What does it matter . . . ?

[37818]

Belief does not make a thing true. But nothing that is true, evidence, evidence others have, conclusions from deductive reasoning, does not become one's knowledge unless it is believed.

[Tassman]

Belief does not make a thing true. But nothing that is true, evidence, evidence others have, conclusions from deductive reasoning, does not become one's knowledge unless it is believed.

[37818]

. . .mere belief does not make anything true. . . .

It remain at issue, one does not have knowledge unless a thing is believed.

[Tassman]

It remain at issue, one does not have knowledge unless a thing is believed.

You're going in circles. Again: What one believes is not necessarily knowledge. "Knowledge" requires acquaintance with demonstrable facts and verified truths,

[shunyadragon]

It remain at issue, one does not have knowledge unless a thing is believed.

Ring around the rosy pocket full of posy.

Try and differentiate between empirical knowledge that is based on predictable verifiable objective evidence, and knowledge based on belief of philosophical and theological knowledge.

[37818]

You're going in circles. Again: What one believes is not necessarily knowledge. "Knowledge" requires acquaintance with demonstrable facts and verified truths,

What do you know which has no kind of belief? It is impossible to know anything without a belief about it.

[37818]

Ring around the rosy pocket full of posy.

Try and differentiate between empirical knowledge that is based on predictable verifiable objective evidence, and knowledge based on belief of philosophical and theological knowledge.

So you do not believe in the empirical? And you do not believe in what is verifiable? Is that what you are saying?

[Tassman]

What do you know which has no kind of belief? It is impossible to know anything without a belief about it.

Without support from demonstrable facts and verified truths such "knowledge" remains belief; it cannot be shown to be "fact".

[shunyadragon]

Without support from demonstrable facts and verified truths such "knowledge" remains belief; it cannot be shown to be "fact".

This does not reflect what I ever posted.

"Facts" are pieces of objective verifiable evidence. I said, "empirical knowledge is based on predictable verifiable objective evidence." No it does not remain belief nor shown to be fact. New 'facts' can always be found to change and add to empirical knowledge. This is science. It is dependent on the correspondent theory of truth, where verification must be based on objective evidence.

Theological and philosophical knowledge is not necessarily based on objective verifiable evidence, and is considered under the coherence theory of truth. Though there may be 'facts' related to this knowledge objective evidence is not necessary.

To see more on the difference between the correspondence theory and coherence theory of truth see the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/t...spondence/#8.1 and

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-coherence/

[Tassman]

This does not reflect what I ever posted.

"Facts" are pieces of objective verifiable evidence. I said, "empirical knowledge is based on predictable verifiable objective evidence." No it does not remain belief nor shown to be fact. New 'facts' can always be found to change and add to empirical knowledge. This is science. It is dependent on the correspondent theory of truth, where verification must be based on objective evidence.

Theological and philosophical knowledge is not necessarily based on objective verifiable evidence, and is considered under the coherence theory of truth. Though there may be 'facts' related to this knowledge objective evidence is not necessary.

To see more on the difference between the correspondence theory and coherence theory of truth see the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/t...spondence/#8.1 and

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-coherence/

I was addressing 37818, and merely trying to draw the distinction between substantiated belief and unsubstantiated belief.

[shunyadragon]

I was addressing 37818, and merely trying to draw the distinction between substantiated belief and unsubstantiated belief.

This is the problem which he is either unable or more likely unwilling to comprehend. It is fairly common among the more combative and fundamentalist theists to increase the fog index and shmear the boundary asserting that science amounts to as much faith and belief as theism.

Good example proposing the question 'What does it matter . . . ?'

[37818]

You're going in circles. Again: What one believes is not necessarily knowledge. "Knowledge" requires acquaintance with demonstrable facts and verified truths,

Yes, a thing believed is not necessarily knowledge. What is it that you actually know that you do not believe? That is not possible not to know anything unless it is believed.

[37818]

Ring around the rosy pocket full of posy.

Try and differentiate between empirical knowledge that is based on predictable verifiable objective evidence, and knowledge based on belief of philosophical and theological knowledge.

You acknowledge the difference between believing predictable verifiable objective evidence and believing philosophical and theological ideas.

[Tassman]

Yes, a thing believed is not necessarily knowledge. What is it that you actually know that you do not believe? That is not possible not to know anything unless it is believed.

I am merely trying to draw the distinction between substantiated belief and unsubstantiated belief. Unsubstantiated belief is not knowledge-based it is faith-based.

[37818]

I am merely trying to draw the distinction between substantiated belief and unsubstantiated belief. Unsubstantiated belief is not knowledge-based it is faith-based.

It is agreed that faith itself does not cause anything to be true. Valid faith is based in what is true. Not faith in faith.