What if God is weak?

[TimeSeeker]

All knowledge by definition has to be known but not all facts have to be known so unknown facts do not require minds
Facts have always existed as their existence is independent of minds but knowledge has only existed since minds have
There is a correlation between facts and knowledge but it is only true for some facts [ known ] not all facts [ unknown ]

No wait I am calling bullshit here!

You said FACTS require evidence. So facts are BYPRODUCT of evidence?
Therefore EVIDENCE must exist BEFORE FACTS can exist!

Furthermore MINDS process evidence, so if FACTS are a product of EVIDENCE, then facts ONLY exist in minds! So is it possible then that you are mistaken? Maybe facts are NOT mind-independent?

It's trivial to resolve this paradox: Show me an unknown fact; show me non-factual evidence.

[surreptitious57]

How does one ACQUIRE EVIDENCE so that one can identify facts ?
How does one CHOOSE axioms against one evaluates facts ?

Evidence for facts about physical reality is obtained through science specifically application of the scientific method
Proof for facts about any system of logic is obtained through application of the laws of logic particular to that system

The foundational basis for any axiom must be supported by logic that is as rigorous as possible
Since the more rigorous it is the more sound the axiom is and therefore the more reliable it is

[TimeSeeker]

Evidence for facts about physical reality is obtained through science specifically application of the scientific method
Proof for facts about any system of logic is obtained through application of the laws of logic particular to that system

1. LAWS of logic? How did we determine those LAWS are correct?
2. There is no "scientific method". It's just a colloquial phrase for very many tools/techniques.
3. In what system do you DECIDE which LOGICAL SYSTEM to USE?

The foundational basis for any axiom must be supported by logic that is as rigorous as possible
Since the more rigorous it is the more sound the axiom is and therefore the more reliable it is

Wait, what? Axioms are a product of logic now? I thought you said axioms are a priori.
Now they are a posteriori of logic?

OK, in what logical system do you deduce your axioms?

We started this thread about you explaining to me what is 'reason'.
Now I am just going to ask you a new question: What is rigour and how is it different to reason?

[surreptitious57]

You said FACTS require evidence . So facts are BYPRODUCT of evidence ?
Therefore EVIDENCE must exist BEFORE FACTS can exist !

Furthermore MINDS process evidence so if FACTS are a product of EVIDENCE then facts ONLY exist in minds !
So is it possible then that you are mistaken ? Maybe facts are NOT mind independent ?

It is trivial to resolve this paradox : Show me an unknown fact show me non factual evidence

Do you think there are no undiscovered facts ?
Do you think that every known fact is all facts ?

Does the statement x is true only becomes true when a mind discovers it ?
If you do then does that mean x is true was false before it was discovered ?

Were all the facts that are currently known also facts before they were discovered ?
If you do not think think they were then what was their epistemic status before that ?

When you die do you think all the facts you acquired in your life time then cease to be facts ?
And when the human race becomes extinct will all the facts it acquired then cease to be facts ?

I cannot show you an unknown fact because my knowledge of it would mean it was actually known
But I can show you evidence of known facts that were once unknown for that is true of all of them

Facts are mind independent even though minds can also know of them but minds are not necessary for the existence of facts

[TimeSeeker]

Do you think there are no undiscovered facts ?
Do you think that every known fact is all facts ?

Deflection. You are answering my question with a question. I am still trying to establish how you use the word FACTS. And how FACTS are different from EVIDENCE.

Does the statement x is true only becomes true when a mind discovers it ?
If you do then does that mean x is true was false before it was discovered ?

We haven't even tackled 'facts' or 'logic' yet. Lets leave 'truth' and 'meaning' for later.

Were all the facts that are currently known also facts before they were discovered ?
If you do not think think they were then what was their epistemic status before that ?

I am sure that we can both agree to the arrow of time. And so I ask you only one question.

If FACTS and EVIDENCE are different things, then which one came first?

Facts are mind independent even though minds can also know of them but minds are not necessary for the existence of facts

OK. Is evidence mind-independent?

[surreptitious57]

We started this thread about you explaining to me what is reason
Now I am just going to ask you a new question : What is rigour and how is it different to reason ?

Reason is the application of logic to the real world and rigour is the degree to which it is applied
And the most rigorous system that exists which pertains to the real world is the scientific method

[TimeSeeker]

Reason is the application of logic to the real world and rigour is the degree to which it is applied
And the most rigorous system that exists which pertains to the real world is the scientific method

OK, so if I am applying the scientific method to my own reasoning then FOR ME there is no difference between reason and rigour?

Is there any difference between FACTS and EVIDENCE?

[surreptitious57]

If FACTS and EVIDENCE are different things then which one came first ?

Facts came first because all of them are mind independent before they are discovered
Then evidence because it actually requires minds for it to be discovered and processed

[TimeSeeker]

Facts came first because all of them are mind independent before they are discovered
Then evidence because it actually requires minds for it to be discovered and processed

Facts can only be accepted on the basis of either evidence or proof but not faith

OK, then you need to answer this question: What is evidence?

[surreptitious57]

so if I am applying the scientific method to my own reasoning then FOR ME there is no difference between reason and rigour ?

You cannot apply the scientific method unilaterally because it has to be inter subjective
So how rigorous are you all applying it here and could you be applying it more rigorously

Remember the scientific method tests things to absolute destruction or as close to it as possible and eternally so as well
Then are you all doing this or are you only applying what you subjectively think is sufficiently rigorous and if so then why

[TimeSeeker]

You cannot apply the scientific method unilaterally because it has to be inter subjective

Well, it is inter-subjective! Between the scientist and the subject of experimentation.

So how rigorous are you all applying it here and could you be applying it more rigorously

Well, is there a maximum to rigour?

Remember the scientific method tests things to absolute destruction or as close to it as possible and eternally so as well
Then are you all doing this or are you only applying what you subjectively think is sufficiently rigorous and if so then why

Do you think the scientific method should test one's own epistemology to absolute destruction?

[surreptitious57]

you need to answer this question : What is evidence

Evidence is anything physical or observable that can potentially falsify or support any testable hypothesis
A hypothesis that is supported by evidence cannot actually be proven since proof is not a remit of science
However the greater the quantity or quantity of evidence for a hypothesis is the more likely it is to be true

[TimeSeeker]

Evidence is anything physical or observable....

So, you said that EVIDENCE and FACTS are different.

Does that mean that facts are not physically observable?

However the greater the quantity or quantity of evidence for a hypothesis is the more likely it is to be true

That is not rigorous. Evidence AGAINST a hypothesis has disproportionately high weight compared to evidence FOR a hypothesis.

To say that "all swans are white" is no more or less true whether you have observed 1 or 100000000000000000000 white swans.
Yet to observe even 1 black swan disproves your hypothesis.

And so not all evidence is weighed equally.

This is a typical sampling bias.

[surreptitious57]

You cannot apply the scientific method unilaterally because it has to be inter subjective

Well it is inter subjective ! Between the scientist and the subject of experimentation

No it has to be inter subjective between scientists in order to avoid confirmation bias

A scientist could work on their own but they would have to publish their findings so that others could critically analyse them
Simply asserting something without the means of replicating or examining it is not science so would not be accepted as such

[TimeSeeker]

No it has to be inter subjective between scientists in order to avoid confirmation bias

What if there is a mechanism for eliminating confirmation bias that does not require inter-subjectivity?

A scientist could work on their own but they would have to publish their findings so that others could critically analyse them
Simply asserting something without the means of replicating or examining it is not science so would not be accepted as such

I don't understand why. You said that facts are mind-independent.

So if a 2nd scientist reproduces my results then all they are saying is "you were right the first time". If a 3rd scientist reproduces the results - all they are saying is "the previous two guys were right".

So if facts are mind-independent why do we need so many minds to assert factuality?