what do you 'just know'...with the absence of both faith and proof?

Question

what makes you know then?...by pure definition this doesnt seem possible...is this therefore an impossible question???...just laying down the gauntlet to those who enjoy philosophy...;0)

gar_skyne...are you not the proof of your statement???...

maybe_im_...i dont need to reword at all...thats rather the point of my question...asking something that in effect could possibly have no real answer...but this is philosophy...im testing the boundaries...philosophy isnt just about pontificating over answerable questions...its about being able to validate whatever you want to however bizarre the concept may be...or not....i know there is no 'real' answer...maybe im seeing if i can get some philosophical answers..........;0)

chartes5...i understand what you are saying but heres the thing...you can only 'know' these things to be true if you know that our...or your perception of reality is true...you only feel these things in your perceived state of reality...what if the reality is false???...just a thought...;0)

Answer 1

That i exist, That i can learn, That i can love. No of these need proof.

Answer 2

I 'just know' that I am alive.

Proving something is not a requirement in knowledge. The only time proof even comes into play is when someone asks for proof or a person feels obligated to provide proof to themselves (reassurance) that they are doing the right thing, thinking the right thing, et cetera.

You are giving false opposites. You are offering a situation in which you place faith and proof in opposite spectrums. They are not opposites; they nearly have nothing to with each other.

I understand asking "what do you just know with the absense of faith", but you are forgetting that knowing something doesn't mean you HAVE to have proof of it.

I just think this is a fairly... how can I say this without being mean?... I guess, just not a very good question. You have the right idea behind it, so maybe it's just the wording that's screwy.

Either way, rethink the question, and ask again another day.

Answer 3

that's an noticeably exciting question. How precisely might want to we outline atheism, faith and believe? those are all nicely worth a lot idea and are a procedures too complicated to get into right here right. If atheism is a lack of religion in god then does that propose a lack of be counted on god or the perception that no god exists? might want to atheism also be seen because the absence of a perception device truly than the presence of a distinct perception device? and how can someone be genuinely particular that there's no god at the same time as there's no complete information to decline god exists - if so does atheism not require faith? arguable and in-intensity questions i recognize! i might want to bypass on for a lengthy time period in this yet i will leave it at that. solid question!

Answer 4

I think knowledge - in the true sense, i.e. 'knowing' something - can only come from having or seeing proof.
For example, I know that breathing and eating keeps me alive as I see the proof in the fact that I have a body and am here.
I also know that loves exists as I have the proof in those I love and the feelings that I have when I think of them.
In fact everything I 'know' comes from seeing or experiencing it.
Faith is about believing something to be true without actually knowing it to be so. For example; life after death. We can believe it to be so but have no proof it is so, therefore it is wishful thinking rather than knowledge.
Gut feeling about the truth of something isn't knowledge - it's belief. We can want to believe but can't know without the proof.
Faith doesn't give us knowledge either. We have faith in something because we need the comfort of hoping that what we have faith is in true.
Until we die, for example, we wont actually know wether there is life after death, but it may be comforting to us to believe that we do go on somewhere and continue in some form. It helps to make sense of this life but it isn't knowledge.
Interesting question - got the old grey cells churning.
Hope this helped.

Answer 5

I wish to understand what you really ask, but talking about faith and proof theres an explanation to that. i like the way you ask because you are asking a true philosophical question. As a philosophy student, philosophy is not bounded only with material things but also immaterial things and that is the concern of metaphysics.

The absence of faith is just a simple question, and the simple answer would be absence of faith is not believing in the ultimate being, the superior being which many scholastic philosopher and I as a Christian believe to be God.

It is really hard to explain the proof of the existence of this immaterial being, Hugh of St.Victor have that it is only through faith to attain this state of believing. But as you have ask what if theres no faith? Yes your question is thesame with question of the modern philosophers who deny the existence of this ultimate being,

But if I to reflect on this, I could say that the existence of this being can be attainable even a man lacks his faith on it. One man philosopher who rejects the existence of God is David Hume. He does not beilieve in it because his arguments was if we believe that he is omnipotent and omniscient, then why did he allow those evil those exist in the world and inflicts pain on the society. These pain includes the pain in sickness, oppression from other people and so many other evil manifestations.

On this arguments, David Hume look the two different natures in the same way. These are the nature of God and the empirical nature. In his article entitled concerning the natural religion, he explains or introduces his own ideal way to alleviate this evil in nature without the interference of the Highest Being,

He formulates laws which every person in the society must follow. thus in his statement, he is begging the obedience of every people in the society. therefore the problem that he stated is the problem of morality. Morality in a sense that it requires people to do good to avoid evil.

The question now is how are we to do good? thus to do good requires a person a concepts of love. What is love? is it existential? does we may never see it but we feel it and it is very neccessary to be the basis of all laws to maintain peace. thus love is a metaphysical concept like the essence of God which metaphysical also.

now I would like to ask you, do you believe in love?
then try to reflect you answer to the question you raised.

thanks!

Answer 6

With the absence of proof and faith then there is a system of Naturalist Ethics which we are all supposed to have by virtue of being born. We are Human therefore we have a system of right and wrong knowledge borne down to us by the aeons of Human history. It is almost as if there is something that comes to us through our D.N.A. Therefore it may be a sort of suppressed memory that we are remembering that allows this sense of 'just knowing.' I hope this is useful enough. If you need further information refer to Plato's "Cave" theory. He talks about these inherent memories in a far more poetic and lucid manner than I could ever.

Answer 7

You know whatever you are and nothing more, just whatever experience is. However, experience is always changing and therefore the definition of knowing as is implied in your question (as something static, a principle or rule that you can come back to and rely on) will not suffice, for what you 'know' will always be changing and so your knowledge will be non-sytematic, in flux, and beyond the ability of static words to capture. In other words, you'll be living in the moment, without memory or ideology, a good thing some might say, though perhaps they underestimate the terror that such a state of mind may bring... Still, you will be totally free.

Answer 8

Faith is to believe in something with the absense of proof. Need for proof is to believe in something due to a lack of faith. This is an impossible question. Everything known is known based either on proof or faith. I look at the cup in front of me, and I know it is there because the object alone is proof of it's existance. I can't see my house, but I know it's still there because there is... Hmmm... I just know my house is there. It has never been proven that a house can move. I don't have proof that it is still there, but I don't need faith for it's existance... I know it's there.

Or do I know it's there... What if something happened? I guess I just don't know anything. :'(

Answer 9

I believe most things without proof, because in reality it is extremely difficult to PROVE anything. However I believe many things based on a preponderance of the evidence, but that is not faith.

Answer 10

I've read through the others answers to your fascinating question, and it's a big question too. it deserves a lot more thought than many I've read lately.
i can't give a different answer, nor add anything to the answers that have already been given.
maybe that's an answer in itself. maybe i just know myself.
knowing yourself requires no faith and no proof, ye know!

Answer 11

No one knows anything without faith or proof. I am very sceptical of proof- people shift the boundaries- they accept without question the idea that we evolved from an explosion via non living particles, living particles, fish, reptiles, mammals and monkeys but deny the existance of the God who made this universe.

If I wanted to I could quite legitimately say that there's no proof I'm going to die because it has never happened to me. But it has happened to everyone else that lived before me so I have faith that I will die.

I have faith that my desires for food, drink and sex will be satisfied. I have faith that my desire for spiritual fulfilment has been met in Christ, who loved me and died for me, and lives to intercede for me and bring me to be with him in glory.