Knowledge of God's existence properly basic?

[Chaoslord2004]

Anything inside your own subconscious can be considered properly basic. Anything outside of the subconscious is up for scrutiny.

Now, I'll leave it to the believers whether that makes god properly basic. It probably is, by the above definition.

That's not the technical definition of proper basicality.  The term has a very specialized use within epistemology.

[Chaoslord2004]

And there is a difference between knowledge and belief (aka faith). That stands, whatever the excuses are!

Gerard

I'm not sure what the implication is, but an properly basic belief is a justified belief.  It's not faith.  It's just that it's justified but not in virtue of being inferred from another belief.  So it's justification is "basic" and isn't inherited.

One question, then, is:  where does it get it's justification from?  Tough question.  And i'm not quite sure (not sure whether I completely believe in PB beliefs).  This problem has lead some epistemologists to endorse a coherentist theory of justification.

[Gerard]

And there is a difference between knowledge and belief (aka faith). That stands, whatever the excuses are!

Gerard

I'm not sure what the implication is, but an properly basic belief is a justified belief.  It's not faith.  It's just that it's justified but not in virtue of being inferred from another belief.  So it's justification is "basic" and isn't inherited.

One question, then, is:  where does it get it's justification from?  Tough question.  And i'm not quite sure (not sure whether I completely believe in PB beliefs).  This problem has lead some epistemologists to endorse a coherentist theory of justification.

Hmmm. I'm not all that well versed in the philosophy behind this, but for a belief to be justified, (so it seems to me...) it should be backed up, or at least not in contradiction with, verifiable observations about such  a belief...

Gerard

[WitchSabrina]

(not sure whether I completely believe in PB beliefs).

 [-X
Peanut butter belief?   I thought everyone believed in peanut butter belief(s)?  In fact, plural PB beliefs just makes that all the better.
 

[Chaoslord2004]

And there is a difference between knowledge and belief (aka faith). That stands, whatever the excuses are!

Gerard

I'm not sure what the implication is, but an properly basic belief is a justified belief.  It's not faith.  It's just that it's justified but not in virtue of being inferred from another belief.  So it's justification is "basic" and isn't inherited.

One question, then, is:  where does it get it's justification from?  Tough question.  And i'm not quite sure (not sure whether I completely believe in PB beliefs).  This problem has lead some epistemologists to endorse a coherentist theory of justification.

Hmmm. I'm not all that well versed in the philosophy behind this, but for a belief to be justified, (so it seems to me...) it should be backed up, or at least not in contradiction with, verifiable observations about such  a belief...

Gerard

What empirical observations do you have that contradict either of these claims:  God exists; belief in God is properly basic.

[Plu]

Anything inside your own subconscious can be considered properly basic. Anything outside of the subconscious is up for scrutiny.

Now, I'll leave it to the believers whether that makes god properly basic. It probably is, by the above definition.

That's not the technical definition of proper basicality.  The term has a very specialized use within epistemology.

I know; I just don't buy it. Anything outside your brain can be verified by externals. (And probably in a few decades, so can anything inside your brain)

God exists

The inherent contradiction(s) within the definition(s) of the word? I mean; if anyone were willing to put down a final definition, but they're all terrified because they've got nothing.

belief in God is properly basic.

Brainscans that show that people who talk about god are just talking about themselves in the third person? Like I said; the subconscious is properly basic (for the time being, anyway) but god doesn't seem to transcend it. That's why each person has their own version of god who just happens to agree with everything they say.

[Sal1981]

Brainscans that show that people who talk about god are just talking about themselves in the third person? Like I said; the subconscious is properly basic (for the time being, anyway) but god doesn't seem to transcend it. That's why each person has their own version of god who just happens to agree with everything they say.

There's an interesting hypothesis by Darkmatter2525 on YouTube that theists, because of how internalized their faith is, saying straight to a believers face that you don't believe in god they get a psychological response similar to rejection.
[youtube:1hzp3e42]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j8ZMMuu7MU[/youtube:1hzp3e42]

[Chaoslord2004]

I know; I just don't buy it.

So you deny that there are properly basic beliefs?  Fair enough.  So are you an infinitist, meaning all justified beliefs are inferential and non-repeating or a coherentist, meaning all beliefs are inferential and some are repeating?    With the former, you have an infinite chain, whereas with the latter you have either a circle or web of justification.

Anything outside your brain can be verified by externals.

This is a dubious proposition and also not relevant to the discussion.

The inherent contradiction(s) within the definition(s) of the word? I mean; if anyone were willing to put down a final definition, but they're all terrified because they've got nothing.

What contradiction?  You haven't told me.  Show me a case of P & ~P.

Brainscans...

Has NOTHING to do with properly basic beliefs.

[Plu]

So you deny that there are properly basic beliefs?

Only properly basic beliefs about something outside of the human consciousness.

What contradiction? You haven't told me. Show me a case of P & ~P.

Show me a proper definition of god, and I'll look for a P & ~P.

[GurrenLagann]

Show me a proper definition of god, and I'll look for a P & ~P.

Well, there needn't be a contradiction with the term "God", it just happens too be an obscenely bloated word. I mean, defining God in a deistic way probably wouldn't have any self-contradictory propositions. :)

[Plu]

No, but it would also have next to nothing in common with what our friend Craig is talking about. I don't have any problems with the deific god, because he doesn't have any properties, nor does he demand anything from anyone.

But to say that the christian god is properly basic is absurd due to the ridiculous amount of bullcrap you have to take for granted.

[Chaoslord2004]

Show me a proper definition of god, and I'll look for a P & ~P.

A metaphysically perfect being that is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omnipresent.

[Chaoslord2004]

But to say that the christian god is properly basic is absurd due to the ridiculous amount of bullcrap you have to take for granted.

Like...

[GurrenLagann]

But to say that the christian god is properly basic is absurd due to the ridiculous amount of bullcrap you have to take for granted.

Like...

I would assume he means things such as certain supposed historical events that, for all intents and purposes, we can say didn't occur, such as basically the entire book of Exodus and Genesis.

I think.

[Plu]

Show me a proper definition of god, and I'll look for a P & ~P.

A metaphysically perfect being that is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omnipresent.

These three are contradictory to the real world. Thats basically just the Problem of Evil point.

You could also use the problem of perfection; in that there is a more perfect being imaginable by taking one that doesn't allow suffering, meaning that this god is not a perfect one.

Although, to be honest, I don't really mind people who believe in just the god you mentioned. The problem is that most people tack on a whole lot of other stuff about hatred, judgement and sin, and that's where the shitty things start happening. And inevitably, where loads more contradictions start happening.

I would assume he means things such as certain supposed historical events that, for all intents and purposes, we can say didn't occur, such as basically the entire book of Exodus and Genesis.

For starters, yes. The main reason the concept of a specific yet properly basic god doesn't work is the simple problem that without outside influence, no two people would come up with the same god. Even with outside influence, everyone's god is different.
Beliefs that are properly basic need to be reachable by just about everyone without anyone telling them about them. "I exist" is something understood even by toddlers. "There is a god" is barely understood by young children unless forced upon them. "There is a god and he made gay people but then punishes them for eternity for acting on it" is a conclusion no person will reach on their own unless their society pushes it on them. That can't be properly basic.

Which makes the full problem that people take from an outside influence (a major strike against the belief being "basic") the belief that a god exists (something for which there is no empirical evidence for or against) and that this god holds a number of views (which are now widely considered immoral by almost everyone, including those who believe in him) and that this god did a number of things we know he did not (except for a few seriously extremist religiousinists) and that even those who claim to believe in the same god assign him completely different attributes (which align perfectly with their own views, of course)

I see nothing here that gives of the idea that belief in god is properly basic.