How does one come to believe something?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You are arguing from objects to subjects, and then insisting that subjects function only as objects...

Not really, just commenting on your observation.

You want object-constricted rationality to determine mental cognition...

The material world determines cognition.

A changed life from a frying pan upside the head does not argue against a changed life from an encounter with a demon, or with God... There is plenty of evidence of all three...

If only you could give some examples of this supposedly plentiful evidence...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I tell the truth that I am unfamiliar with your recent experiments
and you are rejoicing in thinking you have won the argument?

What argument? My comment was a facetious observation on the fact that - as is common in research into paranormal phenomena - the more rigorous the study, the less significant the observed effects, and that more recent studies, building on the experience of earlier studies, tend to be more rigorous, giving the impression that the cumulative result of such investigation is to destroy the phenomena being investigated, when it actually exposes the phenomena as products of cognitive errors and biases (or, occasionally, fraud). It's happened many times with many claimed phenomena; from remote viewing to homeopathy, and from telekinesis to free energy machines.

Ya gotta admit you are merely splashing toddlers in the wading pool...

Think O-C-E-A-N ...

That's how scientists see the world - the more we discover the more there is to discover.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Sorry - It was some years ago, and I did not keep track of it...

In which case it's also possible that you don't remember it quite as it was. Human memory is pretty unreliable.

 

[HitchSlap]

I dunno...

Are YOU a garden fairy???

Arsenios

Depends, can you see me now?

 

[ScottA]

And it's a perfectly fine definition....I suppose I hadn't expected your god to be so mundane. I thought you were one of those who believed in a all knowing all powerful god....not something so limited.

What are you talking about? "Timeless" is relevant to time - NOT relevant to "all knowing", "all powerful", or other anything "limited." - Pull yourself together.

 

[ScottA]

I ask again, where did i say certain facts were not facts?

Here:

That was my point. Anybody can pile on claim after claim. If the claim is not directly connected to reliable evidence, it is absolutely meaningless and they are a dime a dozen.

In other words, claims are basically opinion, until they can be backed with reliable evidence.

I have presented you with facts - you not having reliable evidence due to your own limited perspective, is on you. Facts are facts, and the evidence is sure.

 

[ScottA]

Yes prayer works when it is in accordance to the will of God. Though God will at time gives according to our will, it is the lesser will of God that is fulfilled.

Prayer is for communication not a vehicle for getting what one wants. David said I shall not want, He maketh me to lie down in green pastures and leadeth me by the still waters. Need come from our Spirit and wants from our ego. Which one do you think God answers. Needs? or Wants?
bert12

Both perhaps. But my statement was in response to the several atheist's comments that pray does not work.

 

[Freodin]

Here:
I have presented you with facts - you not having reliable evidence due to your own limited perspective, is on you. Facts are facts, and the evidence is sure.

Then you have, by definition, not presented evidence. And as long as there is no way to verify them, your "facts" are not better than claims.

 

[ScottA]

By definition, the timeless has no tale, timeline, imagination, or answers, since those are time-like.

If you can make a reasoned argument how any of that could make sense, do so; but philosophy isn't about making up or asserting any old logically incoherent or inconsistent nonsense without a reasoned argument.

The point, and it would appear that you agree, is that a tale has no timeline.

But to say that "timeless" has no tail...would eliminate instantaneous thought...which would not be a true statement. Now, granted, we would be hard pressed to prove it...but it is reasonable to state it so, as a rather common reality even among mortals.

 

[bhsmte]

Here:
I have presented you with facts - you not having reliable evidence due to your own limited perspective, is on you. Facts are facts, and the evidence is sure.

Show me where i denied any established facts.

 

[ScottA]

Then you have, by definition, not presented evidence. And as long as there is no way to verify them, your "facts" are not better than claims.

That is correct - verification is personal...which we have repeatedly said.

But "facts" do not become "not facts" because they are not verified, or verifiable.

So, then, calling them "claims" is incorrect. "Claims" assumes too much in the favor of things unverified - which assumption has no place in a reasonable conversation - in a "challenge" perhaps...but not in a discussion where the unverified "facts" are simply offered as a sharing of knowledge and experience. I gave the example earlier, of a traveler asking for directions, saying the same thing - it is not a contest...but a kindness. And so I must also say again: without an attitude adjustment here...this conversation is going nowhere, and you all are just being rude.

 

[ScottA]

Show me where i denied any established facts.

No...I am not going to tell you any more of what you said. You figure it out.

But you denying everything that "you" cannot verify, is actually what is going on here - which is not how facts are defined. The world of facts does not revolve around the knowledge of bhsmte.

 

[HitchSlap]

That is correct - verification is personal...which we have repeatedly said.

But "facts" do not become "not facts" because they are not verified, or verifiable.

So, then, calling them "claims" is incorrect. "Claims" assumes too much in the favor of things unverified - which assumption has no place in a reasonable conversation - in a "challenge" perhaps...but not in a discussion where the unverified "facts" are simply offered as a sharing of knowledge and experience. I gave the example earlier, of a traveler asking for directions, saying the same thing - it is not a contest...but a kindness. And so I must also say again: without an attitude adjustment here...this conversation is going nowhere, and you all are just being rude.

You can pick up your marbles and go home any time you please.

 

[HitchSlap]

No...I am not going to tell you any more of what you said. You figure it out.

But you denying everything that "you" cannot verify, is actually what is going on here - which is not how facts are defined. The world of facts does not revolve around the knowledge of bhsmte.

Facts are demonstrable.

 

[bhsmte]

No...I am not going to tell you any more of what you said. You figure it out.

But you denying everything that "you" cannot verify, is actually what is going on here - which is not how facts are defined. The world of facts does not revolve around the knowledge of bhsmte.

LOL

 

[Freodin]

That is correct - verification is personal...which we have repeatedly said.

Which you have repeatedly said... claimed. But that is false. The very point of verification is that it is not personal.

But "facts" do not become "not facts" because they are not verified, or verifiable.

Yes, that is correct: "facts" do not become "not facts" because of that.

But what you presented isn't "facts"... it is "claims"... and claims only become either "facts" or "non facts" when they are verified (or not).

So, then, calling them "claims" is incorrect. "Claims" assumes too much in the favor of things unverified - which assumption has no place in a reasonable conversation - in a "challenge" perhaps...but not in a discussion where the unverified "facts" are simply offered as a sharing of knowledge and experience. I gave the example earlier, of a traveler asking for directions, saying the same thing - it is not a contest...but a kindness.

No, this isn't a contest. There is nothing to win. It is a discussion in a forum for philosophical questions. And here you have to offer a little more than... claims.

And so I must also say again: without an attitude adjustment here...this conversation is going nowhere, and you all are just being rude.

Thank you! You know, the "lol" meme is so often used on the internet... but this really made me laugh out loud.

You come here and tell us that we are all criminals worthy of a death sentence and will all be killed if we don't agree with you... and you say that we are being rude?

Yes, you are correct... an attitude adjustment would be very welcome. When will you start?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

this conversation is going nowhere, and you all are just being rude.

Uh huh... it's everyone else. It couldn't be you at all...

So if you're not making any progress here... at all... why post?

 

[ScottA]

Which you have repeatedly said... claimed. But that is false. The very point of verification is that it is not personal.

Welcome to what may be the one exception - factual verification of matters pertaining to God ARE personal. That is a fact...and you are proof of it from one perspective, and I am proof from the other perspective.

Yes, that is correct: "facts" do not become "not facts" because of that.

But what you presented isn't "facts"... it is "claims"... and claims only become either "facts" or "non facts" when they are verified (or not).

Whether what I have said is a fact or a claim has not been established - the establishment of facts OR claims pertaining to God...is personal.

No, this isn't a contest. There is nothing to win. It is a discussion in a forum for philosophical questions. And here you have to offer a little more than... claims.

I am not hear to offer claims - that would not even qualify to be philosophy. No, what I am offering is a very philosophical idea - not that is simply not a fact, but because...if you were at all open to having a conversation without making demands the keep it from being a discussion, then it is an idea to you. So...all of this kindness is only because you are unaware of an actual fact.

Thank you! You know, the "lol" meme is so often used on the internet... but this really made me laugh out loud.

You come here and tell us that we are all criminals worthy of a death sentence and will all be killed if we don't agree with you... and you say that we are being rude?

Yes, you are correct... an attitude adjustment would be very welcome. When will you start?

No, again, you are under the wrong impression. What we are doing is encouraging you to take advantage of a rescue offer - not that you can escape death, because you cannot - but, so you can rise from the death that has already overcome you. And this, again, we do not do by demanding that you agree with us, but by sharing with you how we were once in you predicament and have made it out alive.

So, if you want to call what are doing is rude...then perhaps we should warn fire and rescue people about you.

 

[ScottA]

So if you're not making any progress here... at all... why post?

Yes, good point, the helicopter doesn't circle forever.

 

[HitchSlap]

Yes, good point, the helicopter doesn't circle forever.

It appears your're running on fumes and are about to go down.