Is Islam true?.

[Brenus]

“sigh... it is just semantics”: Yes: It is definition of words. An empty box is not a box I believe is empty. I open the box, see nothing, it is empty. That is fact and you can twist the words as much you want. To say that it might have something in the box I can’t see is a mental construction, because you have to accommodate the physical reality to make it plausible, or to add magic: There is a giant kettle between Mars and Venus and only the believers can see it. Of course, you can’t see it as you don’t believe in it.

“what you describe at best is not atheism”: Atheism is the “position there are no deities” according Wikipedia… It is what I describe.

“theology has proof and arguments involved” If this was true, why there are a lot systems of belief on Earth? If theology has proof, we should have: 1) no atheists, 2) One religion fitting for everybody.

“you may not accept” That is impossible to deny or not accept facts. I may not like it, but when it is raining I can’t believe there is no rain. So, if I can in all honesty deny a fact, well, that means it is not a fact.

“which you seem to confuse with science for some reason”: What makes you believing this?

“belief is a component of knowledge, there can be no knowledge without belief.” Really? You may believe you can fly, but the laws of Physic will bring you back to Earth. It might be painful. There is no need to believe in the law of Physic, but a more or less careful observation would be enough. Knowledge comes from experience/experiments, in life as in Sciences. The difference is in life you can’t reproduce the same experiment again and again and having the same results.

“Contemporary analytic philosophers” Do you have names? Because the ones I had to study when in High School wouldn’t agree with them (i.e. Kant, Nietzsche). For me, this definition is better fitted to define illusion or delusion. A belief is based on a system, a representation of the reality. I see the sun coming out and the day starting (observation/facts), and I believe (interpretation/extrapolation) that the God of Light (“Insert a name”) chasing the God of Darkness (“Insert a name”).

“you see belief as the substitute of knowledge”: I wouldn't make this mistake. A belief is based on representation and interpretation when knowledge is based on facts or experience.

[The Stranger]

“sigh... it is just semantics”: Yes: It is definition of words. An empty box is not a box I believe is empty. I open the box, see nothing, it is empty. That is fact and you can twist the words as much you want. To say that it might have something in the box I can’t see is a mental construction, because you have to accommodate the physical reality to make it plausible, or to add magic: There is a giant kettle between Mars and Venus and only the believers can see it. Of course, you can’t see it as you don’t believe in it.

you make a big mistake, there is an empty box and then there is your conception of that empty box. the empty box is seperate of your idea of that empty box, ofcourse, the box is empty, it is not empty because you believe to empty (unless you would be a subjective idealist). but in order for you to know that box is empty you must also believe the box to be empty, hence you are of the belief that the box is empty. Why is that? Because if you know that the box is empty but do not believe the box to be empty you what exactly does your knowledge come from? that you looked into the box? if you look into the box and see it empty you believe it to be empty, otherwise you would not think it empty... the facts might be independent of our interpretation but we can never have any idea of the facts without interpreting them and whenever we interpret something we have some sort of belief of them. you seem to seriously mess up concepts.

“what you describe at best is not atheism”: Atheism is the “position there are no deities” according Wikipedia… It is what I describe.

as long as you do not claim that we can never know whether there is or is no god (agnosticism, suspending of judgment) you make a positive claim, you just formulate it as a denial. i can also formulate the existence of god as a denial (¬¬God), this does not make it a negative claim.

“theology has proof and arguments involved” If this was true, why there are a lot systems of belief on Earth? If theology has proof, we should have: 1) no atheists, 2) One religion fitting for everybody.

why? there indeed are alot of belief systems on earth, but i do not see that we should have no atheists or one religion for everyone if christianity for example had a proof for the existence of god (read aquino)? You seem to think that proof is always absolute and that no person can be of a different opinion. Science provides proof yet there are people who disagree with scientific conclusions and there are different theories of justificiation etc within science as well. You make a claim but do not really provide an argument for it, i simply do not see how 1 and 2 follow from theology providing proof.

“you may not accept” That is impossible to deny or not accept facts. I may not like it, but when it is raining I can’t believe there is no rain. So, if I can in all honesty deny a fact, well, that means it is not a fact.

proof in theology take the form of logical conclusions drawn from arguments, you may or may not accept their premises for example or you may or may not agree with their conclusion or try to prove that it is fallacious. can you please clarify what you conceive a fact to be?

“which you seem to confuse with science for some reason”: What makes you believing this?

Because you said atheism is based on experimental proof and facts, while that is not neccesarily true at all.

“belief is a component of knowledge, there can be no knowledge without belief.” Really? You may believe you can fly, but the laws of Physic will bring you back to Earth. It might be painful. There is no need to believe in the law of Physic, but a more or less careful observation would be enough. Knowledge comes from experience/experiments, in life as in Sciences. The difference is in life you can’t reproduce the same experiment again and again and having the same results.

it seems that this is pointless, i try to make clear that you mistake the meaning of belief and you deny that by making exactly the same mistake again... please tell me how one can have knowledge then, give me a definition of knowledge, a theory of justification that does not involve any sort of belief or is based on it. your examples arent good, belief is not the ONLY component of knowledge, i have never said that. belief is a neccesary component of knowledge not a sufficient component. you make some sort of magical leap from experience to knowledge without clarifying how one goes from experiencing something and then drawing apparantly obvious conclusions.

“Contemporary analytic philosophers” Do you have names? Because the ones I had to study when in High School wouldn’t agree with them (i.e. Kant, Nietzsche). For me, this definition is better fitted to define illusion or delusion. A belief is based on a system, a representation of the reality. I see the sun coming out and the day starting (observation/facts), and I believe (interpretation/extrapolation) that the God of Light (“Insert a name”) chasing the God of Darkness (“Insert a name”).

Kant and Nietzsche are not Analytic philosophers, neither are they contemporary... Also Kant would seriously disagree with you since he believes you cannot know the object an-sich (aka what the object is independent of us and our experience of them, what you seem to call facts). So far as I know Nietzsche has never really cared about this particular approach to the subject but also he would disagree with you because he was of the belief that truth is determined by power (very simply put). And yes you have a conception of belief that is not fitting for this discussion, we are basically talking about different things. A name for you is Nozick. Look up justified true belief, the most commonly used definition of knowledge, it is still a very problematic notion but it is still one of the most satisfying untill now.

“you see belief as the substitute of knowledge”: I wouldn't make this mistake. A belief is based on representation and interpretation when knowledge is based on facts or experience.

this makes no sense to me, what does belief represent? facts? if it is based on representation, then why does any interpretation matter? How do you get to know these facts? Is anyone able to experience facts without any sort of interpretation? Is experience not already a form of interpretation given the phenomenon that people can experience the same event in different ways?

[Brenus]

Ooops, an empty box is not empty… Of course, it is full of nothing…. I perhaps mess up concepts, but not facts. Do you grasp the concept of reality? Of course, there is no reality… This reminds me the conversation I had when I was 17, High School, calls of Philosophy… Definition of Reality, what is real, the reality we experiment is different for each individual… Great Time.

“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.

“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?

“proof in theology take the form of logical conclusions drawn from arguments” A long sentence to tell there are no proofs in theology.

“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…

“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).

“it is still one of the most satisfying until now.” Not for me.

“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.

“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.

[The Stranger]

can someone please pinch me? im not sure if i am going crazy or if something else is going on...

[The Stranger]

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.

[Sigurd]

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?

You guys never dealt with quantum theory have you? According to the Copenhagen interpretation the box is both empty and full at the same time.

[Beskar]

You guys never dealt with quantum theory have you? According to the Copenhagen interpretation the box is both empty and full at the same time.

With Schrodinger's Cat, there is the fundamental issue that the cat was put inside and we know this. It is not like an example where I randomly walk up to you, holding up a box saying "Is the cat inside of here dead or alive?"

How do you even know there is a cat in the box in the first place? And if you decide to believe me, I simply open the box and it is completely empty.

[Sigurd]

With Schrodinger's Cat, there is the fundamental issue that the cat was put inside and we know this. It is not like an example where I randomly walk up to you, holding up a box saying "Is the cat inside of here dead or alive?"

How do you even know there is a cat in the box in the first place? And if you decide to believe me, I simply open the box and it is completely empty.

Damn... The cat was transported to that other dimension in the many worlds interpretation.

[Papewaio]

You guys never dealt with quantum theory have you? According to the Copenhagen interpretation the box is both empty and full at the same time.

And when we observe it we can know which state it is in. God is even more elusive then the Higgs particle and with considerably less weight of evidence (geek pun fully intended).

[Quid]

And when we observe it we can know which state it is in. God is even more elusive then the Higgs particle and with considerably less weight of evidence (geek pun fully intended).

God - the lazy Higgs- I love it!

Quid