Ask a Christian...

[Tolworth John]

If 'our experience of life' is interpreted by our mind, you can't say fairly say 'that the mind is not all there is'. Nor can you speak of things outside your mind.

You can't have everything go through your mind and say there is more than your mind; that's a contradiction.

And this was question.

Cogito ego sum = I think therefore I am.

Either other people exist or we live in a world of our own imagination. If other people exist then there are material and non material things that exist.

 

[Non sequitur]

Your question was what the evidence was, and i answered that question.
Or did you expect me to write a book here?

No, I expected you to understand what I said.

You stated for evidence, after the fact. I'm talking about the issue(s) leading up to your interpretation. Maybe re-read the OP.

 

[Non sequitur]

Cogito ego sum = I think therefore I am.

Either other people exist or we live in a world of our own imagination. If other people exist then there are material and non material things that exist.

So how 1) do and 2) can you determine which world you live it?

 

[Hieronymus]

(edited)

You asked me this:

what was this evidence?

Ask a Christian...

 

[Hieronymus]

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.

Information does not start in our brains, it starts as external information we can store in our brain through our senses and through processing the input.

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.

Again, no.
Maybe you should have spend a little more text on this point, because maybe i don't understand what you're trying to say.

2) Superimposing something is comes from your brain.

Yes, that's true, but you can also be helped by acquainting yourself with other people's views and what they are based on, and then draw conclusions or not.

3) You can't "know" something, prior to being aware of it, and if you are (do), you are making

unsubstantiated claims.

Obviously.

4) Referencing something, after the fact, is of little value since you've already arrived at your position.

After what fact?
Maybe you refer to finding proper support for a viewpoint you already developed? What would be wrong with that?
You can also find proper support for an opposed viewpoint, which is a good thing too, because it helps assessing the validity of your viewpoint.

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.

So basically you say: "How can we ever trust what we think?"
I guess we can't trust what we think for the full 100%.
But we can make an effort to be truthful. This of course helps a lot.

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.

No.
You can test things, scrutinize it (and yourself), learn about things, use logic, etcetera.

How is it possible that a Christian belief can be held as truth, given this?

I have answered that question here: Ask a Christian...
Answering, as it turns out, your question what the evidence is.
But i actually answered how one finds this evidence, because i didn't want to write an essay.

PS: I really don't know what's up with the text editor here, but it seems to have a mind of its own, hence the broken quotes.

 

[Non sequitur]

Information does not start in our brains, it starts as external information we can store in our brain through our senses and through processing the input.

Maybe you think I'm talking about sources, or something. What you said doesn't really make sense, as it's a distinction without a difference.

External information and information are the same; information is information, regardless of the source. You can't have said information without your brain, so all information can only start in your brain.

And as you have pointed out, your brain processes the input.

Unless there is another way of obtaining any knowledge/information, that does not start in our brains?

Again, no.
Maybe you should have spend a little more text on this point, because maybe i don't understand what you're trying to say.Yes, that's true, but you can also be helped by acquainting yourself with other people's views and what they are based on, and then draw conclusions or not.Obviously.

After what fact?
Maybe you refer to finding proper support for a viewpoint you already developed? What would be wrong with that?
You can also find proper support for an opposed viewpoint, which is a good thing too, because it helps assessing the validity of your viewpoint.
So basically you say: "How can we ever trust what we think?"
I guess we can't trust what we think for the full 100%.
But we can make an effort to be truthful. This of course helps a lot.No.
You can test things, scrutinize it (and yourself), learn about things, use logic, etcetera.
I have answered that question here: Ask a Christian...
Answering, as it turns out, your question what the evidence is.
But i actually answered how one finds this evidence, because i didn't want to write an essay.

PS: I really don't know what's up with the text editor here, but it seems to have a mind of its own, hence the broken quotes.

I just addressed the first part, as it can get too choppy.

If you can just address that, maybe it'll be easier to discuss.

 

[Hieronymus]

Maybe you think I'm talking about sources, or something. What you said doesn't really make sense, as it's a distinction without a difference.

If you can not distinguish between input and output, i'm afraid there's little point in our conversation.

External information and information are the same; information is information, regardless of the source. You can't have said information without your brain, so all information can only start in your brain.

I think that's your name.

Obtaining information in itself means that it's external, it's input.

 

[Non sequitur]

If you can not distinguish between input and output, i'm afraid there's little point in our conversation.

I think that's your name.

Obtaining information in itself means that it's external, it's input.

Cleaned up your quoting.

Well, let's try to make it clearer and easier, since I can distinguish.

Everything you receive is input, regardless of the source, correct?

 

[Hieronymus]

Cleaned up your quoting.

Yeah, so did i.
It was cluttered with BB code noise. Strange..

Well, let's try to make it clearer and easier, since I can distinguish.

Everything you receive is input, regardless of the source, correct?

Yes, input is what one receives.
Then there is processing and then there can be output sent, which will be input to who hears it.

 

[Non sequitur]

Yeah, so did i.
It was cluttered with BB code noise. Strange..

Yes, input is what one receives.
Then there is processing and then there can be output sent, which will be input to who hears it.

Ok, you agree all we receive is input.

After we have received this input, would you call what we received information?

 

[Hieronymus]

Sure, and it was already information before you received it.

 

[Non sequitur]

Sure, and it was already information before you received it.

Ok, how do you define information?

Here's one source, but pick your own and definition.

 

[Hieronymus]

I'd say it's something with meaning that can be transmitted.

 

[Non sequitur]

I'd say it's something with meaning that can be transmitted.

Seeing as how information has to be transmitted, that makes sense.

Who gives this information, that is transmitted, meaning?

 

[Hieronymus]

Seeing as how information has to be transmitted, that makes sense.

Who gives this information, that is transmitted, meaning?

Both the source and the recipient have to know the meaning of the information.
Or maybe not.
Unintentional subconscious non verbal sending of information for example.

But let's stick to the reasons to believe, and how to acquaint yourself with those reasons, or discover them yourself or both.
Because that's what you started this topic for, i think.
So where do you want to go with this?

 

[Non sequitur]

Both the source and the recipient have to know the meaning of the information.
Or maybe not.
Unintentional subconscious non verbal sending of information for example.

But let's stick to the reasons to believe, and how to acquaint yourself with those reasons, or discover them yourself or both.
Because that's what you started this topic for, i think.
So where do you want to go with this?

With the questions I'm asking, because it speaks exactly to the topic, if you don't mind.

A recipient can only interpret meaning, unless information (unintentional or intentional) first comes from a source, correct?

 

[Hieronymus]

A recipient can interpret, recognise, assess and / or adhere meaning to information.
Since we're discussing humans here, we can think about stuff and use logic to make sense of things, and go back to test our conclusions.
But, this can be corrupted too, like by emotions and peer pressure, or just believe what is told when you consider yourself unable to analyse it.
One can be blinded by information overload too, or remain blind by the lack of it.
Either way, who pursues knowledge, understanding and insight will find stuff, as opposed to someone who doesn't pursue this.
Same goes for who seek truth.
But, by default humans seek pleasant or thrilling thoughts, seeking what they want to find.

 

[Non sequitur]

A recipient can interpret, recognise, assess and / or adhere meaning to information.
Since we're discussing humans here, we can think about stuff and use logic to make sense of things, and go back to test our conclusions.
But, this can be corrupted too, like by emotions and peer pressure, or just believe what is told when you consider yourself unable to analyse it.
One can be blinded by information overload too, or remain blind by the lack of it.
Either way, who pursues knowledge, understanding and insight will find stuff, as opposed to someone who doesn't pursue this.
Same goes for who seek truth.
But, by default humans seek pleasant or thrilling thoughts, seeking what they want to find.

Ok, but can you answer that question. I'm trying to make our discussion not get derailed or talk about things, until after we've established what we agree and disagree on.

A recipient can only interpret meaning, unless information (unintentional or intentional) first comes from a source, correct?

 

[golgotha61]

... 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?

Are you stating that truth is unknowable?

 

[Non sequitur]

Are you stating that truth is unknowable?

No, although I don't see how that has anything to do with anything.

Do you think that?