The Effect

[JohnEmmett]

You've done nothing to show that it is true. Provide evidence for it, then we'll talk.

This is why I speak to them in parables:

Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

Matthew 13:13-15

 

[JohnEmmett]

making outlandish claims or promises and then try to silence critics with a reference to "faith"

I'm not trying to silence you

I'm trying to tell you… faith is necessary to accept the truth

whatever the truth may be

 

[Freodin]

I'm not trying to silence you

I'm trying to tell you… faith is necessary to accept the truth

whatever the truth may be

Now let me try to work this out...
I need "faith" to accept the truth. Whatever the truth might be.
The "truth" might be that the way human memory works is very complicated and demonstrably not completely reliable.
The "truth" might be that there are much simpler, much more well evidenced explanations for people talking about the way they remember things than some unevidenced, inconclusive and inconsistent ideas of "transfers from alternative universes".

I accept that truth... which might be. So according to your reasoning, I do have faith. I must have faith... because faith is necessary to do what I did.

Except, of course, you mean to say that I must share your faith to accept your "truth".

In which case you would have need to convince me that your faith is better suited to accept the truth than my faith.

Can you do that?

 

[JohnEmmett]

In which case you would have need to convince me…

Can you do that?

You lack faith in this Effect.

 

[Freodin]

You lack faith in this Effect.

I lack faith in a lot of things. And quite obviously you lack faith in a lot of things.

Some of these things might be "the truth". Many of them, very likely, will not be.

So? Might that mean that there is more to "accepting the truth" than "having faith"?

 

[JohnEmmett]

Might that mean … there is more to "accepting the truth" than "having faith"?

Faith simply means believing that something is true.

 

[Freodin]

Billy Graham said: Faith simply means believing that something is true.

Is that so? That would mean you can have "faith"... and still be wrong.

So, I believe that my explanation for "The Effect" is right, and yours is wrong. That means I have faith. Just not the kind of faith that you want me to have... the faith to believe that you are wrong and I am right.

But we both "have faith", it seems.

So, might there be something more to "accepting THE TRUTH" than "faith"?

 

[JohnEmmett]

Faith in this Effect is relevant.

Any "faith" against it… is simply doubt.

 

[Freodin]

Faith in this Effect is relevant

Any "faith" against it… is simply doubt.

So... Billy Graham was wrong? Do you not have faith in him? Why then do you quote him?

 

[JohnEmmett]

So... Billy Graham was wrong?

No…

 

[Freodin]

No…

If what he said was correct, then faith is "simply believing that something is true."
I simply believe that my explanation for "The Effect" is true, and yours is not. So I have, according to what Graham said, which you agreed to, "Faith".

But then you turn around and deny that I do, and that I just have "doubt". But that directly contradicts the "simply believe" part of what you just agreed is correct.

You can't have it both ways.
Either I do have faith... which leaves us at an impasse at best... or I don't, in which case you still have to explain why your position is "faith" and mine is not.

 

[JohnEmmett]

As I said, regarding this Effect, you lack faith…

In other words, you doubt this Effect.

 

[Freodin]

As I said, regarding this Effect, you lack faith…

In other words, you doubt this Effect.

You do not have faith in the explanation that the fallibility of human memory is at play here...
... so, you, too, do lack faith and have "doubt".

We are back where we started.

So, might there be something more than "faith" to "accepting the truth"?

 

[JohnEmmett]

You do not have faith in the explanation…

Your explanation arises from doubt.

My explanation arises from faith.

 

[Freodin]

Your explanation arises from doubt.

My explanation arises from faith.

No, my explanation arises from faith, and yours comes from doubt.

I have faith that rational explanations, testing and rigorous study are a way to achive a good understanding of reality. You doubt that. You reject that.

So: my faith... your doubt. Doesn't bring us a step further.

Might there be something more to "accepting the truth" than "faith"?

 

[JohnEmmett]

I have faith that rational explanations, testing, and rigorous study are a way to achieve a good understanding of reality. You doubt that. You reject that.

No…

My explanation is rational.

I tested this Effect. And I studied…

 

[Freodin]

No…

My explanation is rational.

I tested this Effect. And I studied…

You did? Well... then perhaps you could finally present the results of your tests and studies, instead of putting out claims (of others even), one-liners, attacks on others and weird philosophical/theological discourses?

 

[JohnEmmett]

The first post was sufficient.

I'm tired of arguing……

 

[Freodin]

The first post was sufficient.

I'm tired of arguing……

As I thought...
... you have absolutely no problems of keeping up a conversation when all you have to do is make claims and attack your opponent... but as soon as you are asked to give something of substance... you bail out.

As I said, I have no reason to believe that you are up to something fishy... but the way you behave is usually associated with people who are called "charlatans".

Well... I think this was obvious from very early on to the most of us here... but it has been fun demonstrating it.

 

[JohnEmmett]

usually associated with people who are called "charlatans"

I'm not

nor is anyone whose insight I shared