How does one come to believe something?

[Arsenios]

The mind, I assure you, is the firing of the synapses in some very complex chemical brain reaction.

And you call ME vague??

Well alrightythen!!!



Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

If we accept this very very simplified version... so what?

It is what we can work with. It is something that we can try to understand.

Is there a rational alternative? Is there even a "spiritual" alternative?

All that you can offer is a tautology: the mind is something that the mind is.

You can go and assert "It is more than these..." but there is no way of identifying this "more". It is so elusive that you could almost come to the conclusion... that it doesn't exist.

The proof is the consequence of calling mind "suds" if it is not true...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

So changes in people's lives is evidence that Vishnu exists as a god and not a demon. Odd coming from a Christian, but ok.

Christianity understands ALL gods other than the Christian God as demons...

Re-read the post to which you responded...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Now now, just because you don't understand something doesn't mean you need to get violent with it.

Thank-you...
SOB!
I am just so underwhelmed sometimes!!


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

But we're talking about the Christian god being seen as a demon in their faith. Which is consistent with you claiming that Vishnu is a demon in your faith. Unless you're claiming that evidence that supports your case doesn't also support any other religion's case.

Demonic encounters can also be life-changing...

So can a frying pan upside the head...

eg Brain damage, for those of you from Rio Linda...



Arsenios

PS - And no, as an anthropologist, from the outside, you cannot tell which witch is which - Your socio-scientific test tubes are of no avail here...

Jes' SAYin'...!

 

[Arsenios]

But of course. Consider what it would mean if intercessory prayer was effective, the implications for free will...

Augmental...

A.

 

[HitchSlap]

I guess we can agree to disagree at this point.

Claims can contain facts and information and they do exist in reality for all to see, so I'm really not sure why they can't be considered as evidence, but oh well, we don't need to continue debating about it.

God bless

Hey Chrili, do you ever stop and wonder why everyone one but you has a problem with your definition of evidence? Lol.

Btw, have you determined if I have $10 in my front pocket, or not?

 

[HitchSlap]

Demonic encounters can also be life-changing...

So can a frying pan upside the head...

eg Brain damage, for those of you from Rio Linda...



Arsenios

PS - And no, as an anthropologist, from the outside, you cannot tell which witch is which - Your socio-scientific test tubes are of no avail here...

Jes' SAYin'...!

There are no such things as demons, jins, goblins, ghouls or trolls.

 

[Freodin]

I never was much on calling suds truth...

Why did you do so?

Arsenios

Well, you are, of course, right in this regard. Suds is a lye.

The proof is the consequence of calling mind "suds" if it is not true...

Arsenios

Proofs that are conditional on something used as part of the proof being not true are not true.

 

[bhsmte]

Demonic encounters can also be life-changing...

So can a frying pan upside the head...

eg Brain damage, for those of you from Rio Linda...



Arsenios

PS - And no, as an anthropologist, from the outside, you cannot tell which witch is which - Your socio-scientific test tubes are of no avail here...

Jes' SAYin'...!

Can you give an example of a "demonic encounter"?

And, how does one test, to assure it is a "demonic encounter"?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... You don't call the historical Jesus your Lord. It's the Jesus of faith who's my Lord and who is God himself.

OK; so, if I read that right, you do believe in God and Jesus-as-God, despite also agreeing that, "the supernatural is something really fanciful and my brain is unable to accept it". There seems to be a contradiction or a cognitive dissonance there.

 

[Chriliman]

Hey Chrili, do you ever stop and wonder why everyone one but you has a problem with your definition of evidence? Lol.

Btw, have you determined if I have $10 in my front pocket, or not?

Hey Hitchslap, my definition proposes that since it's a fact that you've made that claim, your claim is evidence. It does not propose that since it's a fact that you made that claim, your claim is true. There is a big difference

To make it more clear, consider the difference between following claims:

Claim 1) "His claim is true, since it's a fact that he made a claim"

Claim 2) "His claim is evidence, since it's a fact that he made a claim"

Can you see and understand the difference? I'm claiming #2, not #1.

Hope that helps

 

[bhsmte]

Hey Hitchslap, my definition proposes that since it's a fact that you've made that claim, your claim is evidence. It does not propose that since it's a fact that you made that claim, your claim is true. There is a big difference

To make it more clear, consider the difference between following claims:

Claim 1) "His claim is true, since it's a fact that he made a claim"

Claim 2) "His claim is evidence, since it's a fact that he made a claim"

Can you see and understand the difference? I'm claiming #2, not #1.

Hope that helps

Let me ask you this:

When the prosecution makes an opening statement, claiming the defendant is guilty of the crime, does the court consider this evidence the defendant has committed the crime? Or, does the prosecution actually have to produce evidence, independent of the opening statement, to support their claim?

 

[ScottA]

If it is 'finished' in the 4D Parmenidean block universe you suggest, then there would seem to be a problem for free will in that our choices would all be effectively pre-determined (similar to the problem of foreknowledge).

If, on the other hand, you maintain that it is our experience of the timeline that counts, if God interferes in the world to answer prayers, there is a different problem with free will, in as much as changing human behaviour in response to prayer will directly interfere with free will, and changing natural events to advantage will indirectly affect the free will of humans, by changing their available choices, or the consequences of their choices.

Overarching these issues is the problem of how a God 'outside time' (i.e. eternal rather than everlasting) can interact with the world in a time-like manner, such as described in the bible, or when answering prayers. The acts of God in the bible suggest he is everlasting (timelike) rather than eternal.

The matter of time, free will, and prayer, is better understood in a "story" analogy. If, then, in the story someone prays and it comes true...it is because that is the way it is written. And if someone in the story decides to change their mind from not believing there is a God, to believing there is...that is his story, and just how it is written (already - even if he is last to know). In that analogy, we are indeed last to know...just as we would not know the end of a story that we are now reading, that was written long ago.

As for "forever", "everlasting", or "eternal", those are simply terms of language that best define "once upon a time" within the different context possibilities.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...I am saying that his parents claims about their beliefs are evidence.

Evidence only of their claims about their beliefs. Tautological and meaningless, despite at least two threads where this has been pointed out repeatedly...

If both you and StTruth accept what I'm saying then my claims can be considered as new evidence that caused you to believe what I'm saying.

Not only does that not answer his question, but I neither accept nor believe what you're saying.

 

[bhsmte]

The matter of time, free will, and prayer, is better understood in a "story" analogy. If, then, in the story someone prays and it comes true...it is because that is the way it is written. And if someone in the story decides to change their mind from not believing there is a God, to believing there is...that is his story, and just how it is written (already - even if he is last to know). In that analogy, we are indeed last to know...just as we would not know the end of a story that we are now reading, that was written long ago.

As for "forever", "everlasting", or "eternal", those are simply terms of language that best define "once upon a time" within the different context possibilities.

Stories are not reality.

 

[quatona]

Hey Hitchslap, my definition proposes that since it's a fact that you've made that claim, your claim is evidence. It does not propose that since it's a fact that you made that claim, your claim is true. There is a big difference

To make it more clear, consider the difference between following claims:

Claim 1) "His claim is true, since it's a fact that he made a claim"

Claim 2) "His claim is evidence, since it's a fact that he made a claim"

"Evidence" for what?

 

[Chriliman]

It's very simple. In a debate, you cannot make up your own definitions for English words as you please. What you are doing
is to make up your own definition of the word 'evidence' that flies in the face of the definition of any respectable English dictionary as I have demonstrated with the Oxford English Dictionary. Your purpose? So that you can conclude quite incorrectly that Christianity is not devoid of any evidence. Please consider this honestly and ask yourself if this is fair.

May our Lord bless you too.

Do you consider people to be evidence?

People are a critical part of Christianity. Just a thought

 

[bhsmte]

Do you consider people to be evidence?

People are a critical part of Christianity. Just a thought

Evidence of what?

 

[ScottA]

Stories are not reality.

That is right - as I have been telling you.