Total Posts:135|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is God necessary for knowledge itself?

Ipsofacto
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2014 5:47:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Socrates claimed that an unexamined life is not worth living. Or at least we ascribe to him that thought.

But, an even more controversial question emerges. Is knowledge itself even possible without God?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2014 6:10:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
No, God is not necessary for knowledge itself, yes, it is possible without God.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Ipsofacto
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2014 6:13:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/23/2014 6:10:50 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
No, God is not necessary for knowledge itself, yes, it is possible without God.

Bladerunner,

Then how do we come to know?
Ipsofacto
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2014 6:16:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/23/2014 6:04:20 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
This all depends on if you need a necessary mind to ground the laws of logic.

Not to be tautological, but a necessary mind is necessary. What then is the source of our knowledge?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2014 6:24:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/23/2014 6:13:21 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:
At 2/23/2014 6:10:50 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
No, God is not necessary for knowledge itself, yes, it is possible without God.

Bladerunner,

Then how do we come to know?

How would the situation be different with the existence of a God?

There's a lot of terminology that needs definition, of course. I mean, we have to define "know", for example. However, to the extent anyone "knows" anything, they cannot support it having been necessary that God exists for them to know it.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Ipsofacto
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2014 6:29:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/23/2014 6:24:33 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/23/2014 6:13:21 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:
At 2/23/2014 6:10:50 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
No, God is not necessary for knowledge itself, yes, it is possible without God.

Bladerunner,

Then how do we come to know?

How would the situation be different with the existence of a God?

There's a lot of terminology that needs definition, of course. I mean, we have to define "know", for example. However, to the extent anyone "knows" anything, they cannot support it having been necessary that God exists for them to know

My contention is that metaphysics precedes knowledge. Plato's allegory of he cave would suffice as a starting point.

And to beg the question, "to know" requires a certain understanding of an object's essence.

How else might we come to knowledge of the external world? I am assuming we all agree on the existence of an external world.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2014 6:32:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/23/2014 6:29:31 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:
At 2/23/2014 6:24:33 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/23/2014 6:13:21 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:
At 2/23/2014 6:10:50 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
No, God is not necessary for knowledge itself, yes, it is possible without God.

Bladerunner,

Then how do we come to know?

How would the situation be different with the existence of a God?

There's a lot of terminology that needs definition, of course. I mean, we have to define "know", for example. However, to the extent anyone "knows" anything, they cannot support it having been necessary that God exists for them to know

My contention is that metaphysics precedes knowledge. Plato's allegory of he cave would suffice as a starting point.

How so?

And to beg the question, "to know" requires a certain understanding of an object's essence.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. If I "know" I saw a ball, I don't need to know it's "essence", merely that it's a ball.

How else might we come to knowledge of the external world?

You're saying "how else but through god"?

I am assuming we all agree on the existence of an external world.

Well, yes, out of practicality. But I'm not aware of a true solution to hard solipsism.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Ipsofacto
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2014 6:41:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/23/2014 6:32:30 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/23/2014 6:29:31 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:
At 2/23/2014 6:24:33 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/23/2014 6:13:21 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:
At 2/23/2014 6:10:50 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
No, God is not necessary for knowledge itself, yes, it is possible without God.

Bladerunner,

Then how do we come to know?

How would the situation be different with the existence of a God?

There's a lot of terminology that needs definition, of course. I mean, we have to define "know", for example. However, to the extent anyone "knows" anything, they cannot support it having been necessary that God exists for them to know

My contention is that metaphysics precedes knowledge. Plato's allegory of the cave would suffice as a starting point.

How so?

It serves as a ground for all change. A counterpoint to Heraclitus and Zeno, if you will.


And to beg the question, "to know" requires a certain understanding of an object's essence.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. If I "know" I saw a ball, I don't need to know it's "essence", merely that it's a ball.

Ok. Is it fair to say that you are forwarding a naturalistic understanding of nature. All particulars, and no unities. Perceptions, right?

How else might we come to knowledge of the external world?

You're saying "how else but through god"?

Ultimately, but not now.

I am assuming we all agree on the existence of an external world.

Well, yes, out of practicality. But I'm not aware of a true solution to hard solipsism.

Agreed.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2014 7:44:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/23/2014 6:41:21 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:
At 2/23/2014 6:32:30 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/23/2014 6:29:31 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:
At 2/23/2014 6:24:33 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/23/2014 6:13:21 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:
At 2/23/2014 6:10:50 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
No, God is not necessary for knowledge itself, yes, it is possible without God.

Bladerunner,

Then how do we come to know?

How would the situation be different with the existence of a God?

There's a lot of terminology that needs definition, of course. I mean, we have to define "know", for example. However, to the extent anyone "knows" anything, they cannot support it having been necessary that God exists for them to know

My contention is that metaphysics precedes knowledge. Plato's allegory of the cave would suffice as a starting point.

How so?

It serves as a ground for all change. A counterpoint to Heraclitus and Zeno, if you will.

I'm not sure I would agree with that.

And to beg the question, "to know" requires a certain understanding of an object's essence.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. If I "know" I saw a ball, I don't need to know it's "essence", merely that it's a ball.

Ok. Is it fair to say that you are forwarding a naturalistic understanding of nature. All particulars, and no unities. Perceptions, right?

I think that might be an oversimplification. But yes--we get knowledge through our perceptions.

How else might we come to knowledge of the external world?

You're saying "how else but through god"?

Ultimately, but not now.

I am assuming we all agree on the existence of an external world.

Well, yes, out of practicality. But I'm not aware of a true solution to hard solipsism.

Agreed.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2014 8:00:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/23/2014 6:41:21 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:

It serves as a ground for all change. A counterpoint to Heraclitus and Zeno, if you will.

And for the record, I would more say I subscribe to the Diogenes response to Zeno.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2014 8:50:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Well, is God necessary for consciousness itself? I would say that is a more fundamental question.

If we assume that God is not necessary for consciousness, and we are merely talking about knowledge, then I think that some knowledge could exist without a supernatural entity. If we have consciousness, we can use reason and arrive at things by deduction.

The knowledge that would require a supernatural entity (I avoid "God" because there's no reason it would have to be a personal, Judeo-Christian sort of entity at all), would be true knowledge of the world around us. I can never be sure my senses are accurately representing reality- that would require the aid of a supernatural entity.
Ipsofacto
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2014 9:09:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/23/2014 8:00:04 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/23/2014 6:41:21 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:

It serves as a ground for all change. A counterpoint to Heraclitus and Zeno, if you will.

And for the record, I would more say I subscribe to the Diogenes response to Zeno.

Bladerunner,

The good ol' "I refute Berkley thus" retort.

It would seem then, you are ascribing to naive realism, correct?
Ipsofacto
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2014 9:12:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/23/2014 7:44:39 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/23/2014 6:41:21 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:
At 2/23/2014 6:32:30 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/23/2014 6:29:31 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:
At 2/23/2014 6:24:33 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/23/2014 6:13:21 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:
At 2/23/2014 6:10:50 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
No, God is not necessary for knowledge itself, yes, it is possible without God.

Bladerunner,

Then how do we come to know?

How would the situation be different with the existence of a God?

There's a lot of terminology that needs definition, of course. I mean, we have to define "know", for example. However, to the extent anyone "knows" anything, they cannot support it having been necessary that God exists for them to know

My contention is that metaphysics precedes knowledge. Plato's allegory of the cave would suffice as a starting point.

How so?

It serves as a ground for all change. A counterpoint to Heraclitus and Zeno, if you will.

I'm not sure I would agree with that.

Agree or disagree with what specifically?

And to beg the question, "to know" requires a certain understanding of an object's essence.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. If I "know" I saw a ball, I don't need to know it's "essence", merely that it's a ball.

Ok. Is it fair to say that you are forwarding a naturalistic understanding of nature. All particulars, and no unities. Perceptions, right?

I think that might be an oversimplification. But yes--we get knowledge through our perceptions.

The essential question is then whether that is the only way.

How else might we come to knowledge of the external world?

You're saying "how else but through god"?

Ultimately, but not now.

I am assuming we all agree on the existence of an external world.

Well, yes, out of practicality. But I'm not aware of a true solution to hard solipsism.

Agreed.
Ipsofacto
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2014 9:15:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/23/2014 8:50:32 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
Well, is God necessary for consciousness itself? I would say that is a more fundamental question.

If we assume that God is not necessary for consciousness, and we are merely talking about knowledge, then I think that some knowledge could exist without a supernatural entity. If we have consciousness, we can use reason and arrive at things by deduction.

Are you using consciousness as a synonym for philosophic idealism? A priori reasoning? Which is rather inescapable given the appeal to deduction.

The knowledge that would require a supernatural entity (I avoid "God" because there's no reason it would have to be a personal, Judeo-Christian sort of entity at all), would be true knowledge of the world around us. I can never be sure my senses are accurately representing reality- that would require the aid of a supernatural entity.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 1:25:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/23/2014 9:09:05 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:
At 2/23/2014 8:00:04 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/23/2014 6:41:21 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:

It serves as a ground for all change. A counterpoint to Heraclitus and Zeno, if you will.

And for the record, I would more say I subscribe to the Diogenes response to Zeno.

Bladerunner,

The good ol' "I refute Berkley thus" retort.

I like to think of it as "plucked chicken philosophy". But that's good too...

It would seem then, you are ascribing to naive realism, correct?

Hmmm. Perhaps I would agree generally. But I do have a skepticism of total or traditional naive realism. After all, quantum physics has some curveballs, and I wouldn't want to ignore reality.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 1:27:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/23/2014 9:12:01 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:

My contention is that metaphysics precedes knowledge. Plato's allegory of the cave would suffice as a starting point.

How so?

It serves as a ground for all change. A counterpoint to Heraclitus and Zeno, if you will.

I'm not sure I would agree with that.

Agree or disagree with what specifically?

You think metaphysics as a grounding to all change is a counterpoint to Heraclitus and Zeno. I'm not sure how you think that--so I'm not sure I agree.

Ok. Is it fair to say that you are forwarding a naturalistic understanding of nature. All particulars, and no unities. Perceptions, right?

I think that might be an oversimplification. But yes--we get knowledge through our perceptions.

The essential question is then whether that is the only way.

I would say yes. There is no knowledge except through perception--even that which is a priori requires SOME amount of perception.

Further, I always get nervous when someone starts talking about "other ways of knowing"--I want to know explicitly what they're talking about.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 1:00:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/23/2014 5:47:18 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:
Socrates claimed that an unexamined life is not worth living. Or at least we ascribe to him that thought.

But, an even more controversial question emerges. Is knowledge itself even possible without God?

Definition:
Knowledge: Justified True Belief

I think we can accept anyone can have a belief about anything. The justification is rather ill defined, it could be empirical, philosophical, trust, etc.

The 'true' part is the difficult part to define. I would define truth as what concords with reality. And reality I describe with basic axioms such as the moral absolutes and 'I exist' as it's foundation. Therefore it comes down to whether the logical process, or empirical observations concord with reality of not.

You can never know that you know something as a result of the less than perfect sense perception and logical processes, but your knowledge claims themselves can always be true. The statement that "You cannot know anything without a god" is therefore a non sequitir from "I could be wrong about everything I claim to know"

That's also trivially addressed by two people holding a dichotomy of justified beliefs (X is true/not true). One will have knowledge, the other will not, and no god is involved here.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 6:20:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/23/2014 9:15:04 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:
At 2/23/2014 8:50:32 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
Well, is God necessary for consciousness itself? I would say that is a more fundamental question.

If we assume that God is not necessary for consciousness, and we are merely talking about knowledge, then I think that some knowledge could exist without a supernatural entity. If we have consciousness, we can use reason and arrive at things by deduction.

Are you using consciousness as a synonym for philosophic idealism? A priori reasoning? Which is rather inescapable given the appeal to deduction.

The knowledge that would require a supernatural entity (I avoid "God" because there's no reason it would have to be a personal, Judeo-Christian sort of entity at all), would be true knowledge of the world around us. I can never be sure my senses are accurately representing reality- that would require the aid of a supernatural entity.

When I said it I just meant the state of self-awareness that we as humans seem to possess.

As far as a priori, I myself doubt that a priori is even really a thing, but I try to avoid that discussion O_o
Buckethead31594
Posts: 363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 8:50:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/23/2014 5:47:18 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:
Socrates claimed that an unexamined life is not worth living. Or at least we ascribe to him that thought.

But, an even more controversial question emerges. Is knowledge itself even possible without God?

The answer to this question depends on whether or not an omniscient god exists, and whether or not knowledge existed before God. Now you might be wondering how knowledge could come before God- when God supposedly had no beginning. Simple. God had to have acknowledged his existence and divinity at some point. Much like the "I think, therefore I am," argument. God didn't create knowledge, for God would have already had to have the knowledge to do so.

Now what if God has always known he was God? This the situation in which God thinks 'outside' the realms of time. In which case it doesn't matter, for as long as a God exists, knowledge exists. Making the two an inseparable truth. Therefore, one cannot exist without the other. Yet, this would equate to a paradox; this is simply not the answer.

Logically, the only possible, plausible outcome, is one in which God had to acknowledge his existence at some point. Since God (in this case) is the absolute truth, he would not have been God until he knew he was God. Remember, knowledge is not the same as intellect. Although it is obviously within his intellect to know that he is God, he would have had to think about it to come to this revelation. Put simply, it was that sudden "Eureka!" moment; the first discovery, the first innovation in history. Amen.

Therefore: 1.) Knowledge came before God, and 2.) God had a 'beginning,' so to speak.

There are probably tons of fallacies within the aforementioned paragraph. In which case, feel free to point them out. I was on a roll and had to type it out. Excellent question, though!
"By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher." - Socrates
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 8:56:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/23/2014 5:47:18 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:
Socrates claimed that an unexamined life is not worth living. Or at least we ascribe to him that thought.

But, an even more controversial question emerges. Is knowledge itself even possible without God?

Perhaps. But if he is, it's not self-evident, and not necessarily in the way you mean. If he is, I think it's an indirect necessity.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Ipsofacto
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 10:20:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 1:27:46 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/23/2014 9:12:01 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:

My contention is that metaphysics precedes knowledge. Plato's allegory of the cave would suffice as a starting point.

How so?

It serves as a ground for all change. A counterpoint to Heraclitus and Zeno, if you will.

I'm not sure I would agree with that.

Agree or disagree with what specifically?

You think metaphysics as a grounding to all change is a counterpoint to Heraclitus and Zeno. I'm not sure how you think that--so I'm not sure I agree.

The question, properly framed, is how to account for change. Heraclitus, I argue embraced change as essential. Zeno viewed it as illusion.

I forward the idea that change is best accounted by a metaphysical grounding. I will begin the argument by forwarding a Platonic response to change and permanence.

Ok. Is it fair to say that you are forwarding a naturalistic understanding of nature. All particulars, and no unities. Perceptions, right?

I think that might be an oversimplification. But yes--we get knowledge through our perceptions.

The essential question is then whether that is the only way.

I would say yes. There is no knowledge except through perception--even that which is a priori requires SOME amount of perception.

To clarify, perception as defined by empiricism, correct? With respect to apriori, I assume that you are arguing against apriori knowledge? Correct?

Further, I always get nervous when someone starts talking about "other ways of knowing"--I want to know explicitly what they're talking about.
Ipsofacto
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 10:29:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 1:00:26 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/23/2014 5:47:18 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:
Socrates claimed that an unexamined life is not worth living. Or at least we ascribe to him that thought.

But, an even more controversial question emerges. Is knowledge itself even possible without God?

Definition:
Knowledge: Justified True Belief

I think we can accept anyone can have a belief about anything. The justification is rather ill defined, it could be empirical, philosophical, trust, etc.

No argument there. I forward coherency as a central justifier. I have others in mind, but let's start with coherency.

The 'true' part is the difficult part to define. I would define truth as what concords with reality.

As do I.

And reality I describe with basic axioms such as the moral absolutes and 'I exist' as it's foundation.

To be clear, are you arguing for a Cartesian epistemology?

Therefore it comes down to whether the logical process, or empirical observations concord with reality of not.

Here we may have fecund ground for debate. I would ask which do you see as primary: empirical or logical?

You can never know that you know something as a result of the less than perfect sense perception and logical processes, but your knowledge claims themselves can always be true.

Are you committed to such a proposition? Let me know.

The statement that "You cannot know anything without a god" is therefore a non sequitir from "I could be wrong about everything I claim to know"

Unclear how a skeptical conceit negates a metaphysical claim. Please explain.

That's also trivially addressed by two people holding a dichotomy of justified beliefs (X is true/not true). One will have knowledge, the other will not, and no god is involved here.

This point needs fleshing out. Are you arguing that merely juxtaposing beliefs defines a necessity that one must be necessarily false, and by that a metaphysical claim becomes the de facto false belief. Unclear how you arrived at such a conclusion.
Ipsofacto
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 10:31:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 6:20:17 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 2/23/2014 9:15:04 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:
At 2/23/2014 8:50:32 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
Well, is God necessary for consciousness itself? I would say that is a more fundamental question.

If we assume that God is not necessary for consciousness, and we are merely talking about knowledge, then I think that some knowledge could exist without a supernatural entity. If we have consciousness, we can use reason and arrive at things by deduction.

Are you using consciousness as a synonym for philosophic idealism? A priori reasoning? Which is rather inescapable given the appeal to deduction.

The knowledge that would require a supernatural entity (I avoid "God" because there's no reason it would have to be a personal, Judeo-Christian sort of entity at all), would be true knowledge of the world around us. I can never be sure my senses are accurately representing reality- that would require the aid of a supernatural entity.

When I said it I just meant the state of self-awareness that we as humans seem to possess.

As far as a priori, I myself doubt that a priori is even really a thing, but I try to avoid that discussion O_o

I see a priori as inescapable.
Ipsofacto
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 10:39:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 8:56:27 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/23/2014 5:47:18 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:
Socrates claimed that an unexamined life is not worth living. Or at least we ascribe to him that thought.

But, an even more controversial question emerges. Is knowledge itself even possible without God?

Perhaps. But if he is, it's not self-evident, and not necessarily in the way you mean. If he is, I think it's an indirect necessity.

zmikecuber,

Appreciate the reply. I've read several of your posts and they're quite lucid. Unfortunately, I am having a difficult time understanding your point on this post.

Unclear what the "is" is referring to in the assertion "But if he is, it's not self-evident."

Help me understand what is meant by "it's not self evident"

Lots of "it's" and I'm not sure of the antecedent (s) .
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 11:04:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 10:20:20 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:
At 2/24/2014 1:27:46 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/23/2014 9:12:01 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:

My contention is that metaphysics precedes knowledge. Plato's allegory of the cave would suffice as a starting point.

How so?

It serves as a ground for all change. A counterpoint to Heraclitus and Zeno, if you will.

I'm not sure I would agree with that.

Agree or disagree with what specifically?

You think metaphysics as a grounding to all change is a counterpoint to Heraclitus and Zeno. I'm not sure how you think that--so I'm not sure I agree.

The question, properly framed, is how to account for change. Heraclitus, I argue embraced change as essential. Zeno viewed it as illusion.

I forward the idea that change is best accounted by a metaphysical grounding. I will begin the argument by forwarding a Platonic response to change and permanence.

Can you specify your Platonic response? I'm familiar with the two positions given by Heraclitus and Zeno that you were referring to. I'm not clear on how you're saying your alternative goes.

Ok. Is it fair to say that you are forwarding a naturalistic understanding of nature. All particulars, and no unities. Perceptions, right?

I think that might be an oversimplification. But yes--we get knowledge through our perceptions.

The essential question is then whether that is the only way.

I would say yes. There is no knowledge except through perception--even that which is a priori requires SOME amount of perception.

To clarify, perception as defined by empiricism, correct? With respect to apriori, I assume that you are arguing against apriori knowledge? Correct?

I would argue that, while "a priori" may be a useful concept, fundamentally those things we call "a priori" rely on perception, as a general rule--though there may be an exception I'm not thinking of right offhand.


Further, I always get nervous when someone starts talking about "other ways of knowing"--I want to know explicitly what they're talking about.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Ipsofacto
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 11:39:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 11:04:27 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 10:20:20 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:
At 2/24/2014 1:27:46 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/23/2014 9:12:01 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:

My contention is that metaphysics precedes knowledge. Plato's allegory of the cave would suffice as a starting point.

How so?

It serves as a ground for all change. A counterpoint to Heraclitus and Zeno, if you will.

I'm not sure I would agree with that.

Agree or disagree with what specifically?

You think metaphysics as a grounding to all change is a counterpoint to Heraclitus and Zeno. I'm not sure how you think that--so I'm not sure I agree.

The question, properly framed, is how to account for change. Heraclitus, I argue embraced change as essential. Zeno viewed it as illusion.

I forward the idea that change is best accounted by a metaphysical grounding. I will begin the argument by forwarding a Platonic response to change and permanence.

Can you specify your Platonic response? I'm familiar with the two positions given by Heraclitus and Zeno that you were referring to. I'm not clear on how you're saying your alternative goes.

I am arguing for Plato and his realm of forms- loosely defined.

Ok. Is it fair to say that you are forwarding a naturalistic understanding of nature. All particulars, and no unities. Perceptions, right?

I think that might be an oversimplification. But yes--we get knowledge through our perceptions.

The essential question is then whether that is the only way.

I would say yes. There is no knowledge except through perception--even that which is a priori requires SOME amount of perception.

To clarify, perception as defined by empiricism, correct? With respect to apriori, I assume that you are arguing against apriori knowledge? Correct?

I would argue that, while "a priori" may be a useful concept, fundamentally those things we call "a priori" rely on perception, as a general rule--though there may be an exception I'm not thinking of right offhand.

I would argue the converse. A priori makes perceptions possible. Thus, perceptions rely on a priori, rather than the converse. I argue that the source of this a priori is metaphysical- (e.g. non-empirical)


Further, I always get nervous when someone starts talking about "other ways of knowing"--I want to know explicitly what they're talking about.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 12:09:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 11:39:26 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:

I am arguing for Plato and his realm of forms- loosely defined.

I'm not sure how that directly relates the concept of change and motion--but go ahead.

I would argue the converse. A priori makes perceptions possible. Thus, perceptions rely on a priori, rather than the converse. I argue that the source of this a priori is metaphysical- (e.g. non-empirical)

I disagree--we have to perceive in order to reason anything. There's nothing a priori about that--and everything we know from thence comes from our perception of it.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 5:25:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 10:29:54 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:
At 2/24/2014 1:00:26 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/23/2014 5:47:18 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:
Socrates claimed that an unexamined life is not worth living. Or at least we ascribe to him that thought.

But, an even more controversial question emerges. Is knowledge itself even possible without God?

Definition:
Knowledge: Justified True Belief

I think we can accept anyone can have a belief about anything. The justification is rather ill defined, it could be empirical, philosophical, trust, etc.

No argument there. I forward coherency as a central justifier. I have others in mind, but let's start with coherency.

The 'true' part is the difficult part to define. I would define truth as what concords with reality.

As do I.

And reality I describe with basic axioms such as the moral absolutes and 'I exist' as it's foundation.

To be clear, are you arguing for a Cartesian epistemology?

I am not familiar with what this is? I think the keyword in what I wrote is 'describe', as being able to describe something linguistically, graphically, algebraically all presuppose those axioms. If reality concords with the description, then the description is true. Reality is, necessarily, perceived by us via our faculties, which themselves are subject to error. So whilst I cannot say all my claims to knowledge are a certainty, it does not follow that I don't know anything.

Let's say I believe a bridge will take my weight when I cross it, I am justified by the observation of other people of my stature crossing this bridge. When I attempt to cross the bridge, it collapses under my weight.

Did I know the fact? No. If the bridge did take my weight, did I know it then? Yes.

Therefore it comes down to whether the logical process, or empirical observations concord with reality of not.

Here we may have fecund ground for debate. I would ask which do you see as primary: empirical or logical?

Well making any sense of empirical observation requires logic, so logic would be primary in terms of understanding.

But empirical observation by itself doesn't mean anything without any application of logic. My speed-o-meter reading 70 kmh doesn't mean anything by itself until one applies logic to put it into a meaningful context. E.g. it breaks the speed limit, etc.

You can never know that you know something as a result of the less than perfect sense perception and logical processes, but your knowledge claims themselves can always be true.

Are you committed to such a proposition? Let me know.

I don't understand that question? I thought I made my position clear enough?

The statement that "You cannot know anything without a god" is therefore a non sequitir from "I could be wrong about everything I claim to know"

Unclear how a skeptical conceit negates a metaphysical claim. Please explain.

Because that is a purely logical claim, which fails. A subset of knowledge potentially includes my 'claims to knowledge', and some of my claims to knowledge also fall outside of knowledge. It's just 2 overlapping circles on a venn diagram. I seriously don't see the problem.

That's also trivially addressed by two people holding a dichotomy of justified beliefs (X is true/not true). One will have knowledge, the other will not, and no god is involved here.

This point needs fleshing out. Are you arguing that merely juxtaposing beliefs defines a necessity that one must be necessarily false, and by that a metaphysical claim becomes the de facto false belief. Unclear how you arrived at such a conclusion.

Law of Non Contradiction and Excluded Middle.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 8:46:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 10:39:43 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:
At 2/24/2014 8:56:27 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/23/2014 5:47:18 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:
Socrates claimed that an unexamined life is not worth living. Or at least we ascribe to him that thought.

But, an even more controversial question emerges. Is knowledge itself even possible without God?

Perhaps. But if he is, it's not self-evident, and not necessarily in the way you mean. If he is, I think it's an indirect necessity.

zmikecuber,

Appreciate the reply. I've read several of your posts and they're quite lucid. Unfortunately, I am having a difficult time understanding your point on this post.

Unclear what the "is" is referring to in the assertion "But if he is, it's not self-evident."

Help me understand what is meant by "it's not self evident"

Lots of "it's" and I'm not sure of the antecedent (s) .

I guess I'm sortof looking at it from a morality point of view. I don't think God is directly necessary for morality, since I think morality is derived from reason. But I think reason might also be derived from God in a certain way...So I think that knowledge also might be derived from God in an indirect way. But I'm not sure on this one.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."