Right. The two were mentioned because it was about who revolves around who, not about what makes a day a day. I should have clarified that.

Jb,

I clearly stated "granting honest testimony". The 'exceptions' failed to take that into consideration and went on to describe lies. Lies and dishonesty necessarily presuppose a backdrop of belief and truth in the same way that honest statements do. IOW a liar does not believe the lie, because they already believe/know that it is not true. That is necessarily grounded upon believing that something else is.

Your second 'exceptions' are not a problem either. Knowledge is not required for belief, and absolute certainty is not required for either. If one makes a statement, granting honest testimony, they believe that it is true. There is no substantial difference between believing/thinking that X is highly plausible and believing/thinking that X is true other than the level of certainty/conviction in what grounds the statement/belief.

Yes, I noticed that after I wrote that. You are right, you are talking about honest testimony, not about just making any statement.

I am glad to know that you don't consider that belief requires certainty. One day I might believe something to be true and the next day I might be convinced otherwise. Therefore belief is also temporary. One who has had many changes in belief (as I have) is also never 100% certain of the truth of any belief.

(except that I exist)

No one has yet convinced me that I do not exist.

Always waiting to be proven wrong... so my beliefs are sort of like theories. Always being tested.

whatever. i saw that she corelated the sun rising and setting with the earth 'revolving around the sun.' of course the earth doesn't 'revolve' around the sun, it orbits the sun which has nothing at all to do with sunsets and sun rises.

I think this post above got put in the wrong thread.

well i quoted a post from THIS thread.

It can be, but not necessarily. There is some belief that is rock solid... Witt called it bedrock. Belief is the basis for a worldview.

--

Absolute certainty is the game of a fool. One can be certain enough without needing to be absolutely, immutably certain.

There are some things that it just makes no sense to doubt.

I would think that if the test were adequate, a belief need only to pass it once. Unless that is, the facts change. When the facts change, thought/belief ought change with it.

A belief might appear to be "rock solid" and it may hold for your entire lifetime, but it is still only temporary. People have believed things for several generations that later was discovered to be wrong, and beliefs changed.

There is no such thing as a rock solid or permanent belief.



Well facts, as you once said, don't change. But information once thought to be a fact is corrected. Or new information can take a belief in another direction.



Just because I hold that my beliefs are temporary, that does not mean I hold doubts. It just means that I don't have a closed mind and that I am willing to examine and consider new evidence and information and that I am willing to change my belief if said information trumps current information.

such as?

If death is temporary. There is no convincing evidence to support this presupposition.



That does not make all belief temporary.



Not at all convincing. A lifelong belief is permanent in any meaningful sense of the term, especially when talking about belief.



Sloppy of me. Indeed, they do not. It is good that you've noted that. Perhaps it be better put, when we become aware of new facts concerning old thought/belief, then our thought/belief ought change.



How is that different from doubting that your beliefs are true? The doubt has to end somewhere. Belief grounds all doubt. If you are willing to question whether your beliefs are true, then it only follows that you believe that it is possible that they are not true.

Take it one step further...

Is it possible that that belief is false?

Makes no sense for me to doubt that I'm alive, that I've had two sons, that I have parents, that I've siblings and other family members, that I'll die one day, what my name is, etc.

A.J. Ayer, a logical positivist, once said...

It does not follow from the fact that we've been mistaken about some things that we've been mistaken about everything.

It does not follow from the fact that we do not see everything as it is, that we cannot see anything as it is.

It does not follow from the fact that we cannot know everything about X that we cannot know anything about X.

I consider all belief(s) to be temporary because beliefs can change at any time. They may not change, but they can. Therefor you cannot label them "permanent."


Gloria Jean said:

The only belief I would be willing to call "rock solid" is the belief that I exist. See the above for the rest of the answer to your post.

Creative said:


Belief does not ground all doubt. As you said, it comes in degrees. I am always willing to question whether my beliefs are true, although I don't make it a full time occupation.

Yes, a brief look at all of my beliefs and under the right circumstances, I will have to consider that they might not all be true.

That is keeping an open mind.

I may change my belief about the nature of my existence also, but I will not doubt that I exist.

All other beliefs are subject to examination.

I've read this often repeated mantra of yours Jb. Let me see if I can put another perspective to good use here. You've asserted that your never 100% certain that any of your beliefs are true, aside from your believing that you exist. I'm putting it to you that that cannot stand alone as the only belief that you are certain of.

You interact with other people and other things. You observe other people and other things. Now, either the entire universe and all of it's contents is a product of your own imagination, or other things and people exist. I'll explain why it cannot be the former, and it must be the latter.

It is by virtue of the fact that we've been mistaken about something that we must conclude that other things and people exist. If the entire universe and all of it's contents were but a product of our own mind, then we could not be taken by surprise. In order for the universe and it's contents to take us by surprise, it cannot be a product of our own making.

You do believe with 100% certainty that some of your beliefs may not be true. If that were not the case, you could not be willing to question them.

You do believe with 100% certainty that others exist, because you know that you interact with other people. If that were not the case, you would not pay your bills or abide by the laws of the land.

The list goes on and on and on...

--

One other thing. "I exist" requires a distinction between "I" and not "I". Therefore, "I exist" cannot stand alone, "I" is defined by not "I"(other) just as much as it is defined by that which is attributed to "I". That is a logical fact.

I have no argument with that.

Good questions. Concerning the last thing about "I exist,"
it would depend upon what you conceive to be "I."

I may be all that exists. Therefor, "I" represents all that is.

That would be me. I am.



I do believe it but I would not say that I believe it with 100% certainty. You are assuming that I would not act on a belief unless I am 100% certain it is true. That is a wrong assumption.




Same answer. I do not have to be 100% certain of something to act on it.

As you have said:
"Absolute certainty is the game of a fool. One can be certain enough without needing to be absolutely, immutably certain."

I am certain that I exist.

I am.

If I am talking to and interacting with you, and it turns out that I am the only thing (or consciousness) that exists, then that would mean that you and I are one. You are part of me. A projection perhaps. You are part of the body of the one, and from my unique perspective, I am the one.

From your perspective, you are the one.

Admitting that beliefs may not change, but continuing to claim that all beliefs are temporary is incoherent(self-contradictory). It cannot be both. Those are mutually exclusive statements. One is the negation of the other. A lifelong belief is, by definition alone, unchanged throughout one's lifetime; i.e., permanent.

It is a matter of logic that it does not follow from the fact that you state/believe that all belief is temporary, that that is the case. The facts clearly support otherwise.



I'll ask again...

How is that different from doubting that your beliefs are true?




Meaningful objections usually come along with ground. Do you have any for this, or are you just stating it as being the case? What possible reason could anyone give to support the notion that doubt is not grounded upon pre-existing belief without proving that it is? Do you see the problem with this objection? It is completely unjustified/unjustifiable. As soon as you give reason why, you've given the belief that grounds the statement/objection. In doing so, you refute your own claim.

Really Jb, it is rather uncontentious to hold that belief grounds all doubt. To doubt X is to doubt that X is true, is the case, is the way things are, accurately describes things, etc. It is a matter of fact, that prior to being able to doubt whether or not X is true, one must first hold some other belief that causes them to doubt X.



No, I didn't. You're mistaken here. I stated that certainty and/or conviction in belief comes in degrees. That is a big difference. Specifically, certainty/conviction in belief(s) is equal to or greater than the amount of subsequent belief that rests upon the former one(s).



Indeed, that is one way to describe it, and I'd say that some skepticism is healthy. I'd also say that too much is not. Heres the point...

It is quite clear that one cannot possibly question their own belief without first holding that it is possible that the belief(s) in question could be false/wrong.

That is doubting whether or not those beliefs are true.