How does one come to believe something?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... In order to have access to the spiritual world which you have asked for proof of, one must die to the physical, and be born again of the spirit of God.

I haven't asked for proof, I've asked for evidence (factual detail again). It's obviously not a falsifiable claim. If your directions for taking 'the trip' (a rather appropriate term) to observe this evidence are that I should die, then I'm sure you'll understand if I decline your kind offer. Those directions smell rather too much of fundamentalism for my taste; suicide doesn't suit me.

To do this, one needs to take to heart the reality of being stuck in a world where life is an experience not unlike slow death...and appeal to God for rescue - simply ask...and you shall receive.

Oh, I asked before I left the fold - but nothing happened. If that's the best you can come up with, let's move on.

 

[ScottA]

Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy you know...

By definition...that is not what we are talking about. The subject is not a popular belief - only. But is based in the sure knowledge of millions and millions of people.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I say "we" because you have accused the entire community and history of those who know God.

What are you claiming I've accused them of ? If you'd like to link or quote what I said that makes you think so, I'll explain what I meant.

I have not misrepresented the facts.

It's been pointed out repeatedly, and not just by me. If you've forgotten, I can list the posts to refresh your memory.

I am not here to argue.

There's your problem.

How would you share information with someone who did not believe you, that was not able to process the information?

If I couldn't produce good evidence for it, I'd explain exactly what the information consisted of, how it was obtained, how it could be used, and why it is relevant, and I'd try to make a good argument for why it should be taken seriously. But I wouldn't suggest they should die to find out (!)

How about you? Do you think telling someone they can find out by dying is really helpful?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If "woo" is another term for "pie in the sky"..

It's short for 'woo woo'. Search engines are useful tools.

 

[ScottA]

Facts are usually taken to be demonstrable correspondences with states of affairs in the world. If you'd like to supply your own definition, by all means do so.

No...what I mean...is insisting on facts that you cannot access or process, has failed you. You may as well be demanding skype over your rotary phone - it's not working for you.

 

[ScottA]

I haven't asked for proof, I've asked for evidence (factual detail again). It's obviously not a falsifiable claim. If your directions for taking 'the trip' (a rather appropriate term) to observe this evidence are that I should die, then I'm sure you'll understand if I decline your kind offer. Those directions smell rather too much of fundamentalism for my taste; suicide doesn't suit me.

Oh, I asked before I left the fold - but nothing happened. If that's the best you can come up with, let's move on.

If you noticed, I mentioned that you must take it all to heart - you must believe it without reservations. And if you have done that and did not get an answer - remember what you just said, "Suicide does not suit you"...and God has allotted your whole life for this purpose.

But dying to your physical self, is not suicide...but rather an acknowledgement that you were born into a slow death. So, then, by your acknowledgement that you are walking out your death sentence, you become ready to actually live - to be born for real, born again. The alternative, is that you choose death instead of life.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

If "woo" is another term for "pie in the sky"...then, thank you for pointing out that there are those who are not up to reaching for the stars. That explains a lot.

Actually it means pseudo mystical mumbo jumbo that can't be verified and isn't worth listening to.

You know... your M.O...

 

[bhsmte]

No...I'm family.

You are related to the owners of the site?

 

[ScottA]

Actually it means pseudo mystical mumbo jumbo that can't be verified and isn't worth listening to.

You know... your M.O...

Okay...XXXX another one off the Christmas list.

 

[ScottA]

You are related to the owners of the site?

I am.

 

[ScottA]

What are you claiming I've accused them of ? If you'd like to link or quote what I said that makes you think so, I'll explain what I meant.

It's been pointed out repeatedly, and not just by me. If you've forgotten, I can list the posts to refresh your memory.

Very good...you just answered your own question. And when the books are opened, you will hear it again.

If I couldn't produce good evidence for it, I'd explain exactly what the information consisted of, how it was obtained, how it could be used, and why it is relevant, and I'd try to make a good argument for why it should be taken seriously. But I wouldn't suggest they should die to find out (!)

How about you? Do you think telling someone they can find out by dying is really helpful?

We are well past the point of evidence, explaining, relevance, and argument - dying comes under "how-to" info.

 

[ScottA]

So everything has already happened...and this isn't happening right now...

I don't see much point to anything if I have no control over what I do.

We have discussed this before: Again...it is like a book that was written long ago, that you are just now reading - the book is indeed done - but you are not.

You not only have control over what you do - what you do, is who you are. We are who we are, and we will do what we will do. It is written. And now you are living it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I totally agree.

Hey, a point of agreement!

That would be true if not for the evidence that you do not except.

I think you meant "accept".

What you don't know, or couldn't even know, is that I have evidence that your "evidence" is actually just imaginary and not really evidence. That makes my original statement about there not being any evidence for god true.

But, as far as you are concerned, i.e. the context being limited to you , yes, no evidence of god exists in you. But, the evidence does exist within me (and millions, and millions of others).

I remember you explaining your beliefs about god and christianity and frankly, they don't align with any christians I've spoken with.

So if you don't pretend to know what christians believe, I won't either.

"Rational" belief would all depend on the rationale. If the rationale is limited to the physical world, then your rationale is supported, but weak (because there is physical evidence that you do not except).

I should've said that "Logically, there's no reason to believe that god exists." That way you'd know that my rationale is grounded in logic.

On the other hand, if the rationale includes the spiritual realm of the God of whom we are referring, then the evidence is overwhelming. Interestingly, within that spiritual realm, you are not a factual entity...so...I would recommend we not make this a contest.

If a "rationale" for god includes the "spiritual realm" then the rationale for one man's god is just as good as the rationale for another man's god. What makes a rationale for the christian god any better than the rationale for Shiva?

 

[Ana the Ist]

We have discussed this before: Again...it is like a book that was written long ago, that you are just now reading - the book is indeed done - but you are not.

This is a terrible analogy. Am I reading the book or am I a character in it? Because it isn't clear with the analogy you wrote here.

You not only have control over what you do - what you do, is who you are. We are who we are, and we will do what we will do. It is written. And now you are living it.

Can I change my character's actions within the book? Or are they already written and I must simply follow along?

 

[ScottA]

What you don't know, or couldn't even know, is that I have evidence that your "evidence" is actually just imaginary and not really evidence. That makes my original statement about there not being any evidence for god true.

As I said, your evidence is limited to the physical realm...which means it is not proof of anything regarding the topic of God.

I remember you explaining your beliefs about god and christianity and frankly, they don't align with any christians I've spoken with.

So if you don't pretend to know what christians believe, I won't either.

Your perception is greatly limited by your understanding, like hearing the testimonies of a hundred different people who witnessed a different part of a country you had never been to. You hear mountains from one and woods and valleys from others and deserts from yet others, and assume they are all crazy - but it is a big and divers country...and you are simply no expert.

I should've said that "Logically, there's no reason to believe that god exists." That way you'd know that my rationale is grounded in logic.

All logic does not apply to all things. This too is logical. Your point is moot.

If a "rationale" for god includes the "spiritual realm" then the rationale for one man's god is just as good as the rationale for another man's god. What makes a rationale for the christian god any better than the rationale for Shiva?

No, there is only One God...but you have been hearing from many who believe nonsense. They do not make void the One True God. This too is logical.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

No, there is only One God...but you have been hearing from many who believe nonsense. They do not make void the One True God. This too is logical.

Do you at least understand, in some small sense, that no one needs to believe anything you're saying?

Here, maybe this will finally get through to you:

"No, there are multiple gods. The Christian god is not one of them. It is a delusion that you believe."

What's your response to such a statement, such that the person who believes in multiple gods (or anyone watching the conversation) will realize that what you're saying is true? Keep in mind that whatever unsubstantiated claim you make will be met with the opposite reaction from the person that believes in many gods.

 

[ScottA]

This is a terrible analogy. Am I reading the book or am I a character in it? Because it isn't clear with the analogy you wrote here.

Can I change my character's actions within the book? Or are they already written and I must simply follow along?

Bear with the analogy - it's perfect. You are both a character in the book, as well as one who is reading it, and you are only part way through. You are in the chapter bearing your name. Your character is perfectly cast, and you will do what you will do. Every moment is realtime - real as the story goes, and you are doing what is written...and yet do not know your next move anymore than someone else who has not read it. Does that mean you have freewill? Yes and no: you are "created", and as such you have your own limitations...and "control" barely makes the list. To put control in perspective...what you do not have, is oversight...only your Creator does.

So, whether you can imagine the world of Pinocchio or Minnie Mouse - you are you, doing what you do. But have you ever heard of Onocchio? No...because Geppetto put him the furnace and went on to make Pinocchio. And unlike Onocchio, he was happy with Pinocchio, so Pinocchio went on to become a real living boy, rather than just and animated character.

It's a small, small world after all...and the color cartoon we are living in, is not the main event. Stick around...there is a ticket waiting for you in will call.

 

[Freodin]

Given that I am in possession of contrary information, I would have to say that "what has been established to you", was only in part. So, if you choose to claim it as fact without having all the information, it is simply an unverified claim.

Ok... now that's definitly it.

There is no one who could say I haven't been patient, that I haven't given you the benefit of the doubt, that I haven't tried my best.

Let's go back a little bit, shall we?

You cannot say that an unestablished fact is only a claim, and have that fact be any less of a fact. You cannot.

So I presented a fact, that I have repeatedly made clear is established to me, but may not have been established to you.

And instead of adhering to your own rule, accepting that and chosing to now call it "fact"... you try to find excuses why you need not do that.

Your behaviour here makes absolutely clear that you cannot abide by even your own rules, that your only position, even if it contradicts your own rules, is "I am right... you are not."

Which, if you will be honest leaves you to admit that "you" simply do not know it to be true. Then, and only then can we get to the crux of the problem. That is the only path that will allow us to proceed.

Because your "knowledge" is beyond reproach and mustn't be questioned, while my knowlegde must be false (or "only in part") by default. It is simply not possible for you to be honest and admit that "you" simply do not know it to be true.

If we are to continue - that is a rule you will have to abide by. I insist.

Yes, you made that absolutely clear, without a doubt: you insist of being accepted as correct.

There is no way to continue a conversation who "insists" on rules for a conversation and cannot keep them himself.

I tried. I won't try anymore. Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No...what I mean...is insisting on facts that you cannot access or process, has failed you. You may as well be demanding skype over your rotary phone - it's not working for you.

It's true - asking you to support your claims of evidence has produced no facts whatever to 'access or process'.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... - you must believe it without reservations.

I will acknowledge what is probably true (belief is too strong a word in this context) if I can see good reason to think it is beyond reasonable doubt. Good reason includes convincing or plausible evidence, and/or argument. I always have reservations because we can never be absolutely certain of anything but analytic truths.

But dying to your physical self, is not suicide...but rather an acknowledgement that you were born into a slow death. So, then, by your acknowledgement that you are walking out your death sentence, you become ready to actually live - to be born for real, born again. The alternative, is that you choose death instead of life.

You do realise such morbid focus on death is possibly the least persuasive argument you can make for someone who doesn't already believe? To the best of my knowledge, I have one relatively short life, and I don't intend to spend it anticipating its end. To me, this is choosing life over death.