Is there anything you are certain of without proof?

[bocablkr]

Excluding god for now, is there anything else that you are certain of without proof one way or the other. I have been called stupid by one or two on this forum for being certain that god does not exist. They say you can't be certain of something without proof. I argue that certainty is in your mind - it means without doubt. If I know that I believe in something without any doubt then I am certain. Is it stupid to feel that way? How would you go about adding uncertainty to your own mind? So is anyone certain of anything without proof?

[KingNeo]

How can you be certain that a God does not exist when there isn't even a proper definition of "God".

[_TKO_]

[ QUOTE ]
If I know that I believe in something without any doubt then I am certain.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought religion was based on this concept.

As to your question, there's is absoutely no need to provide proof for you to be convinced something is true. However, if you tried to convince others of your opinion without any proof, then you would be foolish. Or Christian.

[soon2bepro]

Yes, that's a stupid attitude. In fact, it's wrong to be certain of something even WITH proof. However, it takes quite an effort to be free of it, since our primitive subconcious(unconscious) minds keep pulling us to certainty and faith and other kinds of logical fallacies.

I won't say I don't have any certainties; but I'll say it is my ultimate goal not to.

[Scotch78]

Yes. I'll be discussing it in this (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=4631976&an=0&page=0#Post 4631976) post and its sequels.

Scott

[Darryl_P]

When I go about my everyday dealings, I am certain of a lot of things, ie. I assume they're true without entertaining any doubts. But in rational mode (like now), when I step back and examine a question on its own, I don't think I'm ever 100% sure.

The two modes are simply for convenience. When something comes out to be over 95% certain in rational mode, it's simply more efficient to raise it to 100% in everyday mode because it frees up brainpower and energy for other issues.

Of course if my certainty leads to conflict, then the next time I go back into rational mode I might take that into consideration and alter the probablities. If it then goes below 95%, I will no longer be certain of it in everyday mode.

The system is constantly adjusting itself in other words.

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
I have been called stupid by one or two on this forum for being certain that god does not exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am "certain" that this has not happened. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif
Just kidding. I am doubtful though, that you were actually called "stupid." Link?

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
I won't say I don't have any certainties ; but I'll say it is my ultimate goal not to.


[/ QUOTE ]

Care to elaborate?

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have been called stupid by one or two on this forum for being certain that god does not exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am "certain" that this has not happened. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif
Just kidding. I am doubtful though, that you were actually called "stupid." Link?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just look a few posts above - [ QUOTE ]
Yes, that's a stupid attitude

[/ QUOTE ]

I will try and find a link - I suck at the search function here for some reason. Never get the results I want.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
How can you be certain that a God does not exist when there isn't even a proper definition of "God".

[/ QUOTE ]

I use the one referring to a supernatural being beyond space and time that created the Universe. There are many others.

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have been called stupid by one or two on this forum for being certain that god does not exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am "certain" that this has not happened. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif
Just kidding. I am doubtful though, that you were actually called "stupid." Link?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just look a few posts above - [ QUOTE ]
Yes, that's a stupid attitude

[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

Soon2bepro would have to weigh in here to be sure, but I don’t think he was referring specifically to you not believing in God. I think he is just saying that you shouldn’t be “certain” of anything, in his opinion.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I won't say I don't have any certainties ; but I'll say it is my ultimate goal not to.


[/ QUOTE ]

Care to elaborate?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, I think it's pretty easy to understand my opinion: I think certainties are bad for us so my ultimate goal is not to have any. Maybe your question was about discussing my reasons?

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I won't say I don't have any certainties ; but I'll say it is my ultimate goal not to.


[/ QUOTE ]

Care to elaborate?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, I think it's pretty easy to understand my opinion: I think certainties are bad for us so my ultimate goal is not to have any. Maybe your question was about discussing my reasons?

[/ QUOTE ]

You misunderstood - you admitted to having some certainties. What are they?

[soon2bepro]

I'm not sure I can ellaborate them. They sort of come and go whenever I "let myself go" in any subject of thought.

I guess the ones I have the hardest time dealing with are those that deal with my own existence and my perception of reality. Such as when I'm sure I'm feeling pain, or that I saw that sexy looking girl pass by (the certainty that she did pass by is orders of magnitude easier to overcome), or that I'm sure I'm thinking that I shouldn't be certain of anything /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[laurentia]

[ QUOTE ]
Excluding god for now, is there anything else that you are certain of without proof one way or the other. I have been called stupid by one or two on this forum for being certain that god does not exist. They say you can't be certain of something without proof. I argue that certainty is in your mind - it means without doubt. If I know that I believe in something without any doubt then I am certain. Is it stupid to feel that way? How would you go about adding uncertainty to your own mind? So is anyone certain of anything without proof?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am certain that even if by some freak accident there was a god he wouldn't have a white beard. Or if he does have one he doesn't dye it pink between 4:30 and 5:30AM ET every day.
OK, I am not certain but certainly hope that he doesn't do that.

[MaxWeiss]

The logic of "you can't be certain of anything without proof" as it relates to the non-existance of god is completely ridiculous. That's akin to saying that lobsters might be able to fly--we just haven't seen it. Both that argument and the previous one about god are stupid, and flawed. I don't know the technical name for the flaw, but it is clear to me that that is a poor and irrational argument.

[bearly]

assuming you are serious: aren't you certain you are sick when you are throwing-up, have a headache, and fear runny bowels is next? none of these symptoms constitute a proof. i have groused enough on this forum that folks ought to know the various logics that apply to these situations.....but no one usually responds, which suggests to me that people like to ask these sorts of questions but aren't really interested in doing the ammout of work necessary to properly frame the debate, and possibly answer the question........b

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Excluding god for now, is there anything else that you are certain of without proof one way or the other


[/ QUOTE ]

You should distinguish between objective and subjective certainty. You should also distinguish between proof and evidence.

[soon2bepro]

college kid: You're wrong. The reasoning "we don't know if lobsters can fly or not since we have no evidence of them doing so" is flawless. However, if one were to conclude from this that it'd be safe to make the assumption that lobsters can fly, or to act on it in any way, thinking the odds of that being true are greater than say 0.0001%, that'd be utterly wrong. But it's not what you said---I think.

bearly: I think I didn't really understand what you said there. Who were you responding to in the first place?

[Mr_J]

Anyone who thinks you can't be certain without proof is a moron. Someone being certain of something doesn't make it fact. You are certain god doesn't exist. I can't see anything wrong with that, as it just states your opinion. Many millions believe their gods exist. Without proof.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
Many millions believe their gods exist. Without proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that is equally wrong.

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]
Excluding god for now, is there anything else that you are certain of without proof one way or the other. I have been called stupid by one or two on this forum for being certain that god does not exist. They say you can't be certain of something without proof. I argue that certainty is in your mind - it means without doubt. If I know that I believe in something without any doubt then I am certain. Is it stupid to feel that way? How would you go about adding uncertainty to your own mind? So is anyone certain of anything without proof?

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainty is a tricky concept. You can think of certainty, or of being certain, as entirely subjective, i.e., that it is just in your mind, as you say, and it means having no doubt. But I find that banal. I think that a useful distinction would be between 'degree of confidence' and 'certainty'. Now, having no doubt in the subjective sense would just mean having complete confidence in a belief.

But if there is an interesting distinction to be made between having complete confidence in a belief and being able to hold a belief with certainty, then it might be between the subjective sense of 'confidence' in which someone might be able to have complete confidence in any given belief, simply because they are convinced that it is true, and a more objective sense of 'certainty' in which being in a position of certainty with respect to some belief or proposition requires a relationship between the proposition and what you call proof.

According to this distinction I can be certain of some of my beliefs, like that 2+2=4, but can never be certain of other beliefs, like that I weigh 175 lbs., or am six feet tall, or maybe that god exists. This is because the proposition "2+2=4" admits of proof while other propositions (maybe empirical ones?) do not. That seems to me to be an interesting distinction.

[BigSoonerFan]

[ QUOTE ]
Excluding god for now, is there anything else that you are certain of without proof one way or the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Online poker is rigged.
2. She was NOT washing her hair.
3. OJ did it. (oh, wait, we have proof)
4. There are more intelligent beings in existence than us.

[bearly]

hi soon, i was responding to the op, but my remarks were also general in nature. i have made many posts concerning the work that is involved (read semesters, if not years, of study)in 'getting the ground rules straight', before we can "thrash the truth" out of an argument.........b

[bearly]

well, let's see. you must be certain there are people w/ attitudes, that there is something called PROOF, that we have primative, subconcious minds, there are logical fallicies.....that's enough to illustrate that you live w/ a lot of certainties, otherwise you are just babbling. if so, please stop it and go to your room...........b

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
But if there is an interesting distinction to be made between having complete confidence in a belief and being able to hold a belief with certainty, then it might be between the subjective sense of 'confidence' in which someone might be able to have complete confidence in any given belief, simply because they are convinced that it is true, and a more objective sense of 'certainty' in which being in a position of certainty with respect to some belief or proposition requires a relationship between the proposition and what you call proof.


[/ QUOTE ]

Philo, that might be the longest sentence I have ever seen - and it gave me a headache /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
assuming you are serious: aren't you certain you are sick when you are throwing-up, have a headache, and fear runny bowels is next? none of these symptoms constitute a proof. i have groused enough on this forum that folks ought to know the various logics that apply to these situations.....but no one usually responds, which suggests to me that people like to ask these sorts of questions but aren't really interested in doing the ammout of work necessary to properly frame the debate, and possibly answer the question........b

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't throwing up, etc proof in a sense that you are sick? I am asking about certainty without having proof or even evidence.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Many millions believe their gods exist. Without proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that is equally wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where's the proof their wrong?

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And that is equally wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where's the proof their wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]


Nice one /images/graemlins/smile.gif

(read above if you really wanna know)

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But if there is an interesting distinction to be made between having complete confidence in a belief and being able to hold a belief with certainty, then it might be between the subjective sense of 'confidence' in which someone might be able to have complete confidence in any given belief, simply because they are convinced that it is true, and a more objective sense of 'certainty' in which being in a position of certainty with respect to some belief or proposition requires a relationship between the proposition and what you call proof.


[/ QUOTE ]

Philo, that might be the longest sentence I have ever seen - and it gave me a headache /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. I have some Tylenol.

[bobman0330]

I'm astonished by the fact that there are so many replies in this thread, and none of them use the word "axiom."

[RBO]

That time waits for nobody

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm astonished by the fact that there are so many replies in this thread, and none of them use the word "axiom."

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed. I am certain that a ball cannot both be completely red and completely blue at the same time.

[bearly]

fine, but that was not your original question........b

[aeest400]

Cogito ergo sum. Of course, it depends what you mean my "certain" and by "proof". For more information, see the last 2,500 years of philosophy. Kant's Critique of Pure Reason lays out a nice framework re the potential for certainty with respect to non-apriori knowledge. For a different perspective, see Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.

[FredBoots]

I am certain of my existance.
I am certain that this moment is now, not a memory or a dream.
I am certain that there exists something outside of my mind.

These are things I know "without proof", where I'm assuming "proof" implies no first-hand knowledge.

I am not certain I actually existed as a child, or if I did, it was me.
I am not certain there is such thing as the past or future.
I am not certain the world outside my mind has physical properties.

[aeest400]

Nice summary of Descartes. However, re your certainties #2 and #3, Descartes is only able to derive these as "certain" by "proving" that god exists (via the ontological argument) and then "proving" that #2 and #3 are true because an inherent property of god is that he is good and a good god would not mislead us.

So, I'm down with #1 (though it has been criticized by some philosophers) but have some problems with #2 and #3. I'm certain that I am not dreaming in the same way that some insane folks are certain that they are Jesus (maybe this included Jesus) or that the CIA has planted some device in their heads.

Certainty and proof are slippery concepts. In the end, there are things of which I am certain with "proof" on one definition of "certainty" and uncertain of on another definition (e.g., any theoretical possibility of doubt removed). However, I don't think there is anything I am certain of under any definition without "proof." (Though justifying this according to a standard notion of certainty may require some redefinition of what is meant by "proof.") As Quine emphasized, the truth value of statements must be evaluated according to their place in a broader "theory" or conceptual scheme (see also Wittgenstein for skepticism re placing too much emphasis on words when conducting "philosophical" analysis). If this last statement seems like a non sequiter, read Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism."

Two Dogma's of Empiricism (http://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html)