- Jul 2, 2011
- 4,532
- 541
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Constitution
... is what I'm doing.
(Clickbait for the win!)
One of the things I've always found puzzling is the acceptance of deities (more specifically, theism).
Since information (methods of perception, etc.) starts at our brains, everything after that is a conclusion drawn from said information.
Even me saying that, and you thinking about it, did.
Here are a few things I would say everyone would have to presuppose, in order to even have the conversation. If you disagree, please explain why:
1) Stating any preexisting truths, facts or exclusions, first came from your brain.
2) Superimposing something is comes from your brain.
3) You can't "know" something, prior to being aware of it, and if you are, you are making unsubstantiated claims.
4) Referencing something, after the fact, is of little value since you've already arrived at your position.
5) Issues ("how do you know what you know?", etc) do not offer any solutions, but create problems outside the framework we are dealing with. Talking about what we don't/can't know gets us no closer to an answer of a question. Unanswerable questions are useless.
Seeing as how this poses a circular problem, as far as a truth goes, any positive position arrived at is equally possible as any other.
How is it possible that a Christian belief can be held as truth, given this?
(Clickbait for the win!)
One of the things I've always found puzzling is the acceptance of deities (more specifically, theism).
Since information (methods of perception, etc.) starts at our brains, everything after that is a conclusion drawn from said information.
Even me saying that, and you thinking about it, did.
Here are a few things I would say everyone would have to presuppose, in order to even have the conversation. If you disagree, please explain why:
1) Stating any preexisting truths, facts or exclusions, first came from your brain.
2) Superimposing something is comes from your brain.
3) You can't "know" something, prior to being aware of it, and if you are, you are making unsubstantiated claims.
4) Referencing something, after the fact, is of little value since you've already arrived at your position.
5) Issues ("how do you know what you know?", etc) do not offer any solutions, but create problems outside the framework we are dealing with. Talking about what we don't/can't know gets us no closer to an answer of a question. Unanswerable questions are useless.
Seeing as how this poses a circular problem, as far as a truth goes, any positive position arrived at is equally possible as any other.
How is it possible that a Christian belief can be held as truth, given this?