How does one come to believe something?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

Gibberish - A tale is an imaginative narrative or story, an account of related events, so has a timeline by definition.

But to say that "timeless" has no tail..

Who said that?

...would eliminate instantaneous thought..

No such thing.

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.

It's logically impossible.

 

[ScottA]

Gibberish - A tale is an imaginative narrative or story, an account of related events, so has a timeline by definition.

Who said that?

No such thing.

It's logically impossible.

Okay...so we are not communicating.

How about this: If you had something like a near death experience and instantaneously your entire life flashed before your eyes... Would that flash 1) have "time" or be "timeless" (being instantaneous)?, and 2) would it have a timeline (like a tale)?

 

[Freodin]

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.

That is not a fact, it is just another claim. And you will now say that this is "a matter pertaining to God"... and thus another "exception". And to show that, you will need another exception, and another... special pleading is never a good way to talk about truth.

I can understand why you follow this way... but consider: you promote a concept of God that is very much grounded in, as Arsenious would call it, "carnal" concepts. Authority, obedience, disobedience, rebellion, punishment, pardon, life, death... all things that we can and do understand, and can and do discuss. You need to work within these concepts... you need God to work within these concepts, because else you would have nothing to tell us.

But when it comes to truth, to facts, to verification... then suddenly it is a big exception. Nothing here works as it usually works.
I said it before, and I say it again: I think that reeks of desperation. Of human fallibility. A deity worthy of anything could do better.

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 is nonsense. What you said is a claim. That is quite easy. The basic definition of "claim": to say that something is in a certain way.
There is nothing wrong with claims. There is also nothing exceptional about claims. Not even those pertaining to God.

Everone can make claims. Everyone does make claims. Many people make claims regarding God.

See, here I am, making a claim "pertaining to God": "God", as you describe him, as Christianity describes him, does not exist.

This is a claim. Nothing else.

And now I claim that I do have personal verification of this claim. Which makes it a fact, according to you.

So now we have two conflicting "facts". How is that possible?

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.

See, I would even agree with you here. It might be that I am unaware of an actual fact. This isn't something extraordinary, something exceptional.
But in order to make me aware of an actual fact... you need to demonstrate it. Not just claim it.

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.

But you are not sharing it. You cannot share it. You do not have anything to share.

Whatever you have been through... you "made it out alive". We can agree on that... we both are here and talk to each other. Hey, look... we both are here and talk to each other. That, in some circles at least, would mean that I have to be alive.
And at someday, we both will die. At that point, we can no longer communicate... dead men don't talk, as Django said.

So there is no discernable difference between one who has "died and made it out alive", and one who hasn't. There is nothing that you can share.

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

You know what? When my mother fell down the stairs and hit her head, and I found her bleeding like hell, and she insisted that it was nothing, she was fine, no really, just a little blood... and when I drove her to emergency through the ice and snow and she passed out in my car... the "rescue" people didn't shake her and tried to have her admit that she was hurt and that it was her fault. They didn't make her ask the medics for forgiveness for her injury. They didn't argue that she had "to take advantage of a rescue offer". THEY JUST HELPED HER!

So much for fire and rescue people. If your God cannot do that... something that every living, breathing, feeling human being can do... then... yes, you are rude. An understatement, if there ever was any.

 

[HitchSlap]

Okay...so we are not communicating.

Ding, ding, ding..

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Okay...so we are not communicating.

How about this: If you had something like a near death experience and instantaneously your entire life flashed before your eyes... Would that flash 1) have "time" or be "timeless" (being instantaneous)?, and 2) would it have a timeline (like a tale)?

Again, it's impossible. Not even hyperthymestics can recall every detail of their entire life, and whatever events you can recall of your life can't happen instantaneously; recall, visualization, recognition (& appreciation) are all processes that take time for each recalled event; the more you can recall, the longer it will take. Language of that kind can only be a loose metaphorical description of the sensation in retrospect.

If you want to communicate, try using logically possible, coherent, and rational arguments and examples.

 

[ScottA]

No. This is nonsense. What you said is a claim. That is quite easy. The basic definition of "claim": to say that something is in a certain way.

This is as far as I am going to go with this - all I need to comment on.

You cannot say that an unestablished fact is only a claim, and have that fact be any less of a fact. You cannot.

If we are to continue - that is a rule you will have to abide by. I insist.

Which, if you will be honest leaves you to admit that "you" simply do not know it to be true. Then, and only then can we get to the crux of the problem. That is the only path that will allow us to proceed.

 

[ScottA]

Again, it's impossible. Not even hyperthymestics can recall every detail of their entire life, and whatever events you can recall of your life can't happen instantaneously; recall, visualization, recognition (& appreciation) are all processes that take time for each recalled event; the more you can recall, the longer it will take. Language of that kind can only be a loose metaphorical description of the sensation in retrospect.

If you want to communicate, try using logically possible, coherent, and rational arguments and examples.

Language is a limit...but mostly it's you.

For instance: Have you never heard of a person seeing someone and instantly knowing they were the one (for them)? That example is both logical and common...but if you do not have the mind to follow along - we can be done right now.

I have been more than reasonable with you, and more generous than I should be - if you want to change your attitude and continue - you can ask (nicely).

 

[Ana the Ist]

Okay...so we are not communicating.

How about this: If you had something like a near death experience and instantaneously your entire life flashed before your eyes... Would that flash 1) have "time" or be "timeless" (being instantaneous)?, and 2) would it have a timeline (like a tale)?

It's not "instantaneous"...and the psychological explanation I've heard for it is that it's basically your subconscious coming to the "foreground" of your mind to search for a solution to the danger you're facing.

 

[Ana the Ist]

This is as far as I am going to go with this - all I need to comment on.

You cannot say that an unestablished fact is only a claim, and have that fact be any less of a fact. You cannot.

If we are to continue - that is a rule you will have to abide by. I insist.

That's a rather ridiculous rule. If a fact hasn't been established as a fact...then how can you know it's a fact lol?

What's the difference between an "unestablished fact" and a mere claim about reality?

 

[Ana the Ist]

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

Yeah, it is relevant to many to all of those things in several ways...I even gave you an example of one of those ways.

How can a "god" know the future if it hasn't happened yet?

 

[ScottA]

It's not "instantaneous"...and the psychological explanation I've heard for it is that it's basically your subconscious coming to the "foreground" of your mind to search for a solution to the danger you're facing.

You have completely missed the point.

 

[ScottA]

That's a rather ridiculous rule. If a fact hasn't been established as a fact...then how can you know it's a fact lol?

What's the difference between an "unestablished fact" and a mere claim about reality?

Warmer...warmer...

A fact is established. If it is not established for you, it is still a fact.

The difference between an unestablished fact and a mere claim about reality - is nothing. But an unestablished fact to some that is indeed established to others, is simply a fact not everyone has come to know, and is not a claim at all, but a statement of fact.

 

[ScottA]

How can a "god" know the future if it hasn't happened yet?

Oh, but it has happened - "It is finished."

 

[Freodin]

This is as far as I am going to go with this - all I need to comment on.

You cannot say that an unestablished fact is only a claim, and have that fact be any less of a fact. You cannot.

If we are to continue - that is a rule you will have to abide by. I insist.

Which, if you will be honest leaves you to admit that "you" simply do not know it to be true. Then, and only then can we get to the crux of the problem. That is the only path that will allow us to proceed.

Equal rights for everyone.

OK. I will abide by this "rule"... if you do also.

So neither of us can say that an unestablished fact is "only a claim", and have that "unestablished" fact be any less of a fact. I cannot... and you cannot.

I will admit that "I" do not know it to be true. And you will do the same for every "unestablished" fact that I present.

Warmer...warmer...

A fact is established. If it is not established for you, it is still a fact.

The difference between an unestablished fact and a mere claim about reality - is nothing.

So... there is no difference between an unestablished fact and a "mere claim"... but we are not allowed to call it the second? Well, ok, if you insist.

But an unestablished fact to some that is indeed established to others, is simply a fact not everyone has come to know, and is not a claim at all, but a statement of fact.

So there are "facts" that are not established to "some", but are to "others"... ok, I can live with that as a basis for the discussion.


OK, we have agreed on "the rules". This is the basis for our continued discussion, this is what you demanded to be that basis. So let's talk "facts".

"The God that you describe, the very specific version of the Christian God that you describe, every version of the Christian God... does not exist.
This has been established to me, even if it has not been established to you."

Fact or "mere claim"?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Language is a limit...but mostly it's you.

It's always someone else's fault.

For instance: Have you never heard of a person seeing someone and instantly knowing they were the one (for them)? That example is both logical and common...but if you do not have the mind to follow along - we can be done right now.

As I said, seeing and knowing take time. Claims like 'instantly' in such contexts are metaphorical descriptions.

I have been more than reasonable with you, and more generous than I should be - if you want to change your attitude and continue - you can ask (nicely).

This is familiar (#1551) - when your assertions fail to impress, make a grandiose and haughty ad-hominem. I wish you success in overcoming this problem.

My attitude in this forum is to encourage and support logical, rational argument, i.e. philosophical argument. I see no reason to change that, and I don't need your permission to continue.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You have completely missed the point.

I'll admit that I never saw one...so if there was one to begin with, I surely missed it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Warmer...warmer...

A fact is established. If it is not established for you, it is still a fact.

Sure...as long as you realize that claiming a fact and establishing it aren't the same.

The difference between an unestablished fact and a mere claim about reality - is nothing. But an unestablished fact to some that is indeed established to others, is simply a fact not everyone has come to know, and is not a claim at all, but a statement of fact.

Ok...it's a statement of fact that no evidence of god exists.

Therefore, it's a fact that no rational belief in a god exists.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Oh, but it has happened - "It is finished."

Well now you're claiming the absurd...you're saying that the "future" has already happened. I can only assume that you don't understand the word "future" or you don't understand how time works

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

A fact is established. If it is not established for you, it is still a fact.

The difference between an unestablished fact and a mere claim about reality - is nothing. But an unestablished fact to some that is indeed established to others, is simply a fact not everyone has come to know, and is not a claim at all, but a statement of fact.

This is somewhat confused... It's worth distinguishing between facts (correspondences with states of affairs in the world) and claims of fact (assertions about states of affairs in the world). Facts are true, claims of fact can be false.

An unestablished fact is not known to be true, so epistemically, an unestablished fact would seem to be a claim of fact, which could be false, i.e. not a fact.

You could maintain that, ontologically, a fact is always true whether established or not, in which case claims of unestablished fact would necessarily always be true. But it's also clear that this is not how we use the term - a claim of fact is implicitly an assertion of fact that is unestablished, that's what 'claim' means. It's an epistemological issue, not an ontological one.

So, in the context of claims, an unestablished fact is the substance of a claim and may be false (i.e. not a fact). To suggest otherwise in this context is to confuse the ontological with the epistemological.

 

[Freodin]

Well now you're claiming the absurd...you're saying that the "future" has already happened. I can only assume that you don't understand the word "future" or you don't understand how time works

Not if we assume the existence of different "timelines". Consider the often used literary device of "flashbacks" or "flash forwards" and such, diverting from linear timeline. A book or movie starting with a scene showing the "result"... and then the body of the work showing how this result came to happen.

This would be a case of "the future has already happened"... but of course such a structure can only exist in a linear timeline of its own. It doesn't work in "timelessness"... and of course it doesn't work with any concept of "free will".

But somehow I don't think that Scott would accept these limitations.