How is this definition of "belief"?

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Well OK you are willing to say either that you know or that you might be wrong you CAN'T honestly do both...pick and choose I asked you for an answer and not for an "I'm willing to" you old fox ! ahahahah !

If you are saying "It cannot be known"...I am willing to go with that. But, if it truly cannot be known...I am not willing to make a guess that I am alive...and then to call that guess a "belief."

On one level, it can be said that we can KNOW that we are alive. "Cogito, ergo sum." If that is accepted, then I KNOW I am alive. (The accepting is accepting, not believing.)

EITHER way...I am not doing believing. I am making assumptions (I can make them in either direction)...and I am extrapolating from those assumptions.

No no no my dear friend..I surely don't know if it can be known...I am claiming nothing as matter of knowledge...I said by the rule of the excluded middle, if you are sane and honestly willing to answer that, either, you claim to KNOW you are alive, or that you might be wrong in assuming you are alive...note that assuming heart and soul you are alive is believing you are alive or can you on your honour say it is not ?
(...I am pressing you not attacking you Frank ...)

I stand by the answer I gave earlier...and I think it explains itself nicely. If it can be known (I do not know if it can or not and I am not willing to make a guess)...but IF it can be known (in the sense of Cogito, ergo sum), then I know I am alive. If it cannot truly be known...then I refuse to guess...and even if I were to guess, I would refuse to disguise the fact that I am making a guess by referring to it as a "belief."

I could guess. Do you want me to do that?

Excuse me sir but is the other way around...if you KNOW you are alive then is because knowing you are alive can be known... (...otherwise you bel.. err, assume you know but you are not certain...)

( I am younger but awaken Frank ...)

I assume things occasionally. Is there something wrong with assuming things...and simply acknowledging that you are assuming them...or is there a rule of nature that says I must instead refer to that as "believing?"

I do not do any believing.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

hehehe...I know I know you assume not believe...I will tell you a secret Frank anywhere you say you assume people will be glad to assume you believe without even asking you...

Let me ask you something else...

You do not believe, you believe, you do not believe ? Wink

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

...wait wait WAIIIIT...I know I know...you assume, you do not believe, you believe, you do not believe...but it might it just might that you assume wrong and after all you do do believing... Wink

(please don't get mad with me I am mostly entertaining you in this evening)

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

...going to the rescue I suppose you might claim you do know for sure you do never need to either believe or not believe anything because you know...How could I ever expect to prove you wrong ?
The fact that you might not prove that you know is not in itself prove that you don't know...for all that I know you might be just right ! (Good evening Frank I'm off to bed)

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

LMAO !!!

Now you can't even match a comment with the correct smiley.

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/Heristical.gif

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

hehehe...I know I know you assume not believe...I will tell you a secret Frank anywhere you say you assume people will be glad to assume you believe without even asking you...

Let me ask you something else...

You do not believe, you believe, you do not believe ?

You are correct...I do not believe that I believe...and I also do not believe that I do not believe.

That is sorta like: I do not believe there are gods...and I also do not believe there are no gods.

I simply do not do any believing.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...wait wait WAIIIIT...I know I know...you assume, you do not believe, you believe, you do not believe...but it might it just might that you assume wrong and after all you do do believing...

(please don't get mad with me I am mostly entertaining you in this evening)

I am not begging angry. We are having a discussion that I consider important...and I am of the opinion that many people do not consider it to be important.

I do make assumptions at times. Sometimes the assumptions prove to be correct...sometimes they prove to be incorrect.

That happens.

Sometimes I make guesses that later prove to be correct...sometimes I make guesses that later prove to be incorrect.

That happens.

I never disguise the fact that I have been making assumptions or guesses by calling them "beliefs."

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...going to the rescue I suppose you might claim you do know for sure you do never need to either believe or not believe anything because you know...How could I ever expect to prove you wrong ?

One of the problems I have with the word "believe" is illustrated in what you wrote here. You are sorta making an assumption that if you "not believe" something...that means you "believe" its opposite.

In a recent thread I said: I do not believe gods exist...and I also do not believe that gods do not exist.

There truly is no reason to suppose that to be illogical...although lots of people argued that it was.

But...there are people who "believe" that gods exist...and I am not one of them. At the same time, there are people who believe that gods do not exist...and I am not one of them.

When using the word "believe" that LOOKS to be an inconsistency.

If I were, however to say: I do not make the assumption that gods exist...and at the same time I do not make the assumption that there are no gods...it easily becomes clear to see.

If I were to say: I am unwilling to guess that gods exist...and at the same time I am unwilling to guess that no gods exist...it easily becomes clear to see.

Quote:

The fact that you might not prove that you know is not in itself prove that you don't know...for all that I know you might be just right ! (Good evening Frank I'm off to bed)

I may be wrong on any of my guesses. I may be wrong on any of my assumptions. THAT IS A GIVEN.

But when talking about REALITY...people who say, for instance: I BELIEVE there is a GOD...are much, much, much, much, much less inclined to ever suggest that it is a given that they may be wrong.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

...going to the rescue I suppose you might claim you do know for sure you do never need to either believe or not believe anything because you know...How could I ever expect to prove you wrong ?

You can't. Get over it. Many beliefs, when examined, can be rationalized as a series of guesses. Frank has demonstrated that pretty well, in my opinion.

But as Setanta has pointed out, beliefs are not guesses, and there is no guessing involved when it comes to beliefs, aside from making guesses about beliefs (god exists, for instance).
Still, it's possible to reduce a belief to a series of assertions, and then make guesses about those assertions, but that is not how a believer does it.
But if someone wants to do it like that, I'm not going to argue. I don't care. I can understand Frank, and even though I do not always agree, I do not feel the need to fight every battle every time.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...going to the rescue I suppose you might claim you do know for sure you do never need to either believe or not believe anything because you know...How could I ever expect to prove you wrong ?

One of the problems I have with the word "believe" is illustrated in what you wrote here. You are sorta making an assumption that if you "not believe" something...that means you "believe" its opposite.

In a recent thread I said: I do not believe gods exist...and I also do not believe that gods do not exist.

There truly is no reason to suppose that to be illogical...although lots of people argued that it was.

But...there are people who "believe" that gods exist...and I am not one of them. At the same time, there are people who believe that gods do not exist...and I am not one of them.

When using the word "believe" that LOOKS to be an inconsistency.

If I were, however to say: I do not make the assumption that gods exist...and at the same time I do not make the assumption that there are no gods...it easily becomes clear to see.

If I were to say: I am unwilling to guess that gods exist...and at the same time I am unwilling to guess that no gods exist...it easily becomes clear to see.

Quote:

The fact that you might not prove that you know is not in itself prove that you don't know...for all that I know you might be just right ! (Good evening Frank I'm off to bed)

I may be wrong on any of my guesses. I may be wrong on any of my assumptions. THAT IS A GIVEN.

But when talking about REALITY...people who say, for instance: I BELIEVE there is a GOD...are much, much, much, much, much less inclined to ever suggest that it is a given that they may be wrong.

Normally people that do believe something rather opt to choose the word know that there is A or B rather then the term believe in A or B...I do agree with a lot of what you said up there, you can indeed remain agnostic in many matters and don't claim any sort of belief either in favour or against something thus not needing to necessarily contradict yourself, although it wouldn't harm to recognise agnosticism is not a natural state of being much less in all matters...none of it changes the fact that the distinction you want to make between believing and assuming has no rational justification other then perhaps you mistakenly thinking beliefs are always some sort of extreme way of assuming something which you rather do not do...although, in my first sentence up there, I did grant that for a great deal of people that might be the case to some extent, such it is not the exclusive conceptual frame for classifying believing. I actually can come to think the opposite as I find quite reasonable the notion of being aware of our beliefs being beliefs as opposed to certain knowledge...something that seams plausible to assume but which is not a given ends up strengthening our ability to question our Cosmogony and lets us open to new ideas...perhaps there are clever and less clever ways to think about what beliefs ought to imply...for better and for worse everyone is entitled to have its own take.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Get over what Cyr ? I agree with you... I can't ever recall myself saying we could know for sure what are the matters of fact in this world, I gladly admit I don't know...what I always did said is that there is a true state of affairs no matter what we can tell about it, and I stick with it...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...going to the rescue I suppose you might claim you do know for sure you do never need to either believe or not believe anything because you know...How could I ever expect to prove you wrong ?

One of the problems I have with the word "believe" is illustrated in what you wrote here. You are sorta making an assumption that if you "not believe" something...that means you "believe" its opposite.

In a recent thread I said: I do not believe gods exist...and I also do not believe that gods do not exist.

There truly is no reason to suppose that to be illogical...although lots of people argued that it was.

But...there are people who "believe" that gods exist...and I am not one of them. At the same time, there are people who believe that gods do not exist...and I am not one of them.

When using the word "believe" that LOOKS to be an inconsistency.

If I were, however to say: I do not make the assumption that gods exist...and at the same time I do not make the assumption that there are no gods...it easily becomes clear to see.

If I were to say: I am unwilling to guess that gods exist...and at the same time I am unwilling to guess that no gods exist...it easily becomes clear to see.

Quote:

The fact that you might not prove that you know is not in itself prove that you don't know...for all that I know you might be just right ! (Good evening Frank I'm off to bed)

I may be wrong on any of my guesses. I may be wrong on any of my assumptions. THAT IS A GIVEN.

But when talking about REALITY...people who say, for instance: I BELIEVE there is a GOD...are much, much, much, much, much less inclined to ever suggest that it is a given that they may be wrong.

Normally people that do believe something rather opt to choose the word know that there is A or B rather then the term believe in A or B...I do agree with a lot of what you said up there, you can indeed remain agnostic in many matters and don't claim any sort of belief either in favour or against something thus not needing to necessarily contradict yourself, although it wouldn't harm to recognise agnosticism is not a natural state of being much less in all matters...none of it changes the fact that the distinction you want to make between believing and assuming has no rational justification other then perhaps you mistakenly thinking beliefs are always some sort of extreme way of assuming something which you rather do not do...although, in my first sentence up there, I did grant that for a great deal of people that might be the case to some extent, such it is not the exclusive conceptual frame for classifying believing. I actually can come to think the opposite as I find quite reasonable the notion of being aware of our beliefs being beliefs as opposed to certain knowledge...something that seams plausible to assume but which is not a given ends up strengthening our ability to question our Cosmogony and lets us open to new ideas...perhaps there are clever and less clever ways to think about what beliefs ought to imply...for better and for worse everyone is entitled to have its own take.

Fil...I have steadfastly stuck with the fact that I do not do any "believing"...which is to say that I do not do any assuming, guessing, estimating or such...and then disguising the assumption, guess, or estimate...by use of the word "believe."

I most assuredly do occasionally make guesses; I make estimates; I make assumptions. I HAVE NEVER SUGGESTED IN ANY WAY THAT I DO NOT.

But I call them what they are...rather than substituting the word "believe."

So I do NOT do believing.

If you are saying that I do assume things...or that I do guess things...

...I HAVE STIPULATED THAT REPEATEDLY.

You are saying nothing by saying that...that I have not said.

I also have suggested reasons why I think it would be (to use Martha Stewart's words) "a good thing" if more people did that also. BUT...I have also stated emphatically and repeatedly that anyone who chooses to use "believe" for a guess or an estimate or a supposition...had every right in the world to do so.

So I am not sure of your point. I don't understand what you think I am "mistakenly" thinking on this issue?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I'm glad you asked because its very easy to clarify...If you say you don't do believing you have to make a measure of what the concept of believe is up to mean. Just after doing that you can assert why you don't do it as otherwise "believe" is meaningless. What I've said is that in no moment you get to demonstrate where the distinction is...my previous post was about that and not to deny you admit making assumptions...we all know that by now !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

I'm glad you asked because its very easy to clarify...If you say you don't do believing you have to make a measure of what the concept of believe is up to mean. Just after doing that you can assert why you don't do it as otherwise "believe" is meaningless. What I've said is that in no moment you get to demonstrate where the distinction is...my previous post was about that and not to deny you admit making assumptions...we all know that by now !

Fil...not being a wise-ass here...but I do not understand what in hell you are talking about here. Take it slowly...ask one question...or make one coherent statement. I will respond.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank...there is no more simple then I posted above...when you say you don't do believing and you rather do guesses or take assumptions in that very same statement implicitly you make a comparison between better and worse concepts...how come you have a negative view on what believing means without clarifying what believing means to you as a concept ?
You just have to say in my view believing seams to mean X thus I don't do believing, while assumptions mean Y thus I do assumptions, they seam more coherent bla bla bla and so on...what you can't do in a rational discussion is to not justify why you don't do believing by not clarifying your take on what believing presupposes conceptually...

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

I meant get over trying to "disprove" the no belief stance. It gets tedious.

Regarding "true state of affairs", would you call that a belief, a guess or fact?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

I was not disproving anything I was wondering about Franks motives and doing a good job...if it gets tedious jump ahead... ty Cyr ! Wink

Quote:

Regarding "true state of affairs", would you call that a belief, a guess or fact?

Comparatively as factual as you posing me that question !!! Laughing

(what was that ? was that a question ? anything ?)

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Frank...there is no more simple then I posted above...when you say you don't do believing and you rather do guesses or take assumptions in that very same statement implicitly you make a comparison between better and worse concepts...how come you have a negative view on what believing means without clarifying what believing means to you as a concept ?
You just have to say in my view believing seams to mean X thus I don't do believing, while assumptions mean Y thus I do assumptions, they seam more coherent bla bla bla and so on...what you can't do in a rational discussion is to not justify why you don't do believing by not clarifying your take on what believing presupposes conceptually...

With as much respect as possible, Fil, I'll chalk this up to the ESL situtation.

I still do not get what you are talking about. The message is jumbled.

Let's try this a different way. I will make a statement...and you tell me (as clearly as possible) what problem you have with my statement.

HERE IS THE STATEMENT:

If I am making a guess...I call my guess a guess rather than a belief.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

If you have no problem with that statement, Fil...just say, "I have no problem with that statement."

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

So you are saying it's a fact? :

Quote:

there is a true state of affairs no matter what we can tell about it

I would call it a belief. Frank would likely call it a guess.

A similar assertion is "the food in my fridge doesn't exist when it is not being observed". We can't know that, because we can't observe "food not being observed", obviously.

It is possible that there is no state of affairs at all without something to tell about it. You are probably thinking that there must necessarily be a state of affairs, but no matter how reasonable this seems, it is unknowable.

3 Replies

How is this definition of "belief"?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know