This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
stem from knowledge of some form, this includes any premises, knowledge behind those premises, and the ultimate conclusion derived from this knowledge. Yet the study of knowledge, epistemology, is often troubled by skepticism. Skepticism itself is an attitude towards an area of philosophy that attempts to refute any faith in either side of an argument, for lack of evidence or knowledge. Skepticism with regard to knowledge basically states: I do not know how to justify, establish the right, or gather adequate evidence to determine what knowledge constitutes nor can I establish that it is impossible to have knowledge. With this stance it becomes very difficult to even define knowledge for we cannot deductively establish what knowledge consists of or even if it truly exists. A popular justification for knowledge is the account , an answer to describe a complex in terms of its elements, or being able to distinguish one thing from another based on some markers. The fatal problem of this justification is the inability to apply a clear and sufficient definition to this account , without a clear and sufficient definition it becomes useless in justifying knowledge. Also when giving an account of knowledge one cannot utilize other accounts of knowledge to defend one s account of knowledge. The result of this confusion ends in a battle of semantics, the meaning of concepts in the world that will seemingly never satisfactorily establish a proof of knowledge. When adopting a skeptical stance towards knowledge, knowledge being the basis of all arguments, we then develop skepticism towards many areas of philosophy and in particular the argument concerning the existence of a God.
This does not imply that all areas of philosophy are rendered worthless. It is through evaluation of the problems of the knowledge argument and the application of these flaws to other arguments that lessons gained from knowledge skepticism become very useful. The study of knowledge explores various ways of interpreting our ideas and beliefs. This problem relates to knowledge skepticism for the obvious reason that it is natural to refute any proposition that is assumed to be true without sufficient evidence. for skepticism can be applied to specific areas of one s beliefs. The argument for the existence of God relies on circular reasoning to begin the argument. omniscient. We refute the models of justification for knowledge because they fail to provide the necessary and sufficient evidence to establish knowledge as something definite or absolute. it is not a totally inclusive stance. and this in turn allows us to more discerningly evaluate stances towards more specific areas of philosophy such as the existence of a God. Though one could potentially state this about many realms of philosophy it is through the process of relating the problems of knowledge and the problems of the argument for or against the existence of a God that the similarities arise. The lesson we learn from knowledge skepticism directly relates to the argument concerning the existence of God because both arguments end similarly in that neither have developed any definitive answer. and omnipotent. with the assumption that an infinite being can be comprehended and that that infinite being happens to be infinitely benevolent. The mystery remains as to . Plato s Theaetetus explores several of the ideas that attempt to define and justify knowledge. Knowledge skepticism reveals problems with the theist s and atheist s arguments. The Theaetetus ultimately arrives at the conclusion that knowledge is a justified true belief with an account.
so in the end very little progress is made. it then follows that humans were the first to propose the idea of a God and the ability to harbor knowledge. These arguments rely upon semantics to define them. Ideas could not have existed before humans came into existence and became capable of intelligible ideas. There is bound to be some instances of contradiction. The theist argument presented by Aquinas was adopted by and is still considered the definitive rationale for the existence of God by the followers of the Catholic Church. Philosophers attempting to establish knowledge and those attempting to establish the existence of God run into the same problems of infinite ambiguity with both requiring leaps of faith many are not willing to accept. At that . Both attempt to define and provide rational belief for abstract ideas. such as faith. When speaking of knowledge it is necessary to define such a term if any attempts are made to prove humans are capable of true knowledge. Humans are the first and. so the ideas must have been born with the intelligent man. The arguments of God and knowledge have similar qualities in this respect. However. only rational creatures capable of reasoning and achieving high levels of learning. and why any singular definition of such a God should have any priority to existence. at the moment. it remains unknown as to what constitutes a God. when defining such a term it is nearly impossible to do so to the degree to satisfy all areas of philosophy. and phenomena which cannot be explained. yet semantics only bring about lengthy debate and refutation by many parties regarding each argument.what constitutes an account. It is not a question of which came first but more of the interpretation of both ideas and what can be derived from examining each against one another. Similarly. the existence of the unknown (where knowledge cannot exist because it is impossible to know).
Careful review was put into establishing knowledge skepticism. and these flaws are random with no systematic patterning. something ordinarily avoided in philosophical debate. the knowledge that comprises these premises must be justified and proved beyond reasonable doubt. allows one to be more skeptical towards propositions presented concerning the existence of God. This lesson learned from the argument of knowledge can be placed upon the argument of God. The idea that knowledge is not an absolute. an idea that there is an initial catalyst to change and create all that stems from that prime mover requires a great leap of faith.point in time. and coerced into believing falsehoods. for many arguments have come and gone under the discerning reasoning of philosophers. that it is possible for one to be justified in believing a false statement. Yet the idea of a prime mover. As the foundation of the argument. This is known to be true in everyday life through experience and I doubt many will refute such a statement. Humans can be confused. when religion enforced many of its tenets upon fear. . This flaw requires humans to be increasingly careful when attempting to establish watertight arguments for or against the existence of God. We often make mistakes and rarely perform perfectly during tasks requiring thought. the mid thirteenth century. for only after several ideas were proposed and then found to be false for whatever reason could such a skeptical stance be formulated. The difficulty arises since only after the fact does one realize that one s reasoning is flawed in some respect. the justifications for the premises that led to the ultimate conclusion of the existence of God were not put to question. deceived. More importantly the knowledge which constituted these premises was not put to debate.
Being content does not grant the right to be totally irrational or straightforwardly false. though there will always be outliers. and effectively as we have come to be able to do through so many trials and error. and we learn from our mistakes. Through many careful considerations. the existence of God for example. We can be wrong about many things. realizing them and correcting them. Our study of knowledge enables us to look carefully at how we interpret arguments and the way in which we absorb information and formulate beliefs. The understanding of the limitations of human knowledge forces us to cleverly analyze arguments presented to us and to not blindly accept anything as truth. A skeptical attitude allows one to look carefully at both sides of an argument and examine both the positive aspects and the flaws associated with each. but it cannot bar us or discourage us to further either argument. but it is an essential prerequisite to formulating a stance on a subject. concisely. can be strengthened. This strengthening occurs because we are aware that we cannot be all knowing or perfectly intelligent. Without the study of human knowledge it would be difficult to argue as analytically. general consensus holds that it is extremely difficult if not impossible to justify knowledge or to establish a sound argument for the existence of God. . and we are very well aware of this human flaw. It is through the realization of the limitations of human knowledge as well as the vagueness of it that another argument stemming from knowledge.When establishing views relating to the existence of God or the justification of knowledge it is exceedingly important for one to be content with their beliefs.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.