00:01 The speaker explains why they are no longer an agnostic atheist. 08:22 Understanding the term 'agnostic atheist' 00:19 Belief and knowledge are not distinct. 28:27 It is not possible to know anything with 100% certainty. 42:15 Belief and knowledge cannot be independent. 49:46 Being agnostic is a valid standpoint. 1:04:02 Understanding the different doxastic attitudes towards the proposition of God's existence 1:10:46 Understanding the different doxastic attitudes towards the existence of God 1:22:56 Belief is a subset of knowledge. 1:29:44 All knowledge is belief. 1:42:19 Defining God is subjective and varies from person to person

Vimoh is calm and seems to have great conviction over what he's saying . . . Cool

Support me at: Buymeacoffee: buymeacoffee.com/scienceisdope Patreon: www.patreon.com/scienceisdope_ YT Membership: kzfaq.info/love/g--ENXdDpXh5LyLigolg2gjoin UPI: scienceisdope@icici (QR Code available on www.scienceisdope.com/support )

Pranav is utterly confused...Vimoh is confident and logical

Vimoh is definitely the rational one here while Pranav is bumbling with excitement just like that kid who found glitter in the mother's makeup kit and insisted it was stardust 😂

This is a healthy conversation that is also a mindfuck.

Just a day I randomly find my best friend, in a corner of the internet, debating people.

I am a great fan of both of your work. Instead of modelling this as a subset - superset and hence choosing a label, i would like to follow Vimoh's train of thoughts about knowledge and belief and add my perspective to it and see if it is simpler to follow. I agree with vimoh in that knowledge comes first. Like the purple-circle-thing in sky. That is knowledge. With new knowledge humans could do two things. We could label it for ease of communication. Lets say i call it PCT. So i just made up a word and added to my knowledge as a definition for my observation. The other thing we might do is correlate with other knowledge we have and come up with a story for it. That could be hypothesis or belief. This is a new story , which is not there in our knowledge repository. This is what i think vimoh meant when belief comes from knowledge. (knowledge of observations related to the story i am creating, not the knowledge of the story itself) . The story becomes knowledge only if we could validate that the smaller knowledge he has adds up to it. Or if we are able to bridge the knowledge gaps later. Untill then story is story/belief/interpretation. We could keep calling knowledge as knowledge as long as we have confidence and we could always remove that from knowledge if we come across new observations that falsifies. So like pranav has explained about theories in his videos, we could make more observations and have new belief/story and hence upgraded knowledge. Pranav is addressing only the belief to knowledge part of the process i guess. But following knowledge-belief-knowledge feels more intuitive. For knowledge could even be 'some one said x' because someone did say x. But does that add up confidence to the claim is where we all scratch our heads 😂 I also feel making 100% cut-off for knowledge is impractical, though it might have philosophical meaning.

I think that trying to give set relations (subset) to belief and knowledge is a wrong way to look at it. A belief is proposition that one thinks to be true or wants it to be true (like me sometimes believing I'm Batman) whereas knowledge is an observation (only when i observe the coin after the toss do i have the knowledge of it landing heads). But knowledge does turn into belief later. Once there is knowledge of something, it turns into a belief (a belief which is actually true). So, observation and measurement is an integral aspect of knowledge which is absent for a belief. There, neither can be called as subsets of each other. And we must try to constrain the definitions of these words to be specific here in order to keep things logical. Like we must say, a proposition turns into knowledge (through observation) which then turns into a belief. A proposition turns into a belief when one thinks it's true regardless. So, a proposition can skip the process of becoming a knowledge and become a belief. So, this is the relation between these two words in my opinion. The example that Pranav took of dropping an object to illustrate these definitions isn't valid as he is starting with an example of us having knowledge already. A better example would be of a coin toss. You can can have two starting positions in this case. You can propose that the coin has landed heads or you can hold a belief that the coin has landed heads (in this position, you have already skipped from proposition to belief without having the proposition turn to knowledge). Now lets suppose the coin lands tails. Now if your starting position was a proposition it does not turn into knowledge cause it is disproved by observing (but still can turn into a belief- you can still believe it landed heads, since you can always skip from proposition to belief). IF you had started with belief as your position, then observing tails can not change it to knowledge but again can stay a belief or not. The interesting case for when you start with a belief is when the coin lands heads. The belief turns into knowledge and remains a belief also. So, my point being a proposition can be knowledge and belief at the same time and be a belief and untrue(can never be knowledge) also at the same time. Belief is entirely predicated by someones free will. All it needs is a proposition. whereas knowledge is only possible through validation or observation of a proposition. Both of them cannot be represented as a ven diagram.

I'd say knowledge is a subset of belief, because belief to me means "I'm 90 to 99.99% sure about it", and there would be relatively less things that I'm 100% (Or tending to 100%) sure about . If we go with the idea that "If I drop my phone, than there is 0.000...01% chance, that the laws of physics that I'm so familiar with will betray my expectations", then I'd still call that knowledge, because under normal earth-surface-like conditions that I'm familiar with, my phone will fall down. The reason I don't call myself an agnostic atheist, is because judging by what I perceive to be 'mountains of evidence' in favour of the fact that the idea of magical divinities is entirely made-up, and what I perceive to be 'zero evidence' in favour of the fact that they do exist, I can reasonably conclude that I 'know' there are no such divinities, at least not ones described by imaginative humans, even if there is a 0.00...001% chance that I'm wrong. So I may be agnostic about what lies beyond the veil of perceived reality, but I'm gnostic about the fact that humans are full of it, and the scientific process is a more reliable source of knowledge (or really really strong belief).

I think the problem is with the starting point of the conversation as none of you agree on what actually knowledge and belief are. Moreover, the definitions both of you use to define your respective positions about these concepts, are a bit philosophical in nature and as philosophy never settles on one definition, you both face the problem of finding a common ground. The whole argument flows from this starting point and therefore the questions of evidence, truth, verifiability and senses, follow. As both of you started from two different philosophical perspectives, this debate was never gonna reach a conclusion for sure. But, fucking interesting discussion! Kudos to both of you for taking this up. Honestly, I don't know or care who won, it surely made me think about things, most of the people would never get into. (that too at 3 am!!) I don't know if I am ever gonna sleep peacefully after this, knowing my position could be wrong about the existence/nonexistence of God/s. 😅

Why over-complicate? its simple:- There is no creation, no supernatural power/force, no heaven-hell, no karma, no rebirth, no afterlife. We are just a product of chaos.

Pranav nailed him at one point. 'Then how can one belief be subset of knowledge?'

So Pranav, how do you think this went. For one, we never reached a place where agnosticism was discussed in detail wrt theism/ atheism. Secondly, there was a lack of agreement on basic definitions of claims, propositions, inferences, beliefs, truth, and knowledge. None of these were agreed upon and that's where I think this went awry.

Hey guys! Beautiful discussion on knowledge vs belief. Actually, even philosophically this is an unsolved problem. Would recommend Gettier problem.

Let's take meeting new people. Before you met the first person in your life, you had no belief about anyone. Then you learn some things about the first person you meet, that it is how people probably are, and the knowledge keeps updating itself as you meet more people. The fact that we cannot fully know anyone is evidence that we only believe certain things about people built upon cumulative interactions. So knowledge is a subset of belief, and that knowledge keeps updating with new experiences, but since it can never be 100%, it remains a strong belief.

So finally Vimoh got a belief which makes him believe without evidence?

The relationship between knowledge and belief can be understood in terms of a hierarchy or continuum, where knowledge represents a higher degree of certainty and justification compared to belief. Here are a few examples to illustrate this relationship: Belief based on knowledge: Beliefs often emerge from the foundation of knowledge. When we acquire reliable and justified information, we can form beliefs that align with that knowledge. For instance, if we learn through scientific research and empirical evidence that smoking causes health problems, our belief that smoking is harmful is based on the knowledge we have gained. Belief without knowledge: Beliefs can also exist in the absence of complete knowledge or evidence. People may hold beliefs that are not grounded in objective facts or verifiable evidence. For example, someone might believe in the existence of extraterrestrial life despite a lack of definitive proof or scientific consensus. Knowledge challenging beliefs: Sometimes, new knowledge or evidence can challenge existing beliefs. As we gain more information and insights, we may revise or discard certain beliefs that are no longer supported by evidence. For instance, if someone firmly believes that a particular alternative medicine treatment is effective but encounters scientific studies that prove otherwise, they may modify their belief based on the newfound knowledge. Belief guiding the pursuit of knowledge: Beliefs can influence the questions we ask and the areas we explore when seeking knowledge. For example, a scientist may hold a belief that a certain phenomenon has an underlying natural explanation, which motivates them to conduct research and acquire knowledge in that specific domain. It's important to note that beliefs can sometimes be based on unreliable or incorrect information, while knowledge strives to be more grounded in evidence and justifiable reasoning. The relationship between knowledge and belief is complex and can vary depending on the context, the level of evidence available, and the personal experiences and biases of individuals.

Pranav seems to be claiming gnosticism to me about his position as an atheist. Simplification just seems to lead to more confusion man. The point is that we can never know 100% whether there exists divinity or not. So when Pranav simplifies that he is an atheist over being an agnostic atheist, it implies that he is more gnostic about the existence of a divine being than agnostic. Both have a ratio to them, so one can be gnostic:agnostic towards the belief in the existence of divine beings like 3:1 or 1:3.

Belief in neither a subset of knowledge, nor knowledge a subset of belief. Belief is more like a relation, a fucntion from the set of knowledge to itself.

Hypothesis comes first. Untested hypothesis = Belief Tested hypothesis = Knowledge Hypothesis: Any heavy solid would drown in water. Belief: Heavy ice or dried wooden logs will drown in water. Knowledge: Heavy ice or dried wooden logs will NOT drown in water.

Pranav's stand on knowledge and belief is dangerously similar to the creation museum guy's "Observational Science" vs "Historical Science"

Pranav has a good point Vimoh.

The difference between knowledge and belief lies in the way we perceive and understand the world. Here's a brief explanation: Knowledge: Knowledge refers to information that is supported by evidence, facts, or justified reasons. It is based on objective truths and can be acquired through observation, study, experience, or logical reasoning. Knowledge is generally considered to be more reliable and verifiable than belief because it is grounded in evidence and can be shared and tested by others. Belief: Belief, on the other hand, is a subjective state of mind that involves accepting something as true or real without necessarily having evidence or proof. Beliefs can be influenced by personal experiences, cultural or societal influences, emotions, faith, or intuition. They often involve concepts that cannot be directly observed or proven. Beliefs can vary greatly among individuals and may differ from person to person even in the absence of evidence.

At 38:56, Vimoh says "Belief is a subset of knowledge" and his justification is "If I know, then I believe that the thing is true". The justification actually says that knowledge is a subset of belief which is Pranav's standpoint (which I agree with).

this is a very strange conversation. every time vimoh asks a critical question, pranav starts smiling and rephrashing things. at a practical level how different are their stances? why does it matter what they label themselves?

2:10 lol yes vimoh it's ur boss / head this side and don't u dare to take holiday tomorrow and cone on time coz there is a meeting with other team

Either you are a theist or an atheist. Agnosticism is just mild version so that the theists don't get hurt.

5:35 looks like the political compass, right down to the color coding.

Belief is a firmly held opinion that does not require any information. Knowledge is above belief , and is defined as information or awareness gained through experience or education. Knowledge requires the accumulation of data, while a belief does not require any data to support it. Therefore, belief is inferior to knowledge.

Belief is a subset of knowledge Knowledge is a subset of belief In my opinion it depends upon the situations What do you think?

Apologies if I missed, what is the definition of God in this context ?

In an inductive reasoning approach observations lead to development of theory. However, in deductive reasoning a theory is proposed, hypotheses are framed, and observations are made to confirm or refute the hypotheses. Testing hypotheses requires them to be testable and falsifiable (thanks to Karl Popper). This is used to distinguish between science and pseudo science. 'There is God' is not a testable or falsifiable hypothesis. 100% proof for or against something is not necessary for it to be accepted as scientific fact. Moreover, observations alone are not sufficient- one could always misinterpret observations to support or refute a pet hypothesis.

Knowledge is subset of belief. Bcoz we don't know at Quantum level if a person we are talking to is wave or particle.

I find it hard to believe in something that I can't prove, and that is why I am neither a believer nor an atheist. I think we understand that it is easy to lack belief in something we can't experience through our senses or our reasoning, but I find it just as illogical to disbelieve in something simply because I cannot experience it, through my senses or reasoning. I have found that most believers choose to believe in god as a basis for their moral code, or because they are afraid of what happens after death, or because they want comfort during times of distress. Likewise I have found that most disbelievers (as opposed to non-believers) commit to their disbelief as a basis for asserting their own rationality and logic, and to bolster their belief in the way they make decisions (as opposed to praying for guidance.) I am in the middle camp because, as I stated, I like to have either an experience of something, or to be able to logically see it in order to believe in it. But, without proof of something's existence, my default is to "believe" that it probably doesn't exist, just as I don't believe in trolls or the Loch Ness monster. But unless I can prove to myself that such things CAN'T exist, I will not believe that they doesn't. So while I don't believe in a god, neither do I believe that is is completely impossible for some kind of supernatural essence to exist. (Unlikely, yes -- impossible, no). And that is is how I express my position: Agnostic with a predisposition towards atheism.

What about a debate/INTELLECTUAL Dialogue with QAISER AHMED RAJA ??

Howrah Bridge is on sale, I'm selling it.

Well done pranav 👍

Sometimes even the dressing of a word salad goes wrong

I think apathism is a good position.

You should have billed it as an argument of opinion between 2 guys about what the words Agnostic and Athiest mean to you.

Please read this chat and reply. Now let's say that 100=100 being a realist. So then, 100% evidence would mean that all decimal places upto infinity will be same for both the numbers. Now this is not possible to reach infinity by counting only but still the concept of mathematics are based on this equality of two numbers which are same. So even in maths, we have axioms which are generally accepted truths,or belief upon which maths is based on. Now the point I want to make here is this that 99.999,,, =100 which is true which the concept of numbers. This means that the concept that is taken upon the fight between say atheism and theism is of many nature's. First it is a continuous exploration to reach the correct inclination like 99.999... is inclining towards 100 or we finding evidence that God exists or not. And mind me if I am wrong but the position of an atheist to claim God do not exist and that of an theist that God exists are both inclining towards their own point of view. For example say you inquired a point regarding God, it is like exploring a decimal position then say we reach 99.99. Now due to his inclination theist will be empowered to say God exist because now 99.99 is definitely closer to his inclination 100 than 99.9. And an atheist will say still not this is truly God as his inclination 100 is still not reached and so he is also empowered that God does not exist. So if pranav is saying that he is an atheist and not an agnostic atheist. He is clearly trying to state his position from a journey of 99.999... to 100 completely. The nature of this statehood ness is like this. 100=100 or my state is my inclination. But as I told earlier, it still needs a concept of infinity to exist for you to even say this and that is unreachable or sometimes referred to as incomprehensible cardinal Please watch a video of Vsauce A number larger than infinity, for my point. So lastly about God my view point is influenced by the picture life of pie in which pi says that presence of God depends on you. If his presence makes your life better than he exists and if his absence makes your life better than he is not.

So here in“Agnostic Atheist ” Agnostic is redundant? That's what pranav is trying to convey i think?

You totally confused me with the knowledge and belief claim Pranav bro. That is why I always rely on, and talk about knowledge and evidence.

Why gnostic atheist Do u ask anyone when one says there is no unicorn Do u ask them u can't say there is no unicorn BC u can't prove that there is no unicorn Its the same for the random fictional subject of all God or superbeings

I will try to simplify: Belief is subjective and probabilistic in nature. Knowledge is 100% (or 0%) belief in something. Or something you perceive as fact. It is also subjective in nature. Though it may or may not be true. So, it is also possible that you change your position on it. Fact is truth, whether you believe in it or not! It is objective in nature.

A video on jordan peterson when?

Belief cannot be a subset of knowledge. It can partly be, but not in its entirety. Most theists believe without knowledge. Knowledge isn't a prerequisite for belief. Knowledge clears all beliefs for sure. Also, the basis that just because you see 99 different things having one cause does not justify that the 100th one would have the same. It's not knowledge, it's just a so-called ‘rational’ belief. I have seen a lot of theists argue that since everything has an origin or a creator, they believe that there exists a creator that created everything.

Vimoh is wrong about belief being a subset of knowledge because: Knowledge by Pranav's definition is a subset of belief since knowledge is just belief with an extremely high level of confidence. Every single thing we believe in isn't an extremely confident belief. Whatever is knowledge, we definitely believe in, but every belief we hold isn't necessarily knowledge

Gaddari karbe 😂

I am kattar atheist😅

kya raita failaya hai dono ne milke 😂

It's the problem of an administrative man model vs an economic man model.

I love this channel no doubt and Vimoh obviously. But here about the subset thing I agree with Vimoh. I understand what Pranav is trying to say but let me put it this way. Assume I show you something that you have never seen and no knowledge of any kind. Now I don't think you can have belief in that thing which you have never seen and known. Now you have only 1 option is to know the object. By observation, asking, testing and other things. Now you know that thing and what it does, so you'll have no reason to get knowledge later on to verify that. You can simply believe it. Now on the other hand if I show you something that you already seen. Then you can believe whatever you want without knowledge but you did get that knowledge to believe it in the 1st place by observation, seeing, testing, asking, or any other methods. Another way people believe in god not because they don't have knowledge. They did have some knowledge like he's all powerful, created universe, gave life, can do magic and all things. That might be false to it is knowledge of god they perceive. Now they have vague "knowledge" what god looks like or what it can do they can believe. No one who has ever heard of god will never believe or can't because he would have no idea what god means in the 1st place. I can give more examples but the point is I agree with Vimoh and that was my point. I used to get into argument about these kinds of stuff so I kinda created this technique where I put 2 things to extreme and check. It kinda clears things a lot. So yes I agree on Belief is a subset of Knowledge not the other way around. Love from Nepal to both of you 🎉

I see sometimes experience gets included in evidence. Intresting?

When you guys say that knowledge is a subset of belief or when you make the opposite case I believe you are being intellectually lazy. Pranav on his part based his entire reasoning on Matt Dillahunty's proclamation in a certain video where he is speaking extempore. It is not a well thought out position and one I am sure he would change if given time to flesh It out. Knowledge and belief are two different categories and even though there may be tremendous overlap one must not equate one with the other. Knowledge influences belief and vice versa but don't put them in the same set people. Knowledge is a subset of everything that one can possibly know. Knowledge can be accidental without having a belief at its source. Hell it can even shatter your beliefs. Don't smugly proclaim one to be the subset of other.

Isn't believing pattern is partly a blindfaith like god. Why does research world believe in Pattern? Why do we expect things go according to pattern? Somewhere its a selection process of belief only. That's why agnostic word makes sense.

No hue and cry. Don't believe unless you have a chain of evidence.

Lol ik it ain't a study channel but since people here think critically i just wanted to get my doubt cleared from someone who knows physics a=acceleration v=velocity x=position Sir,we know a=dv/dt We can write a=dv.dx/dt.dx(multiplying and dividing by dx) We know v=dx/dt Therefore,a=vdv/dx if we put v=0 in a=vdv/dx we get a=0 as well but sir this is NOT always true,when we throw a ball upwards,at its top most point,it has velocity=0,but still acceleration on it is g(9.81 m/s^2) downwards So sir is this equation wrong????or sir can you explain why it's coming out to be 0

Are Bhai. Kehna kya chahte ho

gud convo xD

Most frustrated old man, vimoh, who read champak daily.

You should make a new religion out of this! 😂 The politicians will be confused

Scientists opinion on Hindu scriptures When I read Bhagavad-gita & reflect about how God created this universe everything seems so superfluous -Albert Einstein Bhagavad-Gita is the most beautiful Philosophical song existing in any known Tongue -Robert Oppenheimer Quantum Theory will not look ridiculous to People who read vedanta -werner Heisenberg Most of my ideas and Theorys are heavily influenced by vedanta -Erwin schrodinger I go into Upanishads to ask questions -Neli Bohr Nikola Tesla gathered concepts from swami Vivekananda and indian vedas for his world acclaimed work on free energy And also Buddha is a vishnu avatar You don't believe in God than prove that sai baba don't really exist

Expose bageshwar baba

I have a huge point - Consider this "I had godly experience in my dream and consequently saw say lord Ram in the same dream" then I woke up and because of me being Theist i considered it to be knowledge and thus i believed it and now that I left Theism that imprint of experience i still carry, my current self Know it was just my subconscious back then but the experience itself was very true What would you call this Knowledge or Belief???😅🤣 Thus the things you perceive could be and/or couldn't be knowledge and thus finally there's nothing in this world you could call knowledge, for if you're calling knowledge only what you perceive could fail the definition of knowledge itself as it can be false and your senses might be fooling you and that false perceived thing you're calling knowledge it automatically becomes belief.

I am an atheist because no can answer the answer who made the god... a video in youtube god's god is a very good explanation of my point.

this is dancing around the bush. The truth is we barely know anything about the cosmos. Given this state, atheism and theism both are extreme positions, which involve a giant leap of faith. Both are a detriment to the exploration

Both Vimoh and Pranav make a fatal mistake in the understanding of agnosticism, they're defining it as (a)gnosticism being whether someone knows about the existence of God (or not), when (a)gnosticism is mainly about whether someone believes the existence of God is KNOWABLE (or not). I feel a simple google search might've changed the conversation to a more philosophically productive one... Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong...

I have heard Pranav many times now. This video clearly exposes him. He is clearly mumbling words. He needs physical proof of everything.. he lacks capabilities to have a logical discussion on consciousness level. Honestly.. he is just a closed minded person who makes good videos to rebut some illogical fallacies. As soon as it comes to things beyond realism.. considering that not everything can be perceived by human intelligence or perception he starts to ask for physical evidence which he can see.

You should have started the conversation with a standard definition of God. Both of you are arguing from different viewpoints of the word God.

I think knowledge and belief are related and different at the same time, and one is not necessarily a subset of the other.

Vimoh is clearly better

These are unemployed people, wasting time on Debating nonsense things. Please make some educational video.🙏🙏😑🙏🙏

20 minutes down the line...I lost complete interest....I mean who cares. 😂

Mr. Vimoh is just in a denial mode. I don't know what he wants to say. He is just trying to confuse. Nonesense, believe doesn't follow from knowledge. People believing many thing which is not true but later as they find evidence they change their beliefs.

Im a 100% theist and i believe in God. Where there is creation there is definitely a creator. Im a theosophist and not a theologist.

science is dope's word per minute is very low.... please learn to talk faster

Nobody cares

Y this discussion...u hv sm beliefs..keep them..just becoz u hv a youtube channel ..u can word vomit all over d place🙄

When youre unemployed and have to talk nonsense out of your ass just to make content and money, thats how you do it folks!

lol when jorden peterson answers with " it depends on what you mean by god , what you mean by believe " y'all mock him , but then ended up doing same in this stream

Knowledge as justified true belief is very problematic definition of knowledge... 😅