That is what I have constantly be attempting to put across about belief.

i understand quite well your logic, soul. i don't choose to employ such logic but i really do understand it. really i do.

nor does delusion.

Your supposition is lacking. Trees do not exist because people "believe" that something is "there"; tress exists in forests that no people have seen. In ancient Egyptian beliefs, nothing can exist without a name, and the name is not an abstract symbol for the "thing," but is the thing. This poses a paradox because if something cannot exist before it is named, how can it be named if it does not exist.

To what type of belief do you refer? Religious? That the earth is flat or the center of the universe? How does one differentiate between belief and fact?

I wonder jrbogie if you do not employ it, or you do not admit to employing it. I mean this statement presupposes it's own truth. Granting honesty, you believe that you understand the logic I'm using, and you may. If you do, then it is a true belief about the logic I'm employing. If you can explain it, then it would be a justified true belief about the logic I'm employing. You would know the logic I'm using.

I'm still struggling to comprehend how you've come to equate experience with knowledge. Can you help a brutha out?

My claim does not require presupposing that, nor does that follow from them. I'm unsure how you've arrived at that from what was quoted.

I know that I am typing on this keyboard, but I do not believe that I am typing on a keyboard.

This is just odd.

Granting honest testimony...

To state X requires believing that X is true, is the case, is the way things are, is an accurate description of the way things are, etc.

One statement to the contrary would negate the above.

Some examples of holding that knowledge is void of belief. For clarities sake, and for the sake of keeping this impersonal, let it be known ahead of time that any "you" in this post is a hypothetical one and not a personal one. That being said, after much thought, here's what I've come up with: The following statements are either presupposed within and/or follow from holding that knowledge can exist without belief. That is necessarily presupposed within much of the opposing argument here.



--

I know that I do not believe that I am typing on this keyboard.

--

I know I'm having an experience that I do not believe that I am having.

--

To know I'm experiencing something, I do not need to believe that I am because I'm experiencing it.

--

Experiencing something without believing that you're experiencing something is possible.

--

Knowledge of experience without believing that you are having or have had an experience is possible.

Looks like what Witty called "nonsense". Unintelligible. Counterintuitive. What possible reason is there to believe anything that those statements follow from?

Know how.

--

That's one. Anyone have another?

i can see that you're still strugling but after all that i've tried i simply cannot imagine how i might help you further with your struggle to comprehend my thinking, brutha.

This is not the case where someone makes a statement that they know is not true.

1. To lie is to make a statement.

2. To lie does not require that one believes the lie is true.

Therefore in this exception, your statement above is not true.

Second exception:

One can make a statement or repeat a statement even if they do not know whether it is true or not.

1. To repeat a statement is to make a statement.

2. One need not believe the statement is true, to make or repeat the statement.

Therefore in this exception also, your statement above is not true.


Granted, to make a statement that you suspect or know is a lie, is not honest.

To make a statement that you do not know or believe to be true one way or the other, may not be considered honest either. But perhaps you make the statement on faith or trust.

One must also remember that "belief" is not certainty. Belief is temporary. Belief may be considered to be a temporary impression or conclusion.

"The sun apparently revolves around the earth. It comes up in the east and travels across the sky and sets in the west."

The above statements are true and apparent. Seeing is believing for most people. The word "apparently" is what makes the statement true.

Then scientists came along and convinced everyone that this was not the case. Basically, we believe them. We can't know these facts from our own personal experience.

So what do I know about the sun from personal experience? I know that it (apparently) rises in the east and sets in the west because I see this happen every day.

I have also accepted the scientific opinion that this is not what is actually going on. I have put my faith in them. Okay, you say that it is the earth that is moving around the sun..not the other way around.... if you say so. I will chose to believe you.

Just saying...

If I only believed things from personal experience or observation, I would refuse to believe the scientists.


Now, when I make the statement that the earth revolves around the sun, I make this statement on faith that what I have been told is true. I have chosen to believe it.

(How shocked would people thousands of years ago would have been if you told them that?)

No, no no thats the whole difference between the scientific approach and other approaches. You *can* know most of these facts from your personal experience! (Except where really expensive equipment is necessary). You can become an amateur astronomer and learn how to knows these facts for yourself.



I didn't. I made them prove it to me, and they did.

Good. Then I have put my faith in people like you too who demanded proof.

Did you read my WHOLE post?

correct. all we know is that we've read and heard from science that the planets orbit the sun. but that doesn't mean we must believe the astrophysicists. simply means we consider their writings to be highly plausible. perhaps physicists KNOW that the solar system works as it does because they've experienced the testing, observing, experimenting, proving, etc., that convinces them of our solar system's mechanics but i've not experienced doing those things. my experience is limited to what i've read and heard.



yes, but that's because the earth rotates on it's axis, not because it "revolves around the sun" as you put it. so already your BELIEF in what science says is misplaced.



as i do. they make a ton of sense to me, but i don't believe them. indeed, no two scientests really believe each other. scientists live to 'one up' the other guy. that's what science is all about. somebody comes up with a theory and the scientific world begins to do everything it can to destroy the theory. that in a nutshell is the scientific meathod. continually testing evidence to see if it will support the theory with repeatable and predictable results.




and again, those scientists that you BELIEVE would tell you that your belief is flawed. we don't see the sun rise and set because the earth 'revolves around the sun.' that happens because the earth rotates on it's axis. if the earth and sun were to maintain their relative positions to each other we'd still see the sun rise and set so long as the earth kept rotating about it's axis. the earth rotates once every twenty four hours and we call that a day. it takes what we call a year for the earth to 'revolve around the sun.'



quite shocked and they'd still be confused.

I don't see anywhere that JB claims that the apparent movement in our sky is due to the earth revolving around the sun. She only says that the apparent movement can be 'taken' (wrongly) as evidence that the sun revolves around the earth, and then goes on to say that the scientists claim the earth revolves around the sun. I missed any implication that the apparent motion was taken as evidence for the earth revolving around the sun.

Indeed I did, and now I have once again. Is there something within it that I've neglected? It claims that my "supposition is lacking", and then goes on to incorrectly describe the premiss I'm working with.