The Unavoidability of Belief within Reason

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6051
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

The Unavoidability of Belief within Reason

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:44 pm

Belief is the evidence of things hoped for not yet seen where an unactualized state of potential existence is brought about by an act of faith.

This faith, a grounding point of actualizing an unactualized reality, is inherent within the processes which form reality. What remains unformed is given form through an inherent process of perspective where things are seen under a given light and brought about through the very nature of observation.

This perspective, or observation, is the root of how we measure, and give form to reality, thus necessitating faith as an instrinsic part of being.

Without belief, or faith, being is never brought about in an actualized form and thus left in a potential state.

Faith is a part of the measurement process in a such a way that the given premises used to observe reality are brought about in a dynamic state as the act of measurement itself. This act of measurement is the act of being itself consdering the manner in which the world is formed is grounded on the set of assumptions used to justify its existence.

Given knowledge as a dynamic process, the necessity of belief lies within the premises which ground it. The premises are unactualized except for some future event. Belief is thus a statement of knowledge through time, where what is known is a state of future events not fully actualized yet grounded in the seeds of the premises which give root to any future actuality.

Belief is an act of dynamic change within the process of measurement thus unavoidable within the nature of perspective as a whole.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4136
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Unavoidability of Belief within Reason

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Apr 02, 2020 7:00 am

You are too narrow, shallow and off target on the above.

What is held to be true lies on a continuum of truths from .01/100 to 99.99/100 and each of the below has its own range of degrees of objectivity.
  • 1. opinions - high subjectivity with very nil or low objectivity 1/100
    2. Belief - with less than 50% objectivity
    3. Knowledge - with >50 to 99.99% objectivity.
  • objectivity = intersubjectivity consensus upon a credible framework of knowledge.
The above 3 elements are also correspondent to the degree of faith, i.e. opinions relying on the highest level of faith & subjectivity while knowledge on the least amount of faith with the highest level of objectivity.
  • For example, scientific knowledge has the highest degree of objectivity than any other source of knowledge based its properties [testability, verifiability, objectivity, repeatability, falsifiability,] and promise of consistent results for anyone. Scientific knowledge also rely on some minimal degree of faith.
Inversely to faith, the above 3 elements of holding-to-true also correspondence to reason.
Opinions are hardly reasoned but beliefs definitely involved some degree of reasoning but they are crude reasons often falling into hasty generalizations and rhetoric.
Knowledge relied on reason on a full fledged basis.

Theistic doctrines are at best considered to be beliefs* but cannot qualify as knowledge because they cannot be highly [>50%] objective since they cannot be tested, verified and produce the same results on an intersubjective basis.

* Theistic beliefs are objective but less 50% because they are based on personal convictions, personal experiences and relied on faith {>50%} and has intersubjective consensus among theists-only.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6051
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Unavoidability of Belief within Reason

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Apr 02, 2020 5:00 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Apr 02, 2020 7:00 am
You are too narrow, shallow and off target on the above.

What is held to be true lies on a continuum of truths from .01/100 to 99.99/100 and each of the below has its own range of degrees of objectivity.
  • 1. opinions - high subjectivity with very nil or low objectivity 1/100
    2. Belief - with less than 50% objectivity
    3. Knowledge - with >50 to 99.99% objectivity.
  • objectivity = intersubjectivity consensus upon a credible framework of knowledge.
The above 3 elements are also correspondent to the degree of faith, i.e. opinions relying on the highest level of faith & subjectivity while knowledge on the least amount of faith with the highest level of objectivity.
  • For example, scientific knowledge has the highest degree of objectivity than any other source of knowledge based its properties [testability, verifiability, objectivity, repeatability, falsifiability,] and promise of consistent results for anyone. Scientific knowledge also rely on some minimal degree of faith.
Inversely to faith, the above 3 elements of holding-to-true also correspondence to reason.
Opinions are hardly reasoned but beliefs definitely involved some degree of reasoning but they are crude reasons often falling into hasty generalizations and rhetoric.
Knowledge relied on reason on a full fledged basis.

Theistic doctrines are at best considered to be beliefs* but cannot qualify as knowledge because they cannot be highly [>50%] objective since they cannot be tested, verified and produce the same results on an intersubjective basis.

* Theistic beliefs are objective but less 50% because they are based on personal convictions, personal experiences and relied on faith {>50%} and has intersubjective consensus among theists-only.
Those are assumed premises, one of many, believed in as a starting point of a phenomena.

The nature of a hypothesis, in science, is a beginning statement of belief actualized into fact over a given course of time.

Objectivity is group agreement thus belief.

Skepdick
Posts: 4371
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The Unavoidability of Belief within Reason

Post by Skepdick » Thu Apr 02, 2020 6:27 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Apr 02, 2020 5:00 pm
Those are assumed premises, one of many, believed in as a starting point of a phenomena.
Here's a conundrum: would you believe if I told you that none of my arguments are based on premises?
More precisely: All my premises are synthesised to fit the conclusion. I know it is true because I can do it on command, but that doesn't matter.

What matters is that you interpret my arguments as having "premises" - probably because yours do.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6051
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Unavoidability of Belief within Reason

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Apr 02, 2020 6:38 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Thu Apr 02, 2020 6:27 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Apr 02, 2020 5:00 pm
Those are assumed premises, one of many, believed in as a starting point of a phenomena.
Here's a conundrum: would you believe if I told you that none of my arguments are based on premises?
More precisely: All my premises are synthesised to fit the conclusion. I know it is true because I can do it on command , but that doesn't matter.

"Personal command" is a premise.

What matters is that you interpret my arguments as having "premises" - probably because yours do.
Synthesis of assumptions is a premise. This synthesis is grounded in the hegelian dialectic, to certain degrees, where actual definitions and potential definitions are joined as a grounding to an already manifested conclusion. Joining premises, to fit a conclusion, is reverse engineering of a conclusion where the stated conclusion inversely acts as a premise to further premises.

Premises are inevitable.
Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on Thu Apr 02, 2020 7:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Skepdick
Posts: 4371
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The Unavoidability of Belief within Reason

Post by Skepdick » Thu Apr 02, 2020 6:46 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Apr 02, 2020 6:38 pm
Synthesis of assumptions is a premise. This synthesis is grounded in the hegelian dialectic, to certain degrees, where actual definitions and potential definitions are joined as a grounding to an already manifested conclusion. Joining premises, to fit a conclusion, is reverse engineering of a conclusion where the stated conclusion inversely acts as a premise to further premises.

Premises is inevitable.
Q.E.D You can't falsify your own theory about me.

Everything that is a premise is a premise.
Everything that isn't a premise is also a premise.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6051
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Unavoidability of Belief within Reason

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Apr 02, 2020 7:20 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Thu Apr 02, 2020 6:46 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Apr 02, 2020 6:38 pm
Synthesis of assumptions is a premise. This synthesis is grounded in the hegelian dialectic, to certain degrees, where actual definitions and potential definitions are joined as a grounding to an already manifested conclusion. Joining premises, to fit a conclusion, is reverse engineering of a conclusion where the stated conclusion inversely acts as a premise to further premises.

Premises is inevitable.
Q.E.D You can't falsify your own theory about me.

Everything that is a premise is a premise.
Everything that isn't a premise is also a premise.
I don't have to falsify considering all premises, by existence alone, are a truth value. If it exists, then some degree of truth is present, thus falsifiablilty is not necessary. All premises as existing, are always true and false dependent upon the context.

You simultaneously have both premises and non premises, dependent upon the context of usage.

Starting from a conclusion, and working backwards towards a premise, is not a premise in one respect. However in another respect starting with a conclusion is manifesting a premise as it is a starting point. The conclusion is both a premise and not premise dependent upon context. However considering the conclusion is both a premise and not premise, the premise always exists due to it always existing and not existing.

Premises exist as true by degree of existence alone. It is the alignment with other contexts that determine truth value. Falsifiability is unnecessary as context alone necessitates always a false value as well.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4136
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Unavoidability of Belief within Reason

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Apr 03, 2020 5:13 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Apr 02, 2020 5:00 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Apr 02, 2020 7:00 am
You are too narrow, shallow and off target on the above.

What is held to be true lies on a continuum of truths from .01/100 to 99.99/100 and each of the below has its own range of degrees of objectivity.
  • 1. opinions - high subjectivity with very nil or low objectivity 1/100
    2. Belief - with less than 50% objectivity
    3. Knowledge - with >50 to 99.99% objectivity.
  • objectivity = intersubjectivity consensus upon a credible framework of knowledge.
The above 3 elements are also correspondent to the degree of faith, i.e. opinions relying on the highest level of faith & subjectivity while knowledge on the least amount of faith with the highest level of objectivity.
  • For example, scientific knowledge has the highest degree of objectivity than any other source of knowledge based its properties [testability, verifiability, objectivity, repeatability, falsifiability,] and promise of consistent results for anyone. Scientific knowledge also rely on some minimal degree of faith.
Inversely to faith, the above 3 elements of holding-to-true also correspondence to reason.
Opinions are hardly reasoned but beliefs definitely involved some degree of reasoning but they are crude reasons often falling into hasty generalizations and rhetoric.
Knowledge relied on reason on a full fledged basis.

Theistic doctrines are at best considered to be beliefs* but cannot qualify as knowledge because they cannot be highly [>50%] objective since they cannot be tested, verified and produce the same results on an intersubjective basis.

* Theistic beliefs are objective but less 50% because they are based on personal convictions, personal experiences and relied on faith {>50%} and has intersubjective consensus among theists-only.
Those are assumed premises, one of many, believed in as a starting point of a phenomena.

The nature of a hypothesis, in science, is a beginning statement of belief actualized into fact over a given course of time.

Objectivity is group agreement thus belief.
You are all over the place.
Obviously premises are important but what is more critical is the grounding and verification processes that support the premises.

The grounding is this;
What is held to be true of claimed reality.

If you claimed X is true of Y reality,
then we can verify the truth of your claim "X is true in Y reality" by putting it through the above checklist 1 to 3 to establish its degree of veracity.

If you hold "God exists as real" is true,
then we have to put the above claim through checklist 1 to 3 above.
  • 1. Is the claim an opinion?
    No.. because many theists claimed they have direct evidence and experience of God presence.

    2. Is the claim a belief?
    Yes, because many theists claimed they have direct evidence and experience of God presence with consensus but without proper verification methods.

    3. Is the claim knowledge?
    No..because the belief is not a Justified True Belief [JTB] with objectivity greater than 50% based on empirical verification processes [contrast Scientific theories] and sound philosophical reasonings.

Your sense of what is knowledge is not systematic and organized like the above.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6051
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Unavoidability of Belief within Reason

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Apr 03, 2020 3:52 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Apr 03, 2020 5:13 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Apr 02, 2020 5:00 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Apr 02, 2020 7:00 am
You are too narrow, shallow and off target on the above.

What is held to be true lies on a continuum of truths from .01/100 to 99.99/100 and each of the below has its own range of degrees of objectivity.
  • 1. opinions - high subjectivity with very nil or low objectivity 1/100
    2. Belief - with less than 50% objectivity
    3. Knowledge - with >50 to 99.99% objectivity.
  • objectivity = intersubjectivity consensus upon a credible framework of knowledge.
The above 3 elements are also correspondent to the degree of faith, i.e. opinions relying on the highest level of faith & subjectivity while knowledge on the least amount of faith with the highest level of objectivity.
  • For example, scientific knowledge has the highest degree of objectivity than any other source of knowledge based its properties [testability, verifiability, objectivity, repeatability, falsifiability,] and promise of consistent results for anyone. Scientific knowledge also rely on some minimal degree of faith.
Inversely to faith, the above 3 elements of holding-to-true also correspondence to reason.
Opinions are hardly reasoned but beliefs definitely involved some degree of reasoning but they are crude reasons often falling into hasty generalizations and rhetoric.
Knowledge relied on reason on a full fledged basis.

Theistic doctrines are at best considered to be beliefs* but cannot qualify as knowledge because they cannot be highly [>50%] objective since they cannot be tested, verified and produce the same results on an intersubjective basis.

* Theistic beliefs are objective but less 50% because they are based on personal convictions, personal experiences and relied on faith {>50%} and has intersubjective consensus among theists-only.
Those are assumed premises, one of many, believed in as a starting point of a phenomena.

The nature of a hypothesis, in science, is a beginning statement of belief actualized into fact over a given course of time.

Objectivity is group agreement thus belief.
You are all over the place.
Obviously premises are important but what is more critical is the grounding and verification processes that support the premises.

The only process which supports the premises is a divergence from the original premises into newer premises resulting in a tautology. Proof is the variation of one premise into another newer one.

The grounding is this;
What is held to be true of claimed reality.

What is held true is assumed.

If you claimed X is true of Y reality,
then we can verify the truth of your claim "X is true in Y reality" by putting it through the above checklist 1 to 3 to establish its degree of veracity.

If you hold "God exists as real" is true,
then we have to put the above claim through checklist 1 to 3 above.
  • 1. Is the claim an opinion?
    No.. because many theists claimed they have direct evidence and experience of God presence.
    Direct evidence and experience necessitates fact.

    2. Is the claim a belief?
    Yes, because many theists claimed they have direct evidence and experience of God presence with consensus but without proper verification methods.

    All beginning claims, even experience, requires a belief in the senses.

    3. Is the claim knowledge?
    No..because the belief is not a Justified True Belief [JTB] with objectivity greater than 50% based on empirical verification processes [contrast Scientific theories] and sound philosophical reasonings.
This necessitates knowledge as probabilistic and under the bandwagon fallacy.


Your sense of what is knowledge is not systematic and organized like the above.
Systems are made up, there is no set rule for defining what a system is or is not.
The only common system is a divergence and reconvergence of axioms. Systems are tautological in nature, that is it.


The grounding for your system is consensus, thus falling under probabalism and bandwagon fallacy. Group consensus as group belief sets the foundation for your formalism and if that is the case, then by using your premises, religions can simultaneously be justified in a different respect as a consensus of individual experiences which cross a large swath of subjective states. It is like near death experiences. The consensus, across multiple observers, is that they exist. As to what they are is a seperate question.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4136
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Unavoidability of Belief within Reason

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Apr 04, 2020 5:24 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Apr 03, 2020 3:52 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Apr 03, 2020 5:13 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Apr 02, 2020 5:00 pm

Those are assumed premises, one of many, believed in as a starting point of a phenomena.

The nature of a hypothesis, in science, is a beginning statement of belief actualized into fact over a given course of time.

Objectivity is group agreement thus belief.
You are all over the place.
Obviously premises are important but what is more critical is the grounding and verification processes that support the premises.

The only process which supports the premises is a divergence from the original premises into newer premises resulting in a tautology. Proof is the variation of one premise into another newer one.

The grounding is this;
What is held to be true of claimed reality.

What is held true is assumed.

If you claimed X is true of Y reality,
then we can verify the truth of your claim "X is true in Y reality" by putting it through the above checklist 1 to 3 to establish its degree of veracity.

If you hold "God exists as real" is true,
then we have to put the above claim through checklist 1 to 3 above.
  • 1. Is the claim an opinion?
    No.. because many theists claimed they have direct evidence and experience of God presence.
    Direct evidence and experience necessitates fact.

    2. Is the claim a belief?
    Yes, because many theists claimed they have direct evidence and experience of God presence with consensus but without proper verification methods.

    All beginning claims, even experience, requires a belief in the senses.

    3. Is the claim knowledge?
    No..because the belief is not a Justified True Belief [JTB] with objectivity greater than 50% based on empirical verification processes [contrast Scientific theories] and sound philosophical reasonings.
This necessitates knowledge as probabilistic and under the bandwagon fallacy.


Your sense of what is knowledge is not systematic and organized like the above.
Systems are made up, there is no set rule for defining what a system is or is not.
The only common system is a divergence and reconvergence of axioms. Systems are tautological in nature, that is it.


The grounding for your system is consensus, thus falling under probabalism and bandwagon fallacy. Group consensus as group belief sets the foundation for your formalism and if that is the case, then by using your premises, religions can simultaneously be justified in a different respect as a consensus of individual experiences which cross a large swath of subjective states. It is like near death experiences. The consensus, across multiple observers, is that they exist. As to what they are is a seperate question.
You are all over the place.

What is critical is how the above is effected in real life.

If some believers claimed they have to kill you as a non-believer because what they held to be true, i.e. God exists as real, and had sent a holy texts with the kill command,
surely what need to be questioned is 'what is held to be true' it true or not?.
When we have convinced the believers what they held to be true is not real and true, then we can begin to disarm them from the evil thought they have to kill non-believers.

Thus the critical point with 'what is held to be true' is whether it is net positive to humanity.
Yes, falsehoods can be positive to humanity but definitely not when such false beliefs turned evil [e.g. theistic] and hinder the progress of humanity.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6051
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Unavoidability of Belief within Reason

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Apr 04, 2020 8:24 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Apr 04, 2020 5:24 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Apr 03, 2020 3:52 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Apr 03, 2020 5:13 am

You are all over the place.
Obviously premises are important but what is more critical is the grounding and verification processes that support the premises.

The only process which supports the premises is a divergence from the original premises into newer premises resulting in a tautology. Proof is the variation of one premise into another newer one.

The grounding is this;
What is held to be true of claimed reality.

What is held true is assumed.

If you claimed X is true of Y reality,
then we can verify the truth of your claim "X is true in Y reality" by putting it through the above checklist 1 to 3 to establish its degree of veracity.

If you hold "God exists as real" is true,
then we have to put the above claim through checklist 1 to 3 above.
  • 1. Is the claim an opinion?
    No.. because many theists claimed they have direct evidence and experience of God presence.
    Direct evidence and experience necessitates fact.

    2. Is the claim a belief?
    Yes, because many theists claimed they have direct evidence and experience of God presence with consensus but without proper verification methods.

    All beginning claims, even experience, requires a belief in the senses.

    3. Is the claim knowledge?
    No..because the belief is not a Justified True Belief [JTB] with objectivity greater than 50% based on empirical verification processes [contrast Scientific theories] and sound philosophical reasonings.
This necessitates knowledge as probabilistic and under the bandwagon fallacy.


Your sense of what is knowledge is not systematic and organized like the above.
Systems are made up, there is no set rule for defining what a system is or is not.
The only common system is a divergence and reconvergence of axioms. Systems are tautological in nature, that is it.


The grounding for your system is consensus, thus falling under probabalism and bandwagon fallacy. Group consensus as group belief sets the foundation for your formalism and if that is the case, then by using your premises, religions can simultaneously be justified in a different respect as a consensus of individual experiences which cross a large swath of subjective states. It is like near death experiences. The consensus, across multiple observers, is that they exist. As to what they are is a seperate question.
You are all over the place.

What is critical is how the above is effected in real life.

If some believers claimed they have to kill you as a non-believer because what they held to be true, i.e. God exists as real, and had sent a holy texts with the kill command,
surely what need to be questioned is 'what is held to be true' it true or not?.
When we have convinced the believers what they held to be true is not real and true, then we can begin to disarm them from the evil thought they have to kill non-believers.

Thus the critical point with 'what is held to be true' is whether it is net positive to humanity.
Yes, falsehoods can be positive to humanity but definitely not when such false beliefs turned evil [e.g. theistic] and hinder the progress of humanity.
The grounding of your premises is in a consensus, thus a fallacy.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4136
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Unavoidability of Belief within Reason

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Apr 05, 2020 5:19 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Apr 04, 2020 8:24 pm
The grounding of your premises is in a consensus, thus a fallacy.
Newton's law of universal gravitation is based on empirical verification and consensus.

The above consensus-based premise assert and imply the big rock [10 kg] you throw above your head will certainly fall back to Earth.
You think this is a fallacy, thus disregard it and do not accept the rock you throw above will not fall down onto your head?

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6051
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Unavoidability of Belief within Reason

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Apr 05, 2020 3:41 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Apr 05, 2020 5:19 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Apr 04, 2020 8:24 pm
The grounding of your premises is in a consensus, thus a fallacy.
Newton's law of universal gravitation is based on empirical verification and consensus.

The above consensus-based premise assert and imply the big rock [10 kg] you throw above your head will certainly fall back to Earth.
You think this is a fallacy, thus disregard it and do not accept the rock you throw above will not fall down onto your head?
Actually I can throw a rock above my head and it hitting my head is based upon probability.

Skepdick
Posts: 4371
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The Unavoidability of Belief within Reason

Post by Skepdick » Sun Apr 05, 2020 4:14 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Apr 05, 2020 3:41 pm
Actually I can throw a rock above my head and it hitting my head is based upon probability.
No. Given the distances/weights/forces involved it's practically deterministic.

We can predict if it will hit your head shortly after you throw it, but long before it comes down on you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistics

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6051
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Unavoidability of Belief within Reason

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Apr 05, 2020 5:13 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Sun Apr 05, 2020 4:14 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Apr 05, 2020 3:41 pm
Actually I can throw a rock above my head and it hitting my head is based upon probability.
No. Given the distances/weights/forces involved it's practically deterministic.

We can predict if it will hit your head shortly after you throw it, but long before it comes down on you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistics
It is deterministic that it will come down, the angle at which it is thrown makes falling on the head probabilistic. The rock being thrown is subject to angulature of the throw and that is probabilistic. What it also probabilistic is other variables which effect it, such as the wind blowing, whether or not I move, etc. The rock falling is not probabilistic, it hitting my head is.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests