How does one come to believe something?

[Freodin]

We can't acknowledge the correctness of something unless it has meaning.

It's even meaningful to say something is meaningless.

The meaning in it is that you're claiming it's meaningless.

Ok... let's say "no meaning outside of itself".

How is that better?

 

[ScottA]

That simply reiterates the problem - if what you will do is already 'written', you have no free will because you cannot choose to do otherwise. How does your interpretation resolve this?

Again...it only appears we have free will (present tense) - because the story is finished. But...when it actually took place...THEN...we did have free will (past tense).

In theology, there is a difference between 'eternal' and 'everlasting'; eternal is without beginning or end, and outside time (literally 'timeless'), and everlasting is within time (i.e. time-like), starting (in the case of God, starting with respect to the universe) and continuing forever. As usual, bible translations don't have consistent usage.

But, if you prefer, just consider the arguments to refer to within time and outside time.

Theology is the study of... All of which is interesting - and thank you, but I was referring to the reality of...(those terms).

 

[HitchSlap]

Please explain.

Oh and don't use meaning in your explanation

I have $10 in my pocket.

 

[HitchSlap]

Again...it only appears we have free will (present tense) - because the story is finished. But...when it actually took place...THEN...we did have free will (past tense).
Theology is the study of... All of which is interesting - and thank you, but I was referring to the reality of...(those terms).

Nope, not convoluted, at all.

 

[bhsmte]

Oh, but I am...you have been using this convoluted method to argue against me every time...and it is wrong.

It seems to me, your outlook is this; anything or anyone that doesn't see things as you do, is convoluted.

 

[bhsmte]

We can't acknowledge the correctness of something unless it has meaning.

It's even meaningful to say something is meaningless.

The meaning in it is that you're claiming it's meaningless.

Do people view everything as having the same meaning?

 

[Chriliman]

I have $10 in my pocket.

How does this explain that something meaningless can be correct?

Nevermind, it's clear you can't explain what you're claiming.

 

[HitchSlap]

How does this explain that something meaningless can be correct?

Nevermind, it's clear you can't explain what you're claiming.

Ok. Too much too soon, maybe?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If a claim also contains evidence of the claim, it is no longer just a claim, but a claim made in conjunction with evidence.

Evidence can be the substance of the claim, e.g. "These accounts are evidence of fraud". The claim is about the evidence.

If the prosecutor states; the defendant is guilty of the crime and his DNA would found on the murder weapon, that is a claim and evidence combined.

It's actually two related claims, the second claiming evidence for the first. You could restate the fraud claim above as "There has been a fraud, and these accounts are the evidence", which shows it's a compound claim of two related claims, the first asserting a fraud and the second asserting that the accounts are evidence of the truth of the first claim. The second is still a claim substantially about the evidence, but now it's clear that it's about the evidence for both claims.

Than of course, all evidence is open to cross examination, to determine if the evidence actually points where it claims to be pointing.

Yes, whether the evidence really does support the claim must be substantiated. If it doesn't support the claim, then presumably it wasn't really the evidence it was claimed to be...

But these cases are not representative... angels and heads of pins come to mind

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

. duplicate

 

[Freodin]

How does this explain that something meaningless can be correct?

Nevermind, it's clear you can't explain what you're claiming.

A correct statement:
"Something that is identical with itself is identical with itself".

This is correct. It doesn't tell you anything though. It doesn't provide you with informations outside of this statement. It doesn't even add any new informations within the statement.

The only "meaning" this statement has is contained with the statement itself. Beyond that, it is "meaningless". And correct.

 

[Arsenios]

Imagine if it (prayer) did (work)

No need - IF one is open minded, it can be easily empirically ascertained...

As has recently been done in the medical field...

I did it myself - Secretly prayed for some, and not for others, when I first became a Christian - I didn't believe this pray for me garbage - And then simply payed attention to how their lives progressed... I was shocked at the results...

And it is something you can do in the privacy of your very own mind!

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Unless you're an amputee. Then not so much.

Then even more...
Because amputees pray more...
What else can they do?
They have less with which to do, you see...

Arsenios

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Again...it only appears we have free will (present tense) - because the story is finished. But...when it actually took place...THEN...we did have free will (past tense).

But if God 'wrote' the story 'long ago', as you maintain, we don't have free will; God 'wrote' what we would do 'long ago'.

If you'd prefer to use a different analogy that allows free will, by all means do so.

Theology is the study of... All of which is interesting - and thank you, but I was referring to the reality of...(those terms).

As I said, if you don't like the theological usage of the terms, just consider the arguments to refer to 'outside time' and 'within time' respectively. You appear to want it both ways - that God is outside time, and yet can interact with the world within time; these are logically incompatible. How does your interpretation reconcile this conflict?

 

[Arsenios]

There are no such things as demons, jins, goblins, ghouls or trolls.

You forgot gods and God...

Just because you can't see 'em doesn't mean they are not there...

And you never did tell me how you came up with that great moniker, Hitch-Slap!

 

[Arsenios]

How can something correct be meaningless?

In the same way something meaningless can be correct.

'Tis true,
'Tis a pity...
And the pity 'tis...
'Tis true!

Arsenios

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No need - IF one is open minded, it can be easily empirically ascertained...

As has recently been done in the medical field...

Link? from meta-analyses of studies, it is clear that (as is usual with this kind of claim) the more rigorous the study, the less significant the results obtained, with the most rigorous showing no significant effects at all.

I did it myself - Secretly prayed for some, and not for others, when I first became a Christian - I didn't believe this pray for me garbage - And then simply payed attention to how their lives progressed... I was shocked at the results...

How did you control for confirmation bias and expectation bias? what were your criteria?

As Richard Feynman said, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."

 

[ScottA]

It seems to me, your outlook is this; anything or anyone that doesn't see things as you do, is convoluted.

No, you just called potential facts not facts at all...simply because YOU yourself did not have the proof. And now after defining truth as only limited to your own knowledge...you accuse me of doing the same, simply because you aren't in the know.

 

[bhsmte]

No, you just called potential facts not facts at all...simply because YOU did not have the proof. And now after defining truth as only limited to your knowledge...you accuse me of doing the same, simply because you aren't in the know.

Which facts, did I say were not facts?

 

[Arsenios]

That simply reiterates the problem - if what you will do is already 'written', you have no free will because you cannot choose to do otherwise. How does your interpretation resolve this?

In theology, there is a difference between 'eternal' and 'everlasting'; eternal is without beginning or end, and outside time (literally 'timeless'), and everlasting is within time (i.e. time-like), starting (in the case of God, starting with respect to the universe) and continuing forever. As usual, bible translations don't have consistent usage.

But, if you prefer, just consider the arguments to refer to outside time and within time respectively.

Everlasting is temporal participation in the eternal...

Eternal Life IS our temporal Participation in God's a-temporality...

It is a big deal...


Arsenios