If the beginnings of Genesis aren't literally true, then what way are they true?

[Chriliman]

Provisionally yes.

Okay, so lets give an example of a real world situation. Let's say you just took a bite of an apple and then all the sudden you pass out. When you come to you see the apple beside you all covered with ants. Would you "assume" the ants came and covered the apple while you were unconscious or would you "believe" the ants came and covered the apple while you were unconscious? Which seems more reasonable, to assume this truth or believe this truth about the ants?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Okay, so lets give an example of a real world situation. Let's say you just took a bite of an apple and then all the sudden you pass out. When you come to you see the apple beside you all covered with ants. Would you "assume" the ants came and covered the apple while you were unconscious or would you "believe" the ants came and covered the apple while you were unconscious? Which seems more reasonable, to assume this truth or believe this truth about the ants?

Why not both?

 

[Chriliman]

Why not both?

Well you have to do one or the other. You can't both assume and believe at the same time. You either have to choose to assume and then believe or you choose not to assume and just believe. For me I choose not to assume anything about reality because it's more reasonable to just accept the truth that reality exists and reject the truth that reality does not exist. But if I choose to believe reality exists and then go back to assuming it exists, I have effectively contradicted my belief that reality exists.

 

[Goonie]

Well you have to do one or the other. You can't both assume and believe at the same time. You either have to choose to assume and then believe or you choose not to assume and just believe. For me I choose not to assume anything about reality because it's more reasonable to just accept the truth that reality exists and reject the truth that reality does not exist. But if I choose to believe reality exists and then go back to assuming it exists, I have effectively contradicted my belief that reality exists.

Language games. Talking about contradictory truth claims, is jesus both 100% divine and 100% human?

 

[Chriliman]

Language games. Talking about contradictory truth claims, is jesus both 100% divine and 100% human?

If we can't rely on our language to find truth, then how will we ever find truth?

Jesus is 100% divine and he was 100% human.

Revelation 1:8
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

If you don't believe this to be true then you'll never see that it is true.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Well you have to do one or the other. You can't both assume and believe at the same time.

Sure I can -- I make an assumption, and I believe that assumption to be correct.

Kind of goes without saying, actually; not sure why you want to make it more complicated than it is.

Next question?

 

[Chriliman]

Sure I can -- I make an assumption, and I believe that assumption to be correct.

Kind of goes without saying, actually; not sure why you want to make it more complicated than it is.

Next question?

If you believe your assumption to be correct, your still just assuming. Assuming means you haven't realized the truth yet. If you realize the truth is that the ants covered the apple while you were unconscious, you then believe this truth to be true and so going back to believing an assumption about the ants, would make 0 sense.

If you agree to believe reality exists, then you must also agree that to then assume reality exists would contradict your belief. If you accept this statement as true then we can move on.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If you believe your assumption to be correct, your still just assuming.

And believing.

]Assuming means you haven't realized the truth yet.

So does believing.

If you realize the truth is that the ants covered the apple while you were unconscious, you then believe this truth to be true and so going back to believing an assumption about the ants, would make 0 sense.

So stop doing it, then.

See? Simple.

If you agree to believe reality exists, then you must also agree that to then assume reality exists would contradict your belief. If you accept this statement as true then we can move on.

You mean move back.

Like I said, around here we've played language games with far better.

 

[Chriliman]

And believing.



So does believing.



So stop doing it, then.

See? Simple.



You mean move back.

Like I said, around here we've played language games with far better.

Okay, so you believe in the unalterable truth that the ants covered the apple while you were unconscious, correct?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Okay, so you believe in the unalterable truth that the ants covered the apple while you were unconscious, correct?

It's a fact.

 

[Chriliman]

It's a fact.

Cool! So do you hold a position on the origins of the universe? For example do you believe before the Big Bang that the universe was an infinite singularity?

 

[Loudmouth]

Well you have to do one or the other.

No, you don't. You can consider two possible outcomes without accepting either one as being true, and withhold belief until there is evidence supporting one outcome over the other. Even after you come to a conclusion, you can hold it tentatively and be open to the idea that you could still be wrong.

 

[Chriliman]

No, you don't. You can consider two possible outcomes without accepting either one as being true,

Right, this is the definition of "assumption". And with holding belief that either one is true is the same as saying there is no truth to be believed, does that really make sense?

and withhold belief until there is evidence supporting one outcome over the other. Even after you come to a conclusion, you can hold it tentatively and be open to the idea that you could still be wrong.

If you're withholding belief, your still choosing to assume. Only after you choose to believe one or the other assumed truths(but not both) do you stop assuming.

So does it make more sense to believe the conclusion after you've come to it, or to then assume the conclusion could still be wrong again? If you continue assuming your conclusion that reality is real could still be wrong then it's as if your living your life constantly uncertain about the realness of life. Do you live like this? Or do you live as if reality is real, simply because it's most reasonable to believe this?

Short answer is that we can't choose what we believe(because we must believe something), but we can choose to not assume. Choosing to assume is believing in contradicting truths.

Do you agree that we can all choose to assume, but then accept the most reasonable truth and continue believing that truth?

But, then going back to assuming would be contradicting our previously established belief? Do you agree with this?

If not you must be assuming I'm wrong. And that's fine you can choose to assume, it just wont get you very far if that's all you do.

 

[Loudmouth]

Right, this is the definition of "assumption".

It is the opposite of assumption. You get it wrong right off the bat.

And with holding belief that either one is true . . .

Both could be false, as I explained later.

Really, your semantic games are just that, games.

If you're withholding belief, your still choosing to assume.

Those are opposites. Withholding belief is the opposite of assuming.

All you are doing is twisting words into their opposite meaning.

 

[Chriliman]

It is the opposite of assumption. You get it wrong right off the bat.



Both could be false, as I explained later.

Really, your semantic games are just that, games.



Those are opposites. Withholding belief is the opposite of assuming.

All you are doing is twisting words into their opposite meaning.

Let's think about what it actually means to "withhold belief". Let's define belief: the acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. Key words here are "acceptance", "truth" and "exists" so to withhold belief would actually mean you're refusing to accept any truth at all. Which actually means you accept the truth(believe) that truth does not exist at all. This is a clear contradiction.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Cool! So do you hold a position on the origins of the universe?

I have an opinion.

For example do you believe before the Big Bang that the universe was an infinite singularity?

It would have to have been -- but for how long before; that's a bit of a puzzler...

 

[Loudmouth]

Let's think about what it actually means to "withhold belief". Let's define belief: the acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. Key words here are "acceptance", "truth" and "exists" so to withhold belief would actually mean you're refusing to accept any truth at all. Which actually means you accept the truth(believe) that truth does not exist at all. This is a clear contradiction.

That's not it at all. You are only withholding belief until there is conclusive evidence.

 

[Chriliman]

I have an opinion.



It would have to have been -- but for how long before; that's a bit of a puzzler...

Okay, so if it's unalterably true that this singularity is infinite then how could it be altered to not being an infinite singularity? If it's unalterably true that it's an infinite singularity then it should still be an infinite singularity, unless you think unalterable truth can contradict.

I believe this "singularity" that science says is there(even though they can't prove it, thus the concept requires belief) is actually the creation point(this also can't be proven and also requires belief). Thus my sound reason for my belief in God.

 

[Chriliman]

That's not it at all. You are only withholding belief until there is conclusive evidence.

So did the withholding of our belief come before the evidence existed? In other words if we continue to withhold our belief does that mean evidence does not exist until we believe in the evidence? I hope you would disagree with that, but disagreeing with that means you must believe evidence exists whether or not we believe in it, right? So we must use our minds to realize the truth of the evidence. If everyone with holds their belief until there is conclusive evidence, no one would even search for evidence. We have to believe the evidence is there in order to search for it and find it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Okay, so if it's unalterably true that this singularity is infinite

I never said that -- that means your premise is invalid.

then how could it be altered to not being an infinite singularity?

It's a complicated process called "change." You can Google it later.