How does one come to believe something?

[yeshuaslavejeff]

...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...It is independently verifiable, as we have said, "It is personal."

If it is personal, that implies it depends on the particular individual, so another party cannot verify it because they are not that person. This is one of the oldest philosophical problems in the book - how do you know exactly what something is like for someone else?

If you mean something different by 'personal', please explain what you mean.

But who puts something of great value out where thieves and robbers would take what is not their's - God is no fool.

How could it be stolen?

... You must come forth, surrendering your death sentence of a life in-trade, and for doing so receive eternal life.

I've already explained why 'surrendering life' to get evidence for belief is stupid.

I am not here to prove what I already know is true, but to share.

So this is Christian sharing - the evidence necessary for belief is omnipresent, and you can have it when you die!

It's absurd, like your 'perfect' analogy.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Whoever does the will of our Father in heaven is my family.

Cool, that makes me family too!

 

[ScottA]

This is simply incoherent.

You said in your 'perfect' analogy that, "You are both a character in the book, as well as one who is reading it, and you are only part way through... you are doing what is written"; now you also say "It is indeed, all already written". This is quite clear, and means you do not have free will to choose otherwise. If it is 'all already written' we have no choice but to do what is written.

If the book is being written as we make our choices and take our actions, then it is not 'all already written' like a book you are reading that you are only part way through, so it is not like your perfect analogy.

You can't have it both ways and remain logically coherent.

No...all of what you are thinking would only be true -if- time existed from a fixed point - but it does not.

Time is a complete illusion.

Time, therefore...is not the measure or gauge of all else...but, in fact, it is only the measure of the sequence of events - events that have no actual sequence. Everything is what it is, and time is simply a form of media to break it all down for examination and experience.

 

[ScottA]

If it is personal, that implies it depends on the particular individual, so another party cannot verify it because they are not that person. This is one of the oldest philosophical problems in the book - how do you know exactly what something is like for someone else?

If you mean something different by 'personal', please explain what you mean.

No, you have it exactly right. We can only verify for ourselves.

How could it be stolen?

Stolen is simply a metaphor to demonstrate the fact that eternal life is safeguarded, and not available to all.

I've already explained why 'surrendering life' to get evidence for belief is stupid.

But you have it backwards: You call what you are experiencing now "life" because you walk and talk and know nothing else. But living out a death sentence - that is called "life" too - but what kind of life is it? Life imprisonment is not the only choice we have. The "good news" of Jesus Christ, is that he has arranged a rescue, a release.

So, then, if this live is death to all who are born...actual life, does not begin until or if we are born again - not of the flesh, but of the spirit of God. And we are here to tell you that you are not giving up life, but are giving up death - and gaining life - real life.

So this is Christian sharing - the evidence necessary for belief is omnipresent, and you can have it when you die!

It's absurd, like your 'perfect' analogy.

The reason this all seems messed up, is not because what I am telling you is messed up - but because life is messed up...and what I am telling you is indeed completely different (not messed up). I am sharing wonderful news - good wonderful, not bad.

 

[bhsmte]

So you think CF invited us to come here so that you, Scott, can claim home advantage?

I think he did that on his own.

 

[bhsmte]

No, but if family has to say they are family to clarify who owns the house - then the guest has lost sight of courtesy and respect.

You can always post in the Christian only section, whenever you get tired of people asking you to support your claims.

 

[Ana the Ist]

As I said, your evidence is limited to the physical realm...which means it is not proof of anything regarding the topic of God.

Again, I have evidence that your "evidence" isn't evidence at all....it's imaginary.

Whether you want to call it spiritual, or non-material, physical...whatever...makes no difference because eventually, your "evidence" interacts with the physical. Your brain has to perceive or process your non-evidence in some way....and it's this process that I have evidence of being faulty/mistaken.

So again, you don't have any evidence...physical or otherwise.

Your perception is greatly limited by your understanding,

As is everyone's...including yours.

like hearing the testimonies of a hundred different people who witnessed a different part of a country you had never been to. You hear mountains from one and woods and valleys from others and deserts from yet others, and assume they are all crazy - but it is a big and divers country...and you are simply no expert.

You're speaking of things that evidence could actually be produced for. That's a bad analogy for your religious beliefs. You'll never be able to bring back anything from that part of the country, show me pictures of it, or take me there. You may as well be talking about another planet in another part of the universe.

The key thing, and this is more important than anything you just brought up, is that all those testimonies differ in many fundamental ways....it's as if they all believe they're in another part of the country, but they're each alone....never actually meeting anyone else who's been there.

All logic does not apply to all things.

Can you give an example?

This too is logical. Your point is moot.

It could be...can you provide an example of something logic doesn't apply to beyond feelings and certain illogical beliefs?

No, there is only One God...but you have been hearing from many who believe nonsense.

Says who? If you've only met one god, how can you know there's only one? You're just taking his word for it....you can't prove there's only one anymore than you can prove that there is one.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Bear with the analogy - it's perfect. You are both a character in the book, as well as one who is reading it, and you are only part way through.

This is exactly why it's such a bad analogy Scott....this is a direct contradiction. You can both be reading about a subject and the subject being read about at the same time. Look up the law of non-contradiction to learn more.

You are in the chapter bearing your name. Your character is perfectly cast, and you will do what you will do. Every moment is realtime - real as the story goes, and you are doing what is written...and yet do not know your next move anymore than someone else who has not read it. Does that mean you have freewill? Yes and no

Again...contradiction. It's yes or no...not both.

: you are "created", and as such you have your own limitations...and "control" barely makes the list. To put control in perspective...what you do not have, is oversight...only your Creator does.

I don't have "oversight" of what?

So, whether you can imagine the world of Pinocchio or Minnie Mouse - you are you, doing what you do. But have you ever heard of Onocchio? No...because Geppetto put him the furnace and went on to make Pinocchio. And unlike Onocchio, he was happy with Pinocchio, so Pinocchio went on to become a real living boy, rather than just and animated character.

It's amusing, I'll admit, but I really have no idea what you're talking about here. Is the fire supposed to be hell? Why would I praise or worship someone who creates living things and then burns them? Why would such a character desire my praise anyway? What difference could it possibly make to him? Why is he so insecure?

It's a small, small world after all...and the color cartoon we are living in, is not the main event. Stick around...there is a ticket waiting for you in will call.

It's a small world for some of us. Those cursed with tiny perspectives and narrow viewpoints are always in a small world.

 

[ScottA]

Again, I have evidence that your "evidence" isn't evidence at all....it's imaginary.

Whether you want to call it spiritual, or non-material, physical...whatever...makes no difference because eventually, your "evidence" interacts with the physical. Your brain has to perceive or process your non-evidence in some way....and it's this process that I have evidence of being faulty/mistaken.

So again, you don't have any evidence...physical or otherwise.

By your own admission, you are operating from a strictly physical (or mental) position - which does not even pertain to the subject. And there you are outside the sphere of necessary knowledge, making assumptions - that is all you have - assumptions.

As is everyone's...including yours.

Not true. Those with part of the info, have part - but those who have all, have all.

You're speaking of things that evidence could actually be produced for. That's a bad analogy for your religious beliefs. You'll never be able to bring back anything from that part of the country, show me pictures of it, or take me there. You may as well be talking about another planet in another part of the universe.

The key thing, and this is more important than anything you just brought up, is that all those testimonies differ in many fundamental ways....it's as if they all believe they're in another part of the country, but they're each alone....never actually meeting anyone else who's been there.

The analogy is one that you are able to relate to - not exact. I could have just as well said you are hearing things you know nothing of - and that is the point.

Those differences [fundamentally] tell of different parts of something unfathomably more detailed that this world and universe - what did you expect...and condo? And you are wrong - what they report may very greatly, but there is a common thread, even from people living thousands of years and miles apart.

Can you give an example?


It could be...can you provide an example of something logic doesn't apply to beyond feelings and certain illogical beliefs?

No, that would be stupid. The fact is simple: physical worldly logic, is different then spiritual logic. You are a good example...expressing spiritual logic to you has been of little or no benefit.

Says who? If you've only met one god, how can you know there's only one? You're just taking his word for it....you can't prove there's only one anymore than you can prove that there is one.

My name is Scott - I say so. It is exactly because I have met [the] God, that I know there is only One. And, no, it is you who can't prove there is no God, or gods - I can prove it, but you cannot perceive it. I could give you a thousand analogies - but you repelling the One that is real, makes it evident that you cannot receive it...like one tuned out. But here you are, and still you repel the very idea. Very strange.

 

[bhsmte]

By your own admission, you are operating from a strictly physical (or mental) position - which does not even pertain to the subject. And there you are outside the sphere of necessary knowledge, making assumptions - that is all you have - assumptions.
Not true. Those with part of the info, have part - but those who have all, have all.
The analogy is one that you are able to relate to - not exact. I could have just as well said you are hearing things you know nothing of - and that is the point.

Those differences [fundamentally] tell of different parts of something unfathomably more detailed that this world and universe - what did you expect...and condo? And you are wrong - what they report may very greatly, but there is a common thread, even from people living thousands of years and miles apart.
No, that would be stupid. The fact is simple: physical worldly logic, is different then spiritual logic. You are a good example...expressing spiritual logic to you has been of little or no benefit.
My name is Scott - I say so. It is exactly because I have met [the] God, that I know there is only One. And, no, it is you who can't prove there is no God, or gods - I can prove it, but you cannot perceive it. I could give you a thousand analogies - but you repelling the One that is real, makes it evident that you cannot receive it...like one tuned out. But here you are, and still you repel the very idea. Very strange.

You can't prove aliens don't exist and they created the universe.

See how that works?

 

[ScottA]

This is exactly why it's such a bad analogy Scott....this is a direct contradiction. You can both be reading about a subject and the subject being read about at the same time. Look up the law of non-contradiction to learn more.

Have you never heard of an activity that makes history as if it is being written as it is happening?

Obviously, I have given you too great a challenge, and we have already gone leaps and bounds beyond your comprehension. I'm stopping here. Maybe we should go back to Mary had a little Lamb, and start the analogies from there.

 

[bhsmte]

Have you never heard of an activity that makes history as if it is being written as it is happening?

Obviously, I have given you too great a challenge, and we have already gone leaps and bounds beyond your comprehension. I'm stopping here. Maybe we should go back to Mary had a little Lamb, and start the analogies from there.

LOL

 

[Ana the Ist]

By your own admission, you are operating from a strictly physical (or mental) position - which does not even pertain to the subject. And there you are outside the sphere of necessary knowledge, making assumptions - that is all you have - assumptions.

Can your "evidence" of your god be processed without a brain?

Not true. Those with part of the info, have part - but those who have all, have all.

There's literally no topic on which you have "all the info". None.

The analogy is one that you are able to relate to - not exact. I could have just as well said you are hearing things you know nothing of - and that is the point.

At least we agree it was a poor analogy.

Those differences [fundamentally] tell of different parts of something unfathomably more detailed that this world and universe - what did you expect...and condo? And you are wrong - what they report may very greatly, but there is a common thread, even from people living thousands of years and miles apart.

I already said there's a common thread. It's the belief that you're all speaking of the same thing...you aren't.

No, that would be stupid. The fact is simple: physical worldly logic, is different then spiritual logic. You are a good example...expressing spiritual logic to you has been of little or no benefit.

"Spiritual logic?" Lol...please give an example of that.

My name is Scott - I say so. It is exactly because I have met [the] God, that I know there is only One. And, no, it is you who can't prove there is no God, or gods - I can prove it, but you cannot perceive it.

Well prove it then...you'll never know if I can perceive it if you never prove it.

I could give you a thousand analogies

Please don't...the one you made was bad enough.

- but you repelling the One that is real, makes it evident that you cannot receive it...like one tuned out. But here you are, and still you repel the very idea. Very strange.

If all you have are "ideas" then yes, I find them repellant.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Have you never heard of an activity that makes history as if it is being written as it is happening?

Sure, but that's not what you said. Caesar crossing the Rubicon is an event. Caesar writing about crossing the Rubicon is an event. Caesar cannot be both subject and object at the same time....

Obviously, I have given you too great a challenge, and we have already gone leaps and bounds beyond your comprehension. I'm stopping here. Maybe we should go back to Mary had a little Lamb, and start the analogies from there.

Perhaps that would be more your speed.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

quatona said: ↑
So you think CF invited us to come here so that you, Scott, can claim home advantage?

No, but if family has to say they are family to clarify who owns the house - then the guest has lost sight of courtesy and respect.

You can always post in the Christian only section, whenever you get tired of people asking you to support your claims.

.........

Obviously, I have given you too great a challenge, and we have already gone leaps and bounds beyond your comprehension. I'm stopping here.
Maybe we should go back to Mary had a little Lamb, and start the analogies from there.

Nice song.........

Perhaps that would be more your speed.

Oh ye of little faith......

Gen 22:8
And Abraham said, “My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering.” So the two of them went together.

Luk 2:34
Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, His mother:
“This Child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against,

Jhn 1:29
On the morrow he seeth Jesus coming unto him and saith Behold! the Lamb of GOD, that taketh away the sin of the world!

Rev 7:17
“for the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne will shepherd them and lead them to living fountains of waters. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.”

https://albertjackchat.com/tag/origin-of-mary-had-a-little-lamb/

The imagery and names used in this poem point to its having been constructed as a Christian homily for children. Such rhymes were extremely popular in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, so popular, in fact, that William Blake used the form as a template for his famous Songs of Innocence and Experience, published in 1794 (think of ‘Little Lamb, who made thee’ and ‘Tiger, tiger, burning bright’).
Mary,of course, is the name of Christ’s mother and one of the most commonly used images for Jesus is that of the Lamb of God, the fleece as white as snow a symbol of his goodness and purity.

The poem can be read as a parable of Christ’s enduring love for mankind (Why does the lamb love Mary so?), that he is with Christians everywhere (And everywhere that Mary went, / The lamb was sure to go)....

................................................

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No, you have it exactly right. We can only verify for ourselves.

Right, so one individual's experience is not independently verifiable by another.

Stolen is simply a metaphor to demonstrate the fact that eternal life is safeguarded, and not available to all.

Safeguarded from what? Other Christians here have said it is available to all.

But you have it backwards: You call what you are experiencing now "life" because you walk and talk and know nothing else. But living out a death sentence - that is called "life" too - but what kind of life is it? Life imprisonment is not the only choice we have. The "good news" of Jesus Christ, is that he has arranged a rescue, a release.

This morbid focus on death, death sentences, and life imprisonment is unhealthy, and coupling it with unsubstantiated promises of paradise is too reminiscent of the motivations for fundamentalist martyrdom for my taste.

...we are here to tell you that you are not giving up life, but are giving up death - and gaining life - real life.

But that's not the case. This is real life; and as you admit we have to die, we're clearly not giving up death; what you're calling 'real life' is an unsubstantiated promise of an undefined 'something better', an emotional appeal to elective elitist escapism through morbid thanatophobia...

The reason this all seems messed up, is not because what I am telling you is messed up - but because life is messed up...

What you're telling me sounds messed up because it is messed up. I don't think life is 'messed up' - individual lives can be messed up, but the vast majority of humanity is surprisingly happy with its lot. Life is what it is; escapist fantasies may be a comfort in hard times, but living a whole life in anticipation is a waste.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...The fact is simple: physical worldly logic, is different then spiritual logic.

So, can you describe the rules and axioms of 'spiritual logic' or is it just something you made up?

it is you who can't prove there is no God, or gods - I can prove it, but you cannot perceive it.

Lol, it's not proof if it can't be perceived.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Nice song.........


...(And everywhere that Mary went, / The lamb was sure to go)....

I once had a book of parody poems with one that went:

Mary had a little lamb,
She ate it with mint sauce,
And everywhere that Mary went,
The lamb went too, of course!

It also had some wonderful epitaphs...

 

[Freodin]

So, can you describe the rules and axioms of 'spiritual logic' or is it just something you made up?

Lol, it's not proof if it can't be perceived.

You are doing it wrong, totally wrong.

It is proof! Rock-solid, undeniable, perfect proof. Never admit anything else.

And it is him who cannot prove that there is no God... you can prove that there is no God - he just cannot perceive it.

Because you prove it by using RUPA-Logic! Rock-solid, Undeniable, Perfect Atheistic Logic!

You don't have to describe the rules or axioms of RUPA-Logic. You don't need to... he wouldn't accept or understand it if you did. RUPA-Logic is based on only one thing: Rock-solid Undeniable Perfect Atheistic Truth! Which he cannot have as long as he isn't all four if it.

The Perfect Analogy for this is a Glass of Water. It is neither half-full nor half-empty, but both Glass and Water. Which makes no sense... if you use common "physical world logic" or common "spiritual logic". But when you use RUPA-Logic, it makes perfect sense and shows that I am right!


I am right. Atheists would never use something they made up.