is no truth in mathematics either? or in logic? because thats basically the same format.
“Because you said atheism is based on experimental proof and facts, while that is not necessarily true at all.” I didn’t, as I recognise to the atheists the right of irrationality…
=_= thats not what you said a few posts back but if both positions can be or are irrational why should we prefer one above the other?

“belief is a necessary component of knowledge” No. Belief is (most of the time) an obstacle to knowledge. Knowledge can lead to belief. I fall, I get hurt, so my belief is the next I will be hurt. I see a lightning and then I try to explain it with a belief. I don’t believe in a something before it happens. That was why it is always easier to predict a catastrophe after it happed (and really more precise).
again it becomes clear that you misunderstand what a belief is. if you reject the notion of justified true belief, and even more notable the idea that belief has anything to do with knowledge can you please give me a definition of knowledge and a theory of justification that does not make use of the concept of belief? how can we know something, how can we know that we know something and how can we be justified in thinking that we know that.

btw predicting something after it happens is no longer prediction... it reminds me of captain hindsight in southpark :P
“it is still one of the most satisfying until now.” Not for me.
then please provide an alternative account.

“if it is based on representation, then why does any interpretation matter?” Because only the interpretation matters… It is the interpretation of the facts that creates the substance. Life on earth is fact. Religions interpretations need god(s). Then, because facts are what they are, the story becomes more complex, the Doctors of the Faith have to come up with new interpretation/explanations. Same in History: same events came give different interpretation. But not in sciences. Whatever you want or you believe, in the same conditions, the results are always the same.
first you said a belief was representation, i asked you a representation of what, you still havent answered that, please do. now you say only the interpretation matters, but its the interpretation of facts, but before you said belief and knowledge are different things, belief is about interpretation and representation and knowledge about facts and experience. now you claim that interpretation is also about facts, im starting to get confused, what exactly do you mean? same events, different interpretations, but not in science? cmon many events in science are interpreted in different ways, even within scientific disciplines events are interpreted in different ways, some scientists say global warming is caused by humans, other say its just normal climate changes, is that not a difference in interpretation?

“Is experience not already a form of interpretation given the phenomenon that people can experience the same event in different ways?” You are missing up subjectivity and interpretation. If a group of person fall, they all fall. Then, some will like it, some not. Some will be scared, some not. But the fact is they all fall.
im not messing up anything, the interpretation of these people, liking it, being scared etc is subjective, the fact that they fall would be objective. but the fact they fall is not the experience of falling, we were talking about experience, the experience of falling is interpretted by each of these people in different ways, how can you explain this? how can a seemingly subjective experience lead to objective knowledge.