How does one come to believe something?

[bhsmte]

The context is indeed metaphorical, as we exist within a "created" reality. As such, it is my intention to convey that all matters of time are completely contrived, and only exist on a timeline as a form of media for the sake of telling the story (history, is God's story).
That is not the reception that I have received. The fact that you find the information that I have brought to the table to be ridiculous, does not mean that it is...and you should have made exceptions, being that we are having these discussions on a Christian forum where you are guest, and for the fact that it involves the greatest mystery of all time.

You are just as much a guest on this forum as anyone else.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

That is not the reception that I have received. The fact that you find the information that I have brought to the table to be ridiculous, does not mean that it is...

The information you have brought to the table doesn't seem to be able to be substantiated, hence there's no reason to think it's anything but opinion. The ridiculous part is your seeming inability to see this.

 

[ScottA]

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

I totally agree.

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

That would be true if not for the evidence that you do not except. But, as far as you are concerned, i.e. the context being limited to you , yes, no evidence of god exists in you. But, the evidence does exist within me (and millions, and millions of others).

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

"Rational" belief would all depend on the rationale. If the rationale is limited to the physical world, then your rationale is supported, but weak (because there is physical evidence that you do not except). On the other hand, if the rationale includes the spiritual realm of the God of whom we are referring, then the evidence is overwhelming. Interestingly, within that spiritual realm, you are not a factual entity...so...I would recommend we not make this a contest.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

That would be true if not for the evidence that you do not except. But, as far as you are concerned, i.e. the context being limited to you , yes, no evidence of god exists in you. But, the evidence does exist within me (and millions, and millions of others).

Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy you know...

 

[ScottA]

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

No, what I am saying is a factual clarification on just what time actually is: a "created" form of media for the telling of God's story (history) that is completely contrived as far as a timeline is concerned, but happened from start to finish in the twinkling of an eye, some 2000 years ago.

 

[bhsmte]

I totally agree.
That would be true if not for the evidence that you do not except. But, as far as you are concerned, i.e. the context being limited to you , yes, no evidence of god exists in you. But, the evidence does exist within me (and millions, and millions of others).
"Rational" belief would all depend on the rationale. If the rationale is limited to the physical world, then your rationale is supported, but weak (because there is physical evidence that you do not except). On the other hand, if the rationale includes the spiritual realm of the God of whom we are referring, then the evidence is overwhelming. Interestingly, within that spiritual realm, you are not a factual entity...so...I would recommend we not make this a contest.

What evidence does he not accept? Be specific.

 

[ScottA]

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.

Well stated, but I would say it is much more simple than that: Like two strangers talking over the phone and conveying what they see.

Facts in our discussions here have not served to improve our communications...because of a trust issue, having nothing to do with the truth. In the case of talking over the phone, the only real solution is to go see for yourself. However, I/we have suggested that you all not take our word for it and make the trip, and even given you directions. But we have no takers, only continued accusations of misrepresenting the facts.

What would you purpose we do?

 

[ScottA]

Or not. There doesn't seem to be any way to tell.

No, the way has been explained.

But, facts being facts, they are immovable, and the facts that you are questioning are here and not where you are - meaning, it's your move.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...it is my intention to convey that all matters of time are completely contrived...

If you'd said that at the start, this thread would have been a lot shorter.

That is not the reception that I have received.

It's not about you; everyone gets treated the same.

The fact that you find the information that I have brought to the table to be ridiculous, does not mean that it is.

The recent information you've posted has been, broadly, fine. It's your misinterpretations of it that I find ridiculous (although I don't recall using that word). You'll find I'm not the only poster here that thinks so.

..and you should have made exceptions, being that we are having these discussions on a Christian forum where you are guest, and for the fact that it involves the greatest mystery of all time.

This is a philosophy forum; bad arguments will be criticised. I think most Christians would find it patronising to be given special consideration and license to use sloppy arguments just because it's their philosophy forum. You may think it involves the greatest mystery of all time, but you're not the only person on the forum.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, what I am saying is a factual clarification on just what time actually is: a "created" form of media for the telling of God's story (history) that is completely contrived as far as a timeline is concerned, but happened from start to finish in the twinkling of an eye, some 2000 years ago.

So everything has already happened...and this isn't happening right now...

I don't see much point to anything if I have no control over what I do.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...Facts in our discussions here have not served to improve our communications...because of a trust issue, having nothing to do with the truth.

What are you talking about?

.. I/we have suggested that you all not take our word for it and make the trip, and even given you directions.

Remind me of those directions (a link to the post will do).

But we have ... only continued accusations of misrepresenting the facts.

Not 'we', you. If you don't misrepresent the facts you won't be accused of doing so.

What would you purpose we do?

Not 'we', you - please don't try to involve others in this. I propose that you try making a decent argument.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

No, the way has been explained.

But, facts being facts, they are immovable, and the facts that you are questioning are here and not where you are - meaning, it's your move.

Ok, my move is to keep reiterating that without any way to tell if what you're saying is true, it can be ignored by everyone. "The way" has not been explained without resorting to woo.

 

[ScottA]

"The God you describe, of which you only tell me facts... this God does not exist. This has been established to me, even if it has not been established to you."

No "certain others" involved. Just you. "The God YOU describe". "Of which YOU only tell me facts". If you don't want to say that YOU lied to me by making false claims in the name of Christianity... then you should drop that argument.

I won't even go into your stating that now the "certain others" are making "lies" and "false claims"... these "certain others" are not here to assert that these things have been established to them. So you are still about safe within your "rules". (Though it is still rude to bend your rules this way.)

I was simply giving you the benefit of the doubt, that undoubtedly you would have heard all kinds of stuff...including lies. The point being that it can indeed be confusing to hear conflicting stories. But, we can certainly drop it.

So, ok. My statement stands. "The God that you are talking about does not exist." This has been established to me, even if it has not been established to you.

Now, considering that "rule" that you insisted is the basis of our conversation: IS THAT A FACT OR A CLAIM?

Given that I am in possession of contrary information, I would have to say that "what has been established to you", was only in part. So, if you choose to claim it as fact without having all the information, it is simply an unverified claim.

This situation is not unlike the same practice used by science...which may explain why you take the same approach: Science seems to consider the current understanding of a topic as factual, until more information is discovered that would prove otherwise. Which, of course, is bogus...because it allows the entire civilized world to be wrong for a time. I do not advocate such a practice, nor have I been giving you information that is merely "believed" to be correct at the current time.

 

[ScottA]

What are you talking about?

The complete use of "facts" in our discussions here...has accomplished nothing. No because we don't have any, but because what you consider facts, does not apply to this subject, and the facts that do apply...you are not in possession of.

 

[ScottA]

Remind me of those directions (a link to the post will do).

We are talking about two different worlds, one physical and one spiritual. In order to have access to the spiritual world which you have asked for proof of, one must die to the physical, and be born again of the spirit of God. To do this, one needs to take to heart the reality of being stuck in a world where life is an experience not unlike slow death...and appeal to God for rescue - simply ask...and you shall receive.

 

[ScottA]

Not 'we', you. If you don't misrepresent the facts you won't be accused of doing so.

Not 'we', you - please don't try to involve others in this. I propose that you try making a decent argument.

I say "we" because you have accused the entire community and history of those who know God. "We" is correct.

I have not misrepresented the facts.

I am not here to argue. But that is not what I was referring to, but rather: How would you share information with someone who did not believe you, that was not able to process the information?

 

[ScottA]

Ok, my move is to keep reiterating that without any way to tell if what you're saying is true, it can be ignored by everyone. "The way" has not been explained without resorting to woo.

If "woo" is another term for "pie in the sky"...then, thank you for pointing out that there are those who are not up to reaching for the stars. That explains a lot.

 

[ScottA]

You are just as much a guest on this forum as anyone else.

No...I'm family.

 

[ScottA]

The information you have brought to the table doesn't seem to be able to be substantiated, hence there's no reason to think it's anything but opinion. The ridiculous part is your seeming inability to see this.

Oh, I see what you are saying just fine.

But you seem to be incapable of accepting anything you yourself are not in the presents of. And yet it is you who will not come see. You may as well stomp your feet and go home.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The complete use of "facts" in our discussions here...has accomplished nothing. No because we don't have any, but because what you consider facts, does not apply to this subject, and the facts that do apply...you are not in possession of.

Facts are usually taken to be demonstrable correspondences with states of affairs in the world. If you'd like to supply your own definition, by all means do so.