Can one be absolutely certain in something that is false?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BenSinner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BenSinner

Guest
Can one believe in something with absolute certainty even though what they believe in is false?
 
I’m not sure you can believe (as opposed to know) anything with absolute certainty, but plenty of people have extremely fervent beliefs in things that are false.
 
Might be semantics, but I know many people who believe things which they consider absolute certainty but are false. I’m not sure you can know something with absolute certainty, but you can believe something that to you is “absolutely” certain. To other people, that belief is false.

I had one person tell me he is absolutely certain that God doesn’t exist. I am equally certain that God does exist. One of us is wrong.
 
No. If you have attained absolute certainty it means that to disagree would lead to absurdity. Its irrefutable and cannot possibly be false because there is no logical or metaphysically possible alternative.

For example i have absolute certain knowledge of my own existence. For it not to be true would be absurd; its not logically possible for me to doubt my own existence even if someone else did.

However, one can mistakenly think that one has attained certain knowledge when in truth they haven’t followed the rules of reason correctly. At the same time one can have irrational doubts to the extent of thinking that the logically impossible can actually occur.
 
Last edited:
StephieNorthCo said:
Might be semantics, but I know many people who believe things which they consider absolute certainty but are false. I’m not sure you can know something with absolute certainty, but you can believe something that to you is “absolutely” certain. To other people, that belief is false.

I had one person tell me he is absolutely certain that God doesn’t exist. I am equally certain that God does exist. One of us is wrong.
Click to expand...
Well no, because this depends on whether your definition of ‘God’ is the same. I assume you are saying that a particular God, for example the triune God of Christianity exists, and that your friend is saying that no God exists - Zeus, Thor, Ranginui, Tangaroa, Moloch, whoever. I assume you are asserting that all Gods but one, albeit triune, do not exist. Others, including believers in the Christian God, may believe that other Gods exist but are ‘else Gods’ but real entities, such as demons.
 
StephieNorthCo said:
I had one person tell me he is absolutely certain that God doesn’t exist. I am equally certain that God does exist. One of us is wrong.
Click to expand...
I am absolutely certain that something like God exists because i know that there is no other logically possible state of affairs that can account for existence. (I know a supreme non-physical-being with intellect exists to the extent that it would be absurd to think otherwise). All arguments that try to refute the basic metaphysical concept of theism results in the denial of the principle of non-contradiction and thus the rejection of the possibility of real knowledge and therefore the very idea of truth itself, and that is why i am a theist. But i only have faith that this is the God of Christianity. If all religions including Christianity were proven false, i would still have absolute certainty that God exists.

We can prove that something like God exists, but we cannot prove divine revelation.
 
Last edited:
lisaandlena said:
He’s absolutely certain that he can prove that something like God exists. But of course he can’t.
Click to expand...
According to someone who thinks they are the only one that exists and is in fact existence itself.

I’m sorry, but it would be a waste of time proving anything to you. You do not understand the rules of reason and neither do you respect it…
 
lisaandlena said:
Indeed, why would you waste your time in a debate that you’re destined to lose.

Then again, all that you need to do is to prove that something like God exists.

Can’t do it can you? Didn’t think so.
Click to expand...
You wouldn’t understand a proof of something if it was in front of you, because you don’t understand or respect reason. You think that you are existence and that we exist in your head. You are basically saying that you are God.

I don’t have the energy to respond to nonsense. But if you would childishly prefer to think that this is evidence of my defeat then go head, enjoy yourself; its not like there is anyone else about.
 
lisaandlena said:
There are indeed a great many people who believe in things that are false. Unfortunately, a great many theists fall into this category. It’s not that the existence of God is necessarily false, but the belief that one can prove that God exists, is absolutely false. One can provide arguments for God’s existence, and perhaps even “evidence” for God’s existence, but when it comes to proving God’s existence, that’s simply not possible. And being absolutely certain that one can prove that God exists, is being absolutely certain of something that simply isn’t true.
Click to expand...
Definition of PROOF:

“Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.”

Do you have a different definition of proof?
 
lisaandlena said:
Now…since it’s impossible to establish the existence of God,
Click to expand...
According to what? Because i certainly don’t respect your authority on the matter.

Proving something to other people requires that people respect the underlying logical principles that allow the proof to be possible. But that does not mean that the proof is not true insofar as the underlying logical principles are concerned. Disagreement on that matter is not evidence against the proof being actually correct.

For example a thing cannot not exist and exist at the same time because that would conflict with the principle of non-contradiction, thus we can certainly know (in so far as knowledge itself is a logically consistent concept) that there will never be a being in existence that doesn’t exist.

Now you can disagree with that if you want, but it would not be a rational disagreement, because the only way to counter the truth of it is to deny the principle of non-contradiction. But if you do that you are also denying the possibility of reason entirely and therefore the very concept of knowledge and truth. Clearly you cannot rationally refute a claim while denying the very principles that would allow you to do so. In other-words you are pandering to absolute irrationality in order to avoid acknowledging the necessary conclusion of the argument.

Proofs for God’s existence like Aquinas’ uncaused first-cause argument rely on the fact that denying them would result in the rejection of reason; in other-words the principles on which the argument is built and thus leading to absolute absurdity. That’s why they are reliable arguments and provides certain knowledge.
 
Last edited:
I loathe bananas, to quote from Planet of The Apes. Bananas and these silly semantic arguments that circle the runway, endlessly. They must be motivated by politicians. Who else could generate enough hot air to keep The Great and Powerful Wizard of Oz aloft that long?

Death is the final arbiter unless one is alive at The Second Coming of Christ. At your personal judgement the truth that God exists will be known with absolute certainty. Don’t wait that long to accept this truth is my personal opinion and free advice. Take it as you like.

No need to hurry the discovery of this absolute knowing of this truth along, either. Keep filling your newly built barn, eat, drink and be merry. Sound at all familiar?
 
lisaandlena said:
Prove to me that you exist somewhere other than in my own mind. That should be fairly simple…right. So go ahead, prove that you exist.
Click to expand...
I can’t prove that a particular person called lisa exists. But the information i am receiving from you is not directly caused by the will of my intellect and therefore that information exists outside of my causal influence and has a teleological nature to it. So some kind of intelligent cause other than my self clearly exists even though i do not know the particular or qualitative nature of that cause. It is evident however that i have not caused it, if by that one means it is the product of my will.
lisaandlena said:
Now the same holds true for God.
Click to expand...
Metaphysics deals with being in general, not beings in particular. Even if i cannot prove that the particular objects of my senses exist objectively, i can still know that in general there is such a thing as change, and being, and the fact that my mind has not always been actual. I know my mind is finite at least in so far that i am growing in knowledge, moving from potentiality to act. Thus i can understand based on the principle of non-contradiction that my mind is not a necessary infinite act of reality. Therefore my existence requires a cause. I cannot possibly be the only being in existence for that reason. Therefore the ontological problem that Aquinas solves with his intelligent uncaused first cause still applies to me even if i cannot prove that the particular objects of my senses exist objectively.
 
Last edited:
I believe with absolute certainty that streams can flow uphill.
Does that qualify?

I believe with absolute certainty that an immovable object cannot be moved.
Yet at the same time I am also certain of the axiom of Archimedes, “give me a fulcrum and I will move the world (i.e. anything).”

Then there is alien abductions and the flat earthers.
 
Last edited:
lisaandlena said:
but when it comes to proving God’s existence, that’s simply not possible.
Click to expand...
That’s interesting. Because atheists are demanding proof. Why would they demand an impossibility according to you? Would the opposite also be an impossibility as well i.e. God doesn’t exist? Could they prove that? I think not also.

On the other hand let us say God or one of his messengers were to appear in front of you, optically or via visions or dreams, would you consider that an “impossible” evidence? What would constitute proof? Or appear to you only but not others in the room. Only you get the message.

You see over the centuries many people have seen those sightings known as Marian Apparitions. Why would a personal sighting/experience not be an absolutely certain? I can certainly understand why some people that had an encounter with Padre Pio (now Saint) in his confessional booth, who knows your innermost secret sins or sins that you have forgotten, is absolutely certain about God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top