What does it matter . . . ?

[37818]

Empirically verified facts can be multiply tested whereas purely faith-based facts cannot. Hence, the former are more reliable than the former.

All verified facts that can be multiply tested is a matter of faith that they can be multiply tested. And faith in the tests used! Without faith no one knows anything.

[37818]

What else have you got?

What I am pointing out is knowledge is not knowledge unless one believes in it. And of course mere belief does not make anything true. But nevertheless unless a thing is believed it is not one's knowledge.

[shunyadragon]

What I am pointing out is knowledge is not knowledge unless one believes in it. And of course mere belief does not make anything true. But nevertheless unless a thing is believed it is not one's knowledge.

Confusing, but on the basis of this sounds like Hinduism.

[Charles]

What I am pointing out is knowledge is not knowledge unless one believes in it. And of course mere belief does not make anything true. But nevertheless unless a thing is believed it is not one's knowledge.

You seem quite certain about what you say. I wonder if what seems to be your conclusion "But nevertheless unless a thing is believed it is not one's knowledge" is a faith statement or are you trying to say it is a matter of fact? If it is the former, we are free to have other beliefs. If it is the latter, you contradict yourself. So no matter if it is the former or the latter, we have no reason to think that what you are saying should be important.

[Charles]

All verifiable facts are a matter of faith in their verification.

Again: Is this something you know or something you believe? You do note the irony of making a fact like claim when stating that no such thing exists in and of itself? And again if "facts" are based on faith in their verification how would you ever be able to have a rational discussion with someone having a different faith? And why would you hold that faith in the first place? No facts would exist prior to it, so nothing would seem to convince you.

[37818]

Confusing, but on the basis of this sounds like Hinduism.

In other words, you do not understand something must be believed or you do not know it.

[37818]

You seem quite certain about what you say. I wonder if what seems to be your conclusion "But nevertheless unless a thing is believed it is not one's knowledge" is a faith statement or are you trying to say it is a matter of fact? If it is the former, we are free to have other beliefs. If it is the latter, you contradict yourself. So no matter if it is the former or the latter, we have no reason to think that what you are saying should be important.

Do you believe what you say? Facts are never part of anyone's knowledge unless said facts are believed.

Again: Is this something you know or something you believe? You do note the irony of making a fact like claim when stating that no such thing exists in and of itself? And again if "facts" are based on faith in their verification how would you ever be able to have a rational discussion with someone having a different faith? And why would you hold that faith in the first place? No facts would exist prior to it, so nothing would seem to convince you.

You do not know anything unless you believe it. And again, of course, the mere believing a thing does not in and of itself make what is believed to be true. A thing has to be true in order for it being believed to be true knowledge. Do you understand?

[Charles]

Do you believe what you say? Facts are never part of anyone's knowledge unless said facts are believed.

You do not know anything unless you believe it. And again, of course, the mere believing a thing does not in and of itself make what is believed to be true. A thing has to be true in order for it being believed to be true knowledge. Do you understand?

You keep making statements about what truth is and you are making these claims as if you are pointing to universal truths that would go for all of us. That is not in line with what you tell us about truth in those statements that you present as facts.

Try looking at what you claim: "You do not know anything unless[/B] you believe it." So in this case knowledge does not exist without belief. Then you go on to claim: "A thing has to be true in order for it being believed to be true knowledge." That statement does not make much sence since you just claimed we cannot have knowledge without belief. So then we have got no idea whether or not anything is true in and of itself, and thus we cannot determine whether what we believe is true knowledge is actually true, since truth does not exist independently of our knowledge according to you.

You are finding yourself in the same situation as the guy claiming that everything is relative without realising that the same goes for the statement he just claimed was a universal truth.

[shunyadragon]

In other words, you do not understand something must be believed or you do not know it.

When ever you get into a logical bind you up the fog index and invoke 'blue smoke and mirrors.'

[Tassman]

All verified facts that can be multiply tested is a matter of faith that they can be multiply tested. And faith in the tests used! Without faith no one knows anything.

Faith in the verification process is based upon observation and experimentation. It can result in our ability to safely send a man to the moon. Faith not based upon observation and experimentation cannot do this, because it amounts to no more than unverified hypotheses

[37818]

You keep making statements about what truth is and you are making these claims as if you are pointing to universal truths that would go for all of us. That is not in line with what you tell us about truth in those statements that you present as facts.

Try looking at what you claim: "You do not know anything unless[/B] you believe it." So in this case knowledge does not exist without belief. Then you go on to claim: "A thing has to be true in order for it being believed to be true knowledge." That statement does not make much sence since you just claimed we cannot have knowledge without belief. So then we have got no idea whether or not anything is true in and of itself, and thus we cannot determine whether what we believe is true knowledge is actually true, since truth does not exist independently of our knowledge according to you.

You are finding yourself in the same situation as the guy claiming that everything is relative without realising that the same goes for the statement he just claimed was a universal truth.

Information and truth does not depend on belief to exist. But unless an individual believes said information or truth it is not the individual's knowledge. Truth is absolute and universal. A person's choice to believe is relative and not universal.

[Charles]

Information and truth does not depend on belief to exist. But unless an individual believes said information or truth it is not the individual's knowledge. Truth is absolute and universal. A person's choice to believe is relative and not universal.

I think you are still messing a bit around with the categories. I do not have to believe in knowledge. Some basic knowledge is of such a sort that I can know it is true even if no one believes it and even if I would stop believing it (due to mental ilness or whatever) it would still be true. The basic logical truths belong in that category.

[shunyadragon]

Information and truth does not depend on belief to exist. But unless an individual believes said information or truth it is not the individual's knowledge. Truth is absolute and universal. A person's choice to believe is relative and not universal.

The above would only be true in two possible ways: (1) IF God exists it would be absolute and universal from the perspective of God only and not fallible human beliefs. (2) IF God does not exist truth in the absolute and universal sense would be the ultimate Natural Laws that govern the nature of our physical existence. The Natural Laws, theories and hypothesis falsified by science are an evolving approximation of the ultimate Laws of Nature whether God exists or not.

[37818]

I think you are still messing a bit around with the categories. I do not have to believe in knowledge. Some basic knowledge is of such a sort that I can know it is true even if no one believes it and even if I would stop believing it (due to mental ilness or whatever) it would still be true. The basic logical truths belong in that category.

Think about what you are arguing, "I do not have to believe in knowledge. Some basic knowledge is of such a sort that I can know it is true even if no one believes it and even if I would stop believing it (due to mental illness or whatever) it would still be true. . . ." If you do not believe in your own perception? How is received information accepted as acceptable? If you do not believe the information as you received it, how can you begin to believe whether it be true or not? And if you do not believe information you receive is true?

As I said, "Information and truth does not depend on belief to exist." Something can be true, and that does not depend on one believing. What I am arguing is, unless a thing is believed by one, it is not that one's knowledge. Information received has to be accepted, that is, believed. One has to believe what one is seeing, hearing or thinking for that matter. Who does not believe in one's own being? It is inherent that we have that basic belief. The fundamental knowledge of self - is believing one's own being.

My point, no one knows anything without believing it.

[Tassman]

My point, no one knows anything without believing it.

But just “believing” doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true. Unless it can be shown to be true via empirical falsifiable testing, it remains mere “belief”. Frequently, throughout the course of human knowledge, beliefs once thought to be self-evidently true have had to be modified or abandoned in the face of verified evidence to the contrary.