Well some of you might recognize that what I’m about to say is a little bit different then what I’ve said in previous posts. No worries while it’s more than just a refinement it is still largely the same, just better. Also now with videos :D. I assume the rights to change my mind and further refine things later. Since this will be by no means necessarily complete or flawless. Feel free to suggest additions and corrections.
So my first premise as basically as I currently think they should go.
P1. Knowledge and the pursuit knowledge is better than to wallow in ignorance.
From here we can address the question of reality existing, the whole brain in a vat/matrix scenario.
Since we cannot prove definitely that we exist and that the world we see around us is in fact the reality we actually exist within, but if we stop there, allow for this grand ignorance to overwhelm us then well knowledge is unattainable.
the conclusion we can draw from this first premise is the following.
C1. Since the pursuit of knowledge is better then ignorance we can when be a faced with the option of ultimate ignorance, or the possibility of being wrong about everything we should choose the chance of being wrong.
From that conclusion it is safe to say that reality exists, since if we are wrong we haven’t actually lost anything (since otherwise everything is a lie or illusion).
Which leads (eventually) to the second conclusion that
C2. Reality exists, and we have some means of interaction and learning about said reality (if we didn’t gave some means of learning about reality then we are once again trapped in compete ignorance).
Now for some more basic premises.
P2. There are only natural causes for things that happen in the reality around us.
P3. There is consistency in the causes that operate in the natural world. (this could still mean that physical law change some from part of the universe to another, but so long as this happens in a consistent manner it’s still fine) This means that when we do experiments and make observations to determine the natural causes of reality these finding (should they be correct) will remain consistent elsewhere and at different times assuming all other constants remain the same.
Here is a proper account of what Natural means by Gary Edward which is very clean and helpful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbh5vIimhgk&list=UUrnYMlsoyNeXuYNNh6xkv3Q
What’s lovely about this sort of basic assumptions about the world is that you can possibly determine if they accurately represent reality. Is there consistency within reality, as well it does not exclude the possibility that non-natural things exist with in reality, it just assume they don’t. Though should you prove such supernatural things would exist which you can do you will prove the assumptions that all causes are natural to be wrong. Fail state a useful addition to any axiom or set of assumptions as it allows you to know if you’re wrong. It also allows for probabilistic statement about the probability that your theory is correct.
I’ll be liking once more to Gary as he explains how Naturalism is more probable then a God claim.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXzWt5LWXtA&index=2&list=UUrnYMlsoyNeXuYNNh6xkv3Q
Obviously he has an anti-Christian fundamentalist bend, but then again so do I.
This is a really handy explanation as to how naturalism has a likelihood greater than .5 ublike unfalsifiable claims like many forms of gods, the invisible pink unicorn who watches you while you sleep, and the Celestial Teapot. All of which have probability values of 50/50 or .5.
Withteeth
hessianwithteeth 
December 22nd, 2014 at 2:56 am
[…] can inductively show those assumption to be highly likely. I talk about that in a bit more detail here, but I may devote a post to this in the future as there is a lot to talk about which does not […]
LikeLike
September 11th, 2014 at 1:16 am
I do agree that pursuit knowledge is better than ignorance. To me it means”I don’t know/understand _____ enough so I am open to find out if I am wrong and learn why I was wrong. ” knowledge is being there. Pursuit is the journey of getting there. Both are important.
LikeLike
September 9th, 2014 at 9:37 pm
With premise 2 being naturalism, have you effectively ruled the concept of God out before your investigation of the evidence in the world? Is that circular logic? You are deciding your ending point before you begin.
LikeLike
September 9th, 2014 at 9:50 pm
well that a very god centric veiw of the whole of what I said. The end point for the set of assumptions is (if it’s corret) an accurate mdel of reality. Tough that said, I probably shouldnt have added the “ony natural” clause as that’s nt sel evident from the prior premise. It would probably be best to draw that as an evidence or logic based concusion. However, the premise is falsifiable should you find a way to prove a supernatural anything. Though if you can’t do that then the premise is sound. though ya I shouldn’t probably have add that extra clause. I’ll think on it.
Withteeth
LikeLike
September 6th, 2014 at 8:54 am
So I’m thinking one possible flaw in my first premiss is that you could possibly make the claim that when face with an unknown it would be best to make something up to fill the gap. Does anyone think they have a better wording to avoid this trap. I’m thinking something along the lines of…
“P1. The pursuit knowledge is better than to wallow in ignorance. However, ignorance is permissible at the limits of current knowledge, so long as it doesn’t halt all further acquisition of knowledge.”
Or something like that. Thoughts?
LikeLike
September 6th, 2014 at 9:23 am
Perhaps something like:
x = any Knowledge claim
y = a logical impasse where one valid option is that all further knowledge impossible.
If any x then results in a y then one should only entertain such paths where further acquisition of knowledge is possible.
LikeLike
September 6th, 2014 at 8:06 am
Regarding Point #1, I was having a debate with a devout Christian online and he stated some interesting things. One, that faith consists of “not being restricted by facts”. The other that faith was the most liberating concept possibly imaginable. Obviously we disagreed, and off we went in our disparate directions.
The one which got me was “not being restricted by facts”. I wish I could use this tactic during my day job, it would make things a lot easier. Life would be a breeze!
LikeLike
September 6th, 2014 at 9:52 am
Ha not restricted by facts, lovely, wouldn’t that be nice. I could fly around and will thing into existence. What charmed life that person must lead ;). That’s too funny.
LikeLike
September 6th, 2014 at 1:29 pm
Wap,
Faith not being restricted by the facts defines atheism.
Christian doctrine is that faith and reason go good together.
LikeLike
September 6th, 2014 at 8:01 pm
What? You know you still can’t prove God right? Just saying science proves you sky father doesn’t mean that your right. You definitely have not met the burden of proof for that claim.
LikeLike
September 7th, 2014 at 7:07 am
No, it does not. Atheistic views are, typically, based around scientific fact. This and the complete and utter lack of any evidence for a “god”.
The Bible quite clearly states homosexuality is a sin and slavery is perfectly alright. This and a whole batch of other strange contradictions. There’s not much reason going on there.
LikeLiked by 1 person
September 6th, 2014 at 7:52 am
You made the simple claim that knowledge is better than ignorance.
Now you are moving the goal post which is a logical fallacy.
LikeLike
September 6th, 2014 at 8:09 am
No, you’re being intemperate. He’s explained himself well and you’re looking for specious reasoning to add credence to your “argument”. Explain yourself properly rather than relying on hyperbole.
LikeLike
September 6th, 2014 at 1:26 pm
How is staying on the subject being intemperate?
Hessian, like all atheists, ends up arguing with herself and losing.
She makes a statement or claim and then proceeds to refute her own statement or claim.
Me pointing this out is not being intemperate.
LikeLike
September 6th, 2014 at 8:08 pm
I love how you still can’t read. I didn’t write this post, Withteeth did. If you had actually read the whole thing, you’d have seen that. And again, Withteeth is a him. If you want to make claims about bad arguments, maybe you should stop making it so obvious that you don’t even really read our posts.
LikeLike
September 6th, 2014 at 8:42 am
I think SOM is referencing to me making a slight edit to better represent my actual position, otherwise it might have been too simple to refute. And you Silence of mind really shouldn’t lecturing me on logical fallacies. I’m my only proof reader for this stuff a good portion of the time. But realistically, my claim may have been better before. Non the less do you have a problem with my points besides I edit it about half an hour after I first posted it?
Does this slight edit really count as moving there goal posts? If it does you can say as much, and does is affect the meaning of my answers. I doubt it. That said, however, I’m in the position of wanting to improve my position, so I won’t lie about what I have changed. Such wouldn’t benefit my position.
LikeLike
September 6th, 2014 at 1:28 pm
Hessian,
A one sentence statement pointing out your habitual use of logical fallacies is not a lecture.
LikeLike
September 6th, 2014 at 8:09 pm
Your right! It’s an ad hominem.
LikeLike
September 6th, 2014 at 7:59 pm
No a simple edit (that largely didn’t changed meaning) do not consist of moving the goal posts. You be extra sure of this I’m already offered to discussed the first writing of the the premise with you.
That said now your fixating, and you have the gall to say I use habitual logical fallacies when you generally can’t back up an argument to save your life. This isn’t a simple ad hominium, discussing topic with you has been near impossible. Earlier you where at least asking basic questions which could be addressed in a reasonable amount of time. It was next to respectable.
While I will admit it might fall under the category on “moving the goal posts” you on the other hand will never admit to having done anything wrong, or so I suspect.
I’d ask you either stop with this “I won cause I noticed you did something less than ideal” and have a real discussion. If not here’s the door.
And before you say I’m applying a double standard be aware I’ve been giving you the benefit of the doubt far more then I probably should have. Even in this post.
LikeLike
September 7th, 2014 at 7:17 am
“like all atheists” – This is your problem. My assertion you’re intemperate (which you have been – it has nothing to do with “staying on topic”) was pertinent. Dismiss it all you want, it’s irrelevant. I’m off to enjoy my Sunday. Have a good one, darling. xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
September 6th, 2014 at 2:53 am
What about knowledge of the atomic bomb or gassing Jews on a mass scale?
LikeLike
September 6th, 2014 at 3:10 am
That’s a hugely loaded question! So allow me to elaborate and ask a better question.
A better question is: Is it better that we understand complex chemistry and atomic theory? I think so, I think these fields of study are powerful tools which have done great good, though becuase of their power they have been misused.
Do I think it’s better that we have advanced chemistry and atomic theory? Yes! They have allowed for so many good things, may more good things then bad in my opinion. I also thikg it’s good that we know of the horrid misuses of these technologies so that we can do our best to prevent further atrocities.
I sincerely hope your not trying to unfairly box me into a corner using straw-man arguments.
Is knowledge about using a swords and spears bad because arguably more people have probably died over human history by those weapons then by bullets? (let alone chemical and atomic warfare)
Could the world be better if we didn’t know about these weapons? Maybe according to some standards, but I think the best world is one where we understand these weapons and choose not to use them.
(edited because I wrote a few things down incorrectly)
LikeLike
September 6th, 2014 at 1:46 am
Why is the pursuit of knowledge better than ignorance?
And if you doubt that reality is actually reality, how do you know the difference between knowledge and ignorance?
LikeLike
September 6th, 2014 at 2:04 am
Because there’s no downside to pursuing knowledge in this grand sense when the options are know nothing or possible be wrong about everything.
I don’t doubt reality is reality, though if I did how I would go about re defining things is a difficult question since there are many manners in which reality would be mistaken and in which manners those “true” realities (if they exist at all) Even then you can still ask the question if we can “know” those realities to exist in absolute terms and the answer would probably be no. That said it would still not be a problem to keep looking for answers making testable predictions about the reality you think you reside in and testing if those accurately reflect the outcomes.
We know the difference between knowledge and ignorance because when we make predictions based off claims that they tend to come true (a greater than 50/50 chance) where false claims or I suppose governance in this case either make not prediction so it useless or make a claim which is either 50/50 or less in accuracy.
LikeLike