How do we decide about "things"?

I don't say "nobody knows anything" I say that what we know (according to whatever manner we know it) comments on the absolute, total reality only by a convention. There is no hard connection - only the assumption that the connection is hard.Neither do I comment on fruitfulness or otherwise. Fruitfulness too is in the eye of the beholder. How would you know this? By own admission you have no knowledge in this area so do not know of the problems solved by it. Now that is an argument from ignorance.Many, many people fear death. The basis for fearing it seems to lie in the fact that entering death is entering the unknown. Imagining a God exists might help allay that fear but it does so in a false manner - for the person knows they have no certain evidence that God exists. Knowing God exists means there is no need to fear death at all (assuming one knows where one is going to end up)You might say that delusion is as useful. It would be - it could totally allay fear of death. It is as useful as is the delusion that there is a computer screen on front of you now if that is a delusion. You cannot know it is not. How would you if you were deluded? Here you suppose one convention to be superior to the other. It predicts therefore it is better. This is a totally arbitary decision. I know God exists (via evidence sufficient to make that knowing) but that doesn't mean he does in fact. I know my computer screen exists (by evidence sufficient to make that knowing) but I don't know whether it does in fact. Both pieces of knowledge are extremely useful in the areas where they operate (whether or not both exist in a Matrix). Not all of us consider the empirical world to be the most interesting however. You do. I don't. Whose to say one is better than the other except one with access to both (and even that remains a subjective opinion)

Right. Nobody knows anything, in other words. I'm sorry? I think you're misrepresenting me here. I've made no such admission. What, you're under the impression that I've never been a Christian or some such? I have exactly as much experience with personal revelation as anybody else. The sociological evidence is that it is not. Extremely religious societies are more violent and poorer than societies that are less religious. It's not arbitrary; it's practical. People don't want to suffer, they don't want to starve, they want to know things and keep in touch over geographical distance. They want to travel. They don't want to die of disease.Empiricism delivers those things. Revelation never has. There's far, far more evidence for your computer screen than for your god, so your attempt to equate your belief with your knowledge is fallacious. You don't have sufficient evidence; that's what we've been saying. You're just arguing circularly here, and then spinning off into an argument of "I know this; you know that; nobody knows anything for sure so I can believe whatever I want."That's nonsensical. Lack of knowledge is not a basis to leap to whatever conclusions you prefer. Ignorance cannot substantiate a position.

They know lots - inside whatever convention they assume. I suppose you are going to say you knew something then but know something different now. This I suggest is not knowledge but belief. If you know there is a computer screen on front of you now then you will know that same thing forever. You will never unknow it.We should divorce tentitive knowledge from knowledge unchanging by the way. For example: my first motorcycle was a Suzuki X5. I will always know this (as long as I am in possession of my faculties). I will never unknow it. You missed the point. It is arbitary to suppose that its practicality in dealing with certain categories of need renders it best. It stands to one side when faced with dealing with a persons fear of death (other than perhaps to mask it by doping them up to the gills as they lie on their death beds) How much evidence does one need of Gods existance? He hasn't gone away from the moment I first knew he existed. He's around alot more than this screen is.Could you please not mention empirical-uber-alles again. Unless that is, you can do something other than point to some totally subjective sense of its "usefulness". Its great I agree. But not best in my own opinion and in the opinion of many others.

The convention is the question. Which convention produces knowledge that can be distinguished from imagination? Not revelation. Until I get up and go somewhere else. Then I know something else. It's called "forgetting." Presumably you've forgotten things before. Maybe you're mistaken about your first motorcycle, by the way. I'd suggest tenativity instead of certainty. You're less likely to be wrong that way. Some. Any. More than zero, but zero is all there is. Where? I don't see anything. What's better? I seem to recall asking this before.

Here's something I know, I am made up of many cells. How do I know this? I can take a sample of any organ in my body and look at it under a microscope. So how do I know the microscopes or my sense organs arent somehow fooling me? Well there is the fact that I can take advantage of this knowledge! Cancer treatments work based on our knowledge of how cells divide. I can prove that i am the offspring of my parents using the genetic information in the nuclei of every cell. If these things didn't work it would be a massive blow to the idea that we are made up of cells. That is knowledge and not belief.

I think the majority of conclusions are borne out of experiences. After a certain amount of experience is developed, we may get better at predicting certain behaviors. From those predictions, we may be more or less inclined to believe something is going to happen. For instance, without falling and getting hurt or watching others fall and get hurt, as children we would not have fully comprehended the laws of gravity. Through that experience, we may get better at predicting how something will fall.Without that experience, you'd have no way of knowing whether it was plausible or implausible for someone to survive a thousand foot fall. Without some measure of experience we wouldn't know up from down.

---

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2^nd Corinthians 10:4-5

Ok, let me settle this argument once and for all.Its called certainty. What percentage of certainty do you entertain the idea of God, or the idea that your computer screen is there.
I am highly certain of the computer screen. I am confident in American scientists evaluating experiments. I am certain there is a God with 0.000000000001 % accuracy.Any questions?

nemesis: -- Without some measure of experience we wouldn't know up from down.What measure of experience is needed exactly is what determines with what certainty you can apply knowledge.