Ask a Christian...

[golgotha61]

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

Do you think that?

Your argument seems to focus on truth and whether it can be known. Are the five presuppositions that you give applicable to you as well and how you determine truth?

 

[Non sequitur]

Your argument seems to focus on truth and whether it can be known. Are the five presuppositions that you give applicable to you as well and how you determine truth?

I didn't think it was.

Here's what I said, so I'll answer to how they are.

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.

I cannot see of a way to know or believe or have a thought about anything, without that coming from my brain.

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.

Things that operate outside of what we could know, or think we know, merely leaves us only with "I don't/can't know" answers. If we start at "I don't/can't know", everything that follows has no value. Not trying to have a valueless conversation seems like a good goal.

Is there something you disagree with, as far as a foundation we need to have to start any discussion that would yield us any practical outcome?

 

[Tolworth John]

I

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

live in the world in which you and I live and move as confirmed by our posts and the bodily sensations I experience.

 

[Non sequitur]

I live in the world in which you and I live and move as confirmed by our posts and the bodily sensations I experience.

You said, "people exist or we live in a world of our own imagination" and I asked how and can you determine which you live in.

That reply did not answer it.

 

[golgotha61]

I didn't think it was.

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?

It appears to me that truth and it apprehension is the topic. So, do your five presuppositions apply to you as well as others, and how do you determine what is true?

 

[Hieronymus]

You said, "people exist or we live in a world of our own imagination" and I asked how and can you determine which you live in.

That reply did not answer it.

Wait, only i can determine that, because i think, therefore i am.
I'm not sure about you guys, you could be a figment of my imagination.
But i am 100% certain that i exist.
Maybe you can convince me you really exist too, so that i will conclude we share a common reality.

 

[Non sequitur]

Wait, only i can determine that, because i think, therefore i am.
I'm not sure about you guys, you could be a figment of my imagination.
But i am 100% certain that i exist.
Maybe you can convince me you really exist too, so that i will conclude we share a common reality.

You replied to something I said to someone else.

I'd like to get back to where we were.

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

 

[Non sequitur]

It appears to me that truth and it apprehension is the topic. So, do your five presuppositions apply to you as well as others, and how do you determine what is true?

I already answered your presuppositions question.

Your opinion on what the topic ('really') is and your questions about how I do anything have no bearing on the OP, as it's not about me nor am I a Christian. Can you address what I asked?

(If you are curious about your questions, feel free to start another thread.)

 

[Hieronymus]

You replied to something I said to someone else.

Yep.
That's what happens on forums.
I hope you got the point of what i wrote though, which i think was on-topic.

I'd like to get back to where we were.

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

Sure.

 

[golgotha61]

I already answered your presuppositions question.

Your opinion on what the topic ('really') is and your questions about how I do anything have no bearing on the OP, as it's not about me nor am I a Christian. Can you address what I asked?

(If you are curious about your questions, feel free to start another thread.)

No, you did not answer my question, you restated the OP. I asked if the 5 presuppositions that you referenced applied to yourself as well as others when seeking truth. The purpose of my questions is to determine if your are holding me to the same standards of determining truth as held by yourself.

It appears that you have constructed an epistemological box to put Christians in and are unwilling to tell me if you are in this box as well. This appears to be a little disingenuous. If would answer my question: do your five presuppositions apply to you as well as others, and how do you determine what is true? We can proceed in the next phase.

 

[Non sequitur]

Sure.

To summarize things you've agreed with or defined:

First, everything you receive is input.
Second, input is information.
Third, information is transmitted.
Fourth, information may or may not have meaning.
Fifth, before it has any meaning it has to come from a source.

Correct?

 

[Non sequitur]

No, you did not answer my question, you restated the OP. I asked if the 5 presuppositions that you referenced applied to yourself as well as others when seeking truth. The purpose of my questions is to determine if your are holding me to the same standards of determining truth as held by yourself.

It appears that you have constructed an epistemological box to put Christians in and are unwilling to tell me if you are in this box as well. This appears to be a little disingenuous. If would answer my question: do your five presuppositions apply to you as well as others, and how do you determine what is true? We can proceed in the next phase.

I apologize, I did not answer directly.

I thought by asking if there was something you disagree with, so we could discuss that first, it implied it I did.

Yes, I believe they apply to me (and, in general, everyone when needing to have some foundation to discuss matters).

 

[Hieronymus]

To summarize things you've agreed with or defined:

First, everything you receive is input.
Second, input is information.
Third, information is transmitted.
Fourth, information may or may not have meaning.
Fifth, before it has any meaning it has to come from a source.

Correct?

Yes, i think i can live with that, but i'm not sure how you mean number 5.
I think the recipient more or less decides what meaning it has to the recipient itself.

Like golgotha61, i'm not sure what you're 'constructing' here, but since you're an atheist and skeptic, i suspect, based on experience with atheists and skeptics on forums, you're building a little bunker to shoot from, so to speak.
But we'll see.

 

[Non sequitur]

Yes, i think i can live with that, but i'm not sure how you mean number 5.
I think the recipient more or less decides what meaning it has to the recipient itself.

Like golgotha61, i'm not sure what you're 'constructing' here, but since you're an atheist and skeptic, i suspect, based on experience with atheists and skeptics on forums, you're building a little bunker to shoot from, so to speak.
But we'll see.

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

I only addressed meaning, because you packaged the word 'meaning' inside the definition of 'information'. Didn't want to leave anything out.

I'll just simplify things by putting that together, in one sentence:

"Everything you receive is information transmitted from a source."

Coincidentally(?) my cat just meowed at me, which is an outside source. To me, that means she is hungry.

If I had no way of receiving any information, however implausible that may seem/be, I could not have known this external information about my cat; any external information about my cat would not exist, to me.

Correct?

 

[golgotha61]

Coincidentally(?) my cat just meowed at me, which is an outside source. To me, that means she is hungry.

Do you interpret every meow that your cat utters as information to you that she is hungry?

 

[Non sequitur]

Do you interpret every meow that your cat utters as information to you that she is hungry?

No. It depends on the situation and information of my history with them.

In this case, I recalled other information. Their bowl is/was empty, because I forgot to fill it (I switched from an automatic-type).

 

[Non sequitur]

Yes, i think i can live with that, but i'm not sure how you mean number 5.
I think the recipient more or less decides what meaning it has to the recipient itself.

Like golgotha61, i'm not sure what you're 'constructing' here, but since you're an atheist and skeptic, i suspect, based on experience with atheists and skeptics on forums, you're building a little bunker to shoot from, so to speak.
But we'll see.

Response?

Really interested.

 

[Hieronymus]

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

I only addressed meaning, because you packaged the word 'meaning' inside the definition of 'information'. Didn't want to leave anything out.

I'll just simplify things by putting that together, in one sentence:

"Everything you receive is information transmitted from a source."

Coincidentally(?) my cat just meowed at me, which is an outside source. To me, that means she is hungry.

If I had no way of receiving any information, however implausible that may seem/be, I could not have known this external information about my cat; any external information about my cat would not exist, to me.

Correct?

Sounds about right to me.

 

[Non sequitur]

Sounds about right to me.

External information does not exist to me, unless/until one or more of my (5) senses receives it, for it to then exist; I have to receive it, first.

(5 senses being the "standard" amount of senses.)

Correct?

 

[Tolworth John]

You said, "people exist or we live in a world of our own imagination" and I asked how and can you determine which you live in.

That reply did not answer it.

Because what we see, hear and feel all contribute information that matches our memories.
As I quoted 'I think theerefore I am.