[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] When should we change our reasoning / beliefs?

[Chriliman]

But you haven't presented anything to support your reasoning. Nothing. You've just piled assertions upon assertions and then said "disprove this!"

Reasoning is reasoning you either believe it because it makes sense or you don't because you don't think it makes sense. You haven't attempted to give me any reasoning for your position therefore you're making it impossible for me to believe you.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Reasoning is reasoning you either believe it because it makes sense or you don't because you don't think it makes sense. You haven't attempted to give me any reasoning for your position therefore you're making it impossible for me to believe you.

You're doing it again: completely dodging the burden of proof. You haven't shown that your reasoning "makes sense" of anything.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Google it.

I did, and only found examples more than 50 years AD, and no detail. I thought you might know some.

 

[Chriliman]

You're doing it again: completely dodging the burden of proof. You haven't shown that your reasoning "makes sense" of anything.

You can't make sense of my reasoning, which is why you don't believe what I'm saying to be true, but just because you can't make sense of my reasoning does not mean there isn't any truth to my reasoning and its possible that someone else might actually be able to make sense of my reasoning. Again, truth is unalterable by subjective finite beings, therefore, my reasoning could be based on truth, whether or not you can make sense of it has no effect on that truth.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You can't make sense of my reasoning, which is why you don't believe what I'm saying to be true, but just because you can't make sense of my reasoning does not mean there isn't any truth to my reasoning and its possible that someone else might actually be able to make sense of my reasoning. Again, truth is unalterable by subjective finite beings, therefore, my reasoning could be based on truth, whether or not you can make sense of it has no effect on that truth.

Another dodge!

 

[DogmaHunter]

You can't make sense of my reasoning, which is why you don't believe what I'm saying to be true, but just because you can't make sense of my reasoning does not mean there isn't any truth to my reasoning and its possible that someone else might actually be able to make sense of my reasoning. Again, truth is unalterable by subjective finite beings, therefore, my reasoning could be based on truth, whether or not you can make sense of it has no effect on that truth.

Is it perhaps also possible that you are simply wrong about what you believe?
Because you don't seem to be considering that option.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Nope, if an infinite timeless God does not exist then its reasonable to conclude that we will go out of existence when we die, but when you consider truth as being unalterable by finite beings then this would mean its unalterably true that we exist so how could it ever be altered to us not existing when we die?

More word salad...

A. Even if there were a god, that god could decree that when we die we don't exist anymore if that god has the power to do so.

B. "Truth" is absolutely alterable by humans. If it is true that a piece of metal is a certain temperature, we can alter that fact by heating or cooling it.

C. It is true that I exist while I'm typing this. By the time you read this, another human could have shot and killed me, ending my existence.

If I'm reading between the lines correctly, you have this idea that things don't actually happen over time. Hopefully I'm wrong about that, because that is a ridiculous idea to have...

 

[Chriliman]

Another dodge!

What exactly do you think I'm dodging? I'm not dodging explaining my reasoning because I've clearly done that, its just that you don't understand it, which isn't my problem. And you should reasonably know by now that I can't provide proof of God to you, so all I'm left able to do is explain my reasoning for my belief in God, which I have done, you just don't understand, which isn't my problem, as I said before.

How about you try and explain things using reason and you might see just how difficult it actually is. But I understand you're content with just waiting for proof to show up out of nowhere without you actually seeking the truth about God.

 

[Chriliman]

Is it perhaps also possible that you are simply wrong about what you believe?

Really? If I'm wrong please explain to me how I'm wrong, this is all I'm asking!

Because you don't seem to be considering that option.

Did you miss post #3?

 

[DogmaHunter]

What exactly do you think I'm dodging? I'm not dodging explaining my reasoning because I've clearly done that, its just that you don't understand it, which isn't my problem. And you should reasonably know by now that I can't provide proof of God to you, so all I'm left able to do is explain my reasoning for my belief in God, which I have done, you just don't understand, which isn't my problem, as I said before.

How about you try and explain things using reason and you might see just how difficult it actually is. But I understand you're content with just waiting for proof to show up out of nowhere without you actually seeking the truth about God.

If you don't have actual supportive evidence of the existance of X, then how can "reason" make you rationally conclude that X exists?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Really? If I'm wrong please explain to me how I'm wrong, this is all I'm asking!

I don't really know what you are talking about. The post I quoted just sounded to me as if you consider it impossible to be wrong.

You seem to be assuming that your reasoning is infallible for some reason.

Did you miss post #3?

I missed the entire thread. I'm reading it backwards to avoid having to go through 29 pages.

 

[Chriliman]

If you don't have actual supportive evidence of the existance of X, then how can "reason" make you rationally conclude that X exists?

Don't put the word reason in quotes as if it means something other than what it means. If I have reason to believe something then I'm justified in believing it until proven wrong.

 

[Chriliman]

I missed the entire thread. I'm reading it backwards to avoid having to go through 29 pages.

I know thats why this is so difficult to explain, I keep having to repeat myself to different people. If you really want to understand what I'm saying, then you'll read the entire thread. I don't have time right now to repeat everything I've said.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Can anyone determine why my reasoning below with Davian is wrong? If you can't determine why it is wrong, wouldn't it be intelligent to take the same reasoning and apply it to your own life to then truly determine if it is right or wrong for you?

Starting to read from the top, I need to stop you right there.

This is fallacious reasoning right out of the gates.

Ideas aren't valid "when they can't be shown wrong".

If I can't disprove your idea, it's not rational to then assume the idea is true - whatever it is.

The idea itself requires actual positive evidential support before it can be rationally accepted.

Do you have any?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What exactly do you think I'm dodging?

You're doing it again: completely dodging the burden of proof. You haven't shown that your reasoning "makes sense" of anything.

I'm not dodging explaining my reasoning because I've clearly done that, its just that you don't understand it, which isn't my problem.

Actually, it is your problem because you haven't explained it clearly. Your posts are barely intelligible. I've tried to be nice about it, but your earlier condescension persuaded me not to bother.

 

[Chriliman]

Ideas aren't valid "when they can't be shown wrong".

Its not an idea, its reasoning. Ideas and reasoning are not the same.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Don't put the word reason in quotes as if it means something other than what it means. If I have reason to believe something then I'm justified in believing it until proven wrong.

You didn't answer my question.

If you don't have positive evidence that X exists, then how can reason make you rationally conclude that X in fact exists?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Its not an idea, its reasoning. Ideas and reasoning are not the same.

No, it's basically the same thing.

But whatever, I'll play along with your semantic game and reformulate:

Reasoning isn't valid "when it can't be shown wrong".
Reasoning rather is valid, when it can be shown to be valid.

 

[Chriliman]

Actually, it is your problem because you haven't explained it clearly. Your posts are barely intelligible. I've tried to be nice about it, but your earlier condescension persuaded me not to bother.

Thats fine, I still think you're intelligent. Its unreasonable to think that I can perfectly explain myself and that you can perfectly understand me when neither of us are perfect beings. Eventually one of us has to admit that their wrong or else peace/agreement on what is true can never be achieved.

 

[bhsmte]

Your Maker.

If as the Bible claims, you are made in the image and likeness of God, would He be in a position to determine what is right for you?

You are forgetting something; I don't find the claims of the bible and or Christianity to be credible, so I do not believe them to be true.

Just as, you don't find the claims of other religions and other holy books, to be credible.