Total posts: 5,766
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
yeah, but did he say yes or no !? I have no idea.
He corrected me on one point, that being that the last point of the summary in 207 should say accuracy rather than certainty, but did not point out any other actual flaws so presumably the rest was fine for him.
I get the ultimate reality thing, I think. What people think of as 'reality' has to come from somewhere; ie it has to have an underlying cause (nothing comes out of nothing). That underlying cause is what mopac calls 'ultimate reality'.
Pretty simple concept.
I think his error is to insist that 'whatever it is that underpins ordinary reality' (which I will accept must exist) is the Christian God. I think the 'ultmate reality' - ie that which underpins ordinary reaity - exists but is nothing like the Christian God (whatever Mopac's dictionary says!).
That is a point you should take up with him, and if he dances around the issue by simply claiming that you lack knowledge on the subject then hold fast to your inquiry until he has answered you as sufficiently as you would answer any question or dispute that he would have with you if he hypothetically happened to actually care about what you believe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
God is not divided into parts. 1 essence, undivided.
Right.
I am very certain of what I am talking about, that certainty does not overcome the reality that we are using the medium of creation to speak of the Uncreated.
So accuracy rather than certainty, okay.
And that is the reason for the Trinity. We are not talking about a God that is a conception, but a God that is far beyond conception. The Ultimate Reality, what that is In Truth.
Right.
Okay so we are on the same page now and mostly were before.
So, now that we have established that you do care whether or not your beliefs are accurate and that your reason for believing is primarily personal experience I wonder if you could answer for me this question... Is personal experience always a reliable method, or is it sometimes reliable and sometimes not reliable? Also, if it is sometimes reliable and sometimes not reliable then how can we tell the difference between those experiences that are reliable and those that are not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
In post 207 I try to review the discussion to make sure we have made some progress in understanding before I continue asking my questions.
Mopac hasn't responded to it at all, most likely because he has four people replying to his posts at once. He very probably missed 207 entirely.
Edit: He responded while I was typing this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
The purpose of this thread is not to finish the cross-examination of Euthyphro that Socrates began.The purpose of this thread is instead to examine the reasons behind ones beliefs.The latter was exactly what I was referring, not the former.
If this is true rather than a lie then do not dance around the topic, tell me the nature of this belief that you hold and wish to examine. A dialogue in which only one person knows the topic of the conversation would be quite a one-sided dialogue indeed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Very well, this answers my question sufficiently. Thanks.
Created:
Posted in:
I have not read this entire thread so sorry if this has already been brought up, but...
Is the only way to report a person in detail (with a short explanation of why you are reporting them) to contact a mod directly? I have just recently discovered that flagging a post offers no options for explaining why one flags the post, and there is no button that I can see to report a user for anything, only a users posts. There may be cases, however, where all of a person's posts looked at individually are perfectly fine but looked at as a whole indicate a pattern of harassment or stalking. The proper way to report this is unclear with the current format.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
The purpose of this thread is not to finish the cross-examination of Euthyphro that Socrates began.
The purpose of this thread is instead to examine the reasons behind ones beliefs. Do you have such a deeply-held belief that you wish to be examined, or are you here just to stalk Supa?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece
I believe I exist.
Would you be willing to examine the reasons that you believe this, as others in this thread have begun to examine the reasons for their beliefs, though none as of yet have reached a conclusion?
Are you questioning your own existence?
No. You are the one that brought up existing, not I.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
That's something you'll unlikely receive from any Christians considering they are not taught morals or ethics, they are taught to heed commands, but they have no idea why because their holy book never explains.
That doesn't seem like an issue for the purposes of this conversation. If these words you say are true then he can say "I get my morals from my holy book" and the examination may begin.
I do not know whether the words you speak are true or false however, and surely if I wished to know what Supa believed I would say "Supa, what do you believe?" (as I have) and I would surely not say "Goldtop, what does Supa believe?"
Created:
Posted in:
I would like to be as accurate as possible, but as long as I am using the medium of creation there is a certain level of inaccuracy that can not be overcome.
Very well, this answers my question quite satisfactorily.
Before we go on I think it would be good to summarize our conversation thus far in as few words as possible, and I wonder if you could tell me whether you would accept the following summary as being fairly accurate (keeping in mind that I am trying to do so in as few words as possible and may leave out some detail as a result) as if we cannot agree on so basic a thing then I fear no progress has been made, but I think that we have in fact made some progress.
DD: Describe to me your theological beliefs, please.M: I believe that god exists as a trinity, that this trinity is made of several parts that exist co-eternally with each other, these parts are of the same substance and undivided, that everything was spoken into existence, and other things (described in detail in post 150)DD: Very well, and why do you believe these things?M: I would say the reason I believe these things to be true would be "experiential knowledge" (post 167)DD: These are experiences that you have personally had and that have led you to this conclusion? In other words, personal experiences?M: Certainly.DD: And could you go into more detail regarding these experiences?M: I will say only that my experiences are as personal as anyone's walk. (post 178)DD: Very well, I am content to leave it at that. My next question, then... Is it important to you that the things that you have said regarding the trinity and everything else you have said are true?M: This is important to me, yes. (post 206)DD: I see.M: Although I do not claim absolute certainty on the matter. There is a certain level of inaccuracy that can not be overcome (post 206)DD: A wise position to take.
Many words have been removed to make this summary, for that is the purpose of a summary, but I think it is an accurate representation of the conversation so far. I do have more questions, but would like to first make sure we are on the same page about this summary being relatively true to the spirit of the conversation. If you say this is accurate then I will ask my next question, but if not accurate please point out the perceived flaw.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
So it seems that you are saying that your moral values are better than other moral values. Is this a correct understanding?Yes, wouldn't a lot of people say so?
Certainly, I think most would, and thank you for the clarification. As I said before the term "I believe" is only two words and therefore on its own can mean a great many things.
But still we have not begun to look further into this, and I think it would be best if we first clarify one more thing, that is: a brief and generalized description of what your moral values are. Remember that I did not ask you to give me examples of things that you conclude from your moral values, which is what you have done, but instead to briefly explain the general idea underlying your values. Is it possible for you to do this in a few sentences or less?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I forgot to tag you in the post I replied to you with (post 40)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The question you have answered is this: "What does Mopac believe, and does he believe it? and what are the details and descriptions of his beliefs, which he believes?"
And you have answered this question thoroughly, and I do not dispute the answers you have given to this question.
However, this is not the question I am asking now.
If I were to say "Mopac thinks that it is important whether the details and descriptions of his beliefs are accurate and true" would I be speaking correctly or incorrectly? This is my question, and it has not been answered.
Created:
Posted in:
So it seems that you are saying that your moral values are better than other moral values. Is this a correct understanding? (as with the rest of this thread, I won't be challenging whether your belief is true, but instead to discover other things.)
If the above is incorrect, please correct it.
But anyway, remember that I did not ask you to give me two or three examples of things that you conclude from your moral values, but to briefly explain the general idea underlying them. Is it possible for you to do this in a few sentences or less?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Very well, if you wish to speak on this topic we may do so.
If we are to do so though you would need to clarify a few things before we begin. "Believe in" is a term with multiple potential meanings. Perhaps you mean that you believe these values exist (either objectively or subjectively), perhaps you mean that you believe your values are superior to others, perhaps you mean something else. Please clarify.
A brief and generalized description of what your moral values are would be helpful as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I have seen this conversation as well...
How do you explain me?You evolved from matter produced in the big bang.How do you explain me?That has nothing to do with my question and you know it.
And perhaps it is the case, Mopac, that he did not answer your question. Is it not also the case, however, that you did not answer his?
Furthermore his question seemed to be one which indicated that he wished to know more about what you believe, and is it not the case that teaching others what you believe is the reason you are on this forum, which you have said in the past that you do not enjoy being on?
Therefore I entreat you to answer his question, for doing so would seem to further your purpose here, if your purpose here is indeed to teach others what you believe, and not to ignore his question simply because he has not answered yours, whether or not his lack of an answer was from an incorrect understanding of your question or some other reason.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
My religion is Truth worship. Does that not make it clear that I care about what is true?
If you were to say to me "I do care that the details and descriptions of my belief are true, and that I know the truth" then I would surely conclude that you do care that you know the truth, and knowing the truth matters dearly to you.
But if you were to say "I think that Truth worship stands on its own." then I could not necessarily conclude the same as above and I would surely say to myself the following:
"Perhaps Mopac is saying here that worshiping the truth is all that is dear to him and it stands on its own, and that he cares not if the details and descriptions are true, for the worship alone is dear to him and it is enough... Perhaps, however, Mopac is saying that worship is dear to him and also that knowing whether the details and descriptions of the truth which he makes in his claims are true is dear to him. I do not know based only on this whether only the one is dear to him or if both are dear to him, for has has not spoken simply and plainly. Perhaps I should ask him myself."
And behold: It was indeed the second thing, and not the first, that you said before. Therefore all these things and more I did think in my mind, and that is the reason I asked you the question "Does it matter to you whether what you believe is true?"
And if you say yes, I will accept this answer. And if you say that only the worship is important and not the knowledge, then I will accept this answer. Thusfar however you have said neither of these things plainly by saying either yes or no to my question and I am thus forced to ask again.
Does it matter to you whether what you believe is true?
Created:
Posted in:
i said 'nonsense', not bullshit! BS makes it sound i'm a zealot!
Very well. Perhaps I was unconsciously projecting, for I believe some aspects of it to be nonsense and also BS, though I think myself not to be a zealot. That is however a seperate conversation for a seperate venue, if you wished to have it. For now I simply accept your correction.
You are correct - there is a y in catalyst but your aim was a bit off!
I think it likely that I spelled the word incorrectly and the spellchecker on my phone chose to correct it that way instead of the other and I missed it during my proofreading. Looking at it now it is very clearly spelled incorrectly and I doubt I typed it like that...
Of course. I have an open mind and I always evaluate fresh information fully and objetively.Now that was bullshit! I can invent fanciful scenrios where I'd have to change my mind about creationism, but in the real world that ain't gonna happen.
But that is not my point at all. I am trying to get at the heart of your reason for believing creationism to be nonsense.
You previously said that you came across this conclusion as a result of things learned as a child, and now say say you "always evaluate information fully and objectively".
Out of these two this process of 'evaluating information objectively' seems to be closer to being an answer to my question, and it seems to me based on your answers thusfar that I should conclude it is actually the case that I was correct in saying that your childhood experiences were "just a catalyst that allowed other reasons to lead you to that conclusion" and not a reason in themselves, and that this process of 'evaluating information objectively' whoch you speak of is an accurate description of what those other reasons might be.
If you think this conclusion of mine unsound, then please say so.
If you think this conclusion sound, however, then we are certainly closer to the answer of why you believe creationism to be nonsense than we were before.
But perhaps you will indulge me, if my previous conclusion was indeed sound, to please give a brief description of what your criteria are when you objectively evaluate new information, that we may come to a more precise answer to this question I have asked.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I am saying that everything is contingent on The Ultimate Reality.Without that there is no universe. Everything was brought into being because The Ultimate Reality is there.
I understand the claim well Mopac, for you have already told me your claim when you said "God spoke everything into existence" and other things.
I must now say this... If you think I am unintelligent and that I am stupid, so much so that there are many in the world that are more intelligent than I, then you are probably correct.
I must also now say this... If you think I am unintelligent and that I am stupid, so much so that I do not understand your exceedingly simple to grasp claim, then you are most certainly incorrect.
Furthermore, I am not wondering to myself "Is Mopac's claim correct?", for that question is not in my mind right now.
The question was simply this... Does it matter to you whether these claims are accurate? This was my question, for that is what I asked. What is the answer?
Disgusted doesn't believe that there is anything that is ultimately real.
This seems unlikely, but why are you saying this to me anyway?
For behold : If I wanted to know what Disgusted believes then I would surely say "Disgusted, what do you believe?" and I would surely not say "Mopac, what does Disgusted believe?"
Furthermore, if you want to know what Disgusted believes then you should surely say "Disgusted, what do you believe?" and you should surely not say "Mopac, what does Disgusted believe?"
Therefore, for these reasons, I will speak no more with you on the topic of what Disgusted believes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Genuinely curious here... are you actually a nihilist? I know most people are by Mopacs definition, but I mean using the actual definition.
Just curious.
Created:
Posted in:
These are not so much claims about The Truth so much as claims about the nature of our relationship to The Truth.
Let me clarify. You have claimed, among other things, that the universe and everything was brought into existence by a power from outside the universe. Does it matter to you whether this is actually the case?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Are you a nihilist? I hope not. I'll have you know that there is nothing reasonable about nihilism.
By your definition I probably am.
By the actual definition, no I certainly am not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I think that Truth worship stands on its own.
Orthodox Christianity makes claims about the nature of truth, the claims which we have been discussing. Does it matter whether these claims are accurate?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Interesting. This is way off-topic but my experience was different. By the age of 12 I had attended services or ceremonies of... Let me think... Mormon, Wiccan, Baptist, Orthodox, Catholic... at least five different religions that I can think of off the top of my head.
I never believed any of it, though I would often pretend to believe in the Mormon or Wiccan teachings for social reasons depending on who I was around (the people in my life that were in those other groups were generally less controlling)
When it finally came out that I did not actually believe in any supernatural stuff I remember my mom asking "so what, you mean you're an athiest?" and I had to ask her what that meant. I had lived as an athiest for years without even knowing the word.
But to get back on topic... I am left wondering whether growing up the way you did really is really the reason you believe creationism to be bullshit or whether it was perhaps just a catylist that allowed other reasons to lead you to that conclusion. Is there anything, even outside of a debate setting as you say, that you could learn or experience that would convince you that this belief is innaccurate?
Created:
Posted in:
They are nihilists, they don't believe anything. It is really because they are selfish. If nothing is true, then they can be self righteous. They don't argue honestly because they don't believe anything they say. They say whatever is convenient. They don't have a love for the truth, which is why they have been cursed with strong delusion.
Love you too Mopac =-)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Let us talk about the results of our brain operations then, if that is easier. I think that could still be useful. That is analogous to how scientists study dark matter, after all... not by observing dark matter but by observing its effects on galaxies.
It is true that I immediately implied that what I said was nonsense so that might not be a great example.
There are, however, certainly things that someone told you to be true without immediately implying they did not really think it was true. You still concluded that it was nonsense. According to post 12 one of things is creationism. Would you like to give a brief general description of how you came to that conclusion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I thought i'd made an horrendous bloomer!
You quickly concluded that you had not, I assume. How did you reach this conclusion?
Paris is the capital of France, but do you know the capital of Paris?
My assumption here is that you are asking me what the capital building is, something equivilant perhaps to the Russian Kremlin or U.S. Capitol, to which my answer would be no.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
We can leave it at these personal experiences being the basis of your conclusion and continue to the next step, then.
Would you be comfortable sharing a brief description of these experiences? If not, we can still continue but you would have to forgive me if I made an incorrect assumption or two on some minor details going forward.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Because that is what is encoded in my brain. I can't recall how/when it got encoded.
Paris is not the capital of France, by the way. You got that wrong.
What is the first thing that went through your when reading that?
You may have thought about it more than me!
Seems unlikely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
That would be a speculation into things that are not real.
Yes, obviously. That is why it is called a hypothetical.
Are you against hypothetical questions on principal?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
It was actually the culmination of all my experiences along with the grace of God that lead me to Orthodoxy.
If you did not have all the same experiences that you refer to here, would you still believe the same as you do now?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
So why do you believe Paris is the capital of France? It isn't just because you can imagine it being true, since you can also imagine it being the capital of Germany (as you just did) so why is it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Belief doesn't require surety, it doesn't even need reason belief just is.
Interesting perspective. Would you be willing to provide an example of a belief you hold and value that we could examine in order to explore this perspective?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@philochristos
Would you like to use your cats name as a response to this OP?
I am sure you can think of a more interesting topic.
Created:
Posted in:
I believei have 10 toesparis is the capital of france.2+2=4creationism is nonsense.plus a million more.Why pick one?
It would be easier to do just one at a time, but any of those would work fine if you would like.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I suppose experiential knowledge would be the answer....To give an example, one of our sacred mysteries is the Eucharist.
Okay, definitely answers my question. Thank you.
My interpretation of this is that you had or possibly continue to have an experience or a collection of experiences that led you to the conclusion. If this interpretation of your words is wrong please tell me so and provide a bit more detail so I can get it right.
This next question is relevant only if the above assumption is correct, naturally.
I would like to know whether this is your only reason for believing this particular description of god is accurate. What I mean is, hypothetically speaking, what if you never had that experience or experiences that you had but still had access to all the other information which you have gained throughout your life? would you still arrive at the same conclusion?
Created:
Posted in:
Unlike DD, I wouldn't quibble with that belief!
I plead guilty, I would indeed quibble with almost anything even if I do agree with it, such as I agree in the case of the universe existing.
I don't think quibbling is what I am doing here though, as I accepted the conclusion as absolutely and undeniably true straight away. Depends what you mean by 'quibbling' I suppose.
Created:
Posted in:
I assume you are trying to get at the inescapable premise that one cannot be 100% certain of (almost) anything as everything we perceive could conceivably be an illusion.
Given the way I worded my OP and the first question I asked this assumption is logical, though mostly incorrect. Personally I am 100% convinced that the universe 100% exists (at least, the way you defined it in post 4). There is no wrong answer nor am I trying to prove any point. I can explain in more depth later.
However, back to where we were going before (if you are willing to continue, that is. If you instead become bored of this there is of course no need to continue.):
I believe it because it is the only logical option.
I would like to grant you for the sake of argument that in this reality (reality A) the only logical option is to accept the conclusion that the universe exists and therefore that 100% certainty n its existence is warranted.
Is this impossibility of nonexistence actually the reason that you believe?
Let us imagine a hypothetical reality B, in which you have all the same information available to you now and everything is the same except for one thing. The only difference is that in reality B it is possible that the universe exists and also possible that the universe does not exist. This may be logically contradictory, but I am accepting that reality B is only a hypothetical and does not actually exist, much less as the reality that we actually live in.
My next question then would be this... What would happen in reality B? Would you cease to believe that the universe exists because there no longer is the 'impossibility of nonexistence' such as we have agreed there is in reality A? or would you still believe that the universe exists, perhaps saying something like "It is possible that the universe exists and possible that it does not, but I think it is more logical to say it does because____________." or something similar.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
It is called epignosis. I have experiential knowledge. Revelation.
This may very well finally start to answer my 'question of why'... let us just be sure though, so as to avoid an incorrect assumption on my part leading to an incorrect conclusion.
Therefore, just to clarify... Are you saying here that you believe in the trinity and all the things detailed in post 150 and here as a result of experiential knowledge? If so, please clarify a bit on what you mean by that.
Can you accept that we, being human beings, do not deal with The Ultimate Reality directly, but instead deal with representations of reality?Our experience is constructed based on our senses taking away pieces of information from the whole. Our experience is largely a constructed one. But it does come from somewhere. It is a source. If we had the whole thing we would be omniscient. We are not omniscient. The fact that we learn things, make errors in judgement, guess wrong, sincerely believe we are right and then later find we are wrong are all evidences of this. To admit this is to admit sin.We are dealing with representations of reality, not reality itself.
Simple enough concept... and sure, I could potentially agree with this with little fuss depending on the definitions used. I am not currently trying to figure out whether what you are saying is accurate though, I am first trying to discover why it is that you think it is accurate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You still have not answered my question, and probably have not read all of posts 161 and 162.
I will rephrase my question yet again, the same question in different wording yet again:
How do you know that the map parable you just presented is accurate?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
I define the universe as "all that exists".
Very well, this definition is fine with me.
because nonexistence is impossible.
And I see that you may have already answered my next question, I was going to ask "why do you believe the universe exists?"
So you say that nonexistence is impossible. I won't claim to know whether this is the case, so let us accept for arguments sake that it is indeed true that nonexistence is impossible.
Is the impossibility of nonexistence the reason you believe the universe exists, or is there some other reason?
Created:
Posted in:
(2/2)
Therefore I ask to you, why do you believe these things that you describe in post 150 to be true? That God spoke the cosmos into existence, God exists in three persons called the father, the son, and the holy spirit this is called the trinity, and also these other things? I wish to know the reason that you believe these things.
And if I were to ask "Why do you think god exists?" Then this would be a different matter entirely, as your answer would be "My definition of God is that God is truth and I believe the truth." or some similar answer, in different words.
However, this is not my question. My question is "Why do you believe these things that you describe in post 150 to be true?" For surely you do believe these things unless you were lying when you said that you did, which I think is unlikely.
And surely it is obvious that saying that 'the definition of God is that god is truth' does not lead by necessity to the conclusion that God spoke the cosmos into existence, God exists in three persons called the father, the son, and the holy spirit this is called the trinity, and also those other things.
Surely then it must be obvious that if someone believes either of these to be the case then there must be some factor which causes them to do so. Also, since the first does not lead by necessity to the there must be some additional factor or factors seperate from the first that causes a person which accepts both to accept the second, and surely it must be obvious that these additional factors are what I refer to when I ask the question "Why do you believe these things you have said regarding the trinity?", and that asking this question is precisely the same as asking you to expound upon what these additional factors are, but using slightly different wording.
So, if you choose to answer my question there are many things you might say. You might say "I believe the trinity description I have given is accurate because I have faith that it is so." You may also say "I have heard this description from a reliable source, and I think they were correct in saying this is the way it is." There are countless other possibilities for what you might say, and I do not know which you would say and I do not claim that you will or will not say one of these or any other thing. This is because I cannot read your mind. Furthermore, if I knew the answer to this question there would be no need for me to ask it. That is why I am asking you this question.
You should also know that just like with the Hindu who previously believed the sky to be blue (I did not mention they were a Hindu before because it was irrelevant, but I am mentioning it now although it is still irrelevant) that perhaps I will think the reasons you will give are sound, but that does not matter. Perhaps I will think these reasons are unsound, but that too does not matter. Perhaps you think your own reasons to be sound or unsound, but even this is irrelevant to this question. The only thing I am requesting from you is an honest description of the cause for which the effect is your belief in the accuracy of post 150.
Furthermore, it is the same with you as with the person that thought the sky was blue in another way. That is to say that as I am a simple and plain-speaking man, in asking you "Why do you believe that God spoke the cosmos into existence, God exists in three persons called the father, the son, and the holy spirit this is called the trinity, and also these other things?" It can not be said that what I really mean is "I do not think your belief is accurate, how would you justify it to me?" After all, these two questions are different, just as was said previously. Therefore because I am a simple and plain-speaking man, if I ask the first my intent is that the first is answered, and not the second. Furthermore, it is possible for me to ask this question even if I believe you to be correct.
Therefore, having said these things I will ask once again: Why do you believe the description of the trinity that you gave in post 150 is an accurate description of God, and not an innaccurate one? I wish to know the reason that this is what you think in your mind. To everything there is cause and effect. We see the effect where you believe post 150 to be an accurate description of god, so what then is the cause that matches up with this effect? That is my question.
Furthermore I will remind you once again that I am not asking "Why do you believe in god?" because this question is different from what I am asking, and it is not the same or similar, and it is something you have already answered.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
This is how we as people relate to God, through The Trinity.
(1/2)
The only source I have to know what you believe, in other words to know what it is that you think is true, is the words which you type. Therefore if I wish to know in detail what you believe, in other words what you think to be true, regarding the trinity my best source is post 150 of this thread, for that is the post where you finally detailed in part what you believe.
So, in post 150 you detailed several things which you believe to be true. You said there "I believe God spoke the cosmos into existence, I believe that God exists in three persons we call the father, the son, and the holy spirit and we call this the trinity, and also these other things" and because you wrote these things in post 150 I believe that you surely think these things to be true.
So, if a person were to say "God spoke the cosmos into existence, God exists in three persons called the father, the son, and the holy spirit this is called the trinity, and also these other things" then you would surely say in your mind "This is true, and this person speaks the truth on this matter" and you would surely not say in your mind "this is false, and this person speaks falsely on this matter." and this is because you believe these things to be true, as detailed in post 150.
This person would then walk away.
Furthermore, we could speak to a different person, though not the same person that just walked away, and ask them to tell us one or more things that they believe to be true. This person could then say something like "I believe that the sky is blue." and after they said this I could say "The sky is blue" and this person would surely say in their mind "This is true, and Discipulus speaks the truth on this matter" and this person would surely not say in their mind "this is false, and Discipulus speaks falsely on this matter." and this is because this person believes the sky to be blue, as he detailed The first time I asked him.
Furthermore, I could wonder why this person thinks the sky is blue. If I did so I would probably first ask them "Why do you believe the sky is blue?" Then they might ask me what I mean in asking this, so I could ask precisely the same exact question in different words by asking "What is the reason that you believe the sky to be blue?" or I could ask "What causes you to think the sky is blue?" and his answer to all these questions would be the same or similar, for surely all of these questions are the same question but differently worded.
Also, as I am a simple and plain-speaking man, if I asked to this person "Why do you believe the sky is blue?" It could not be said that what I really mean is "I do not think your belief is accurate, how would you justify it to me?" After all, these two questions are different in the same way that the three questions previously compared were the same. Therefore because I am a simple and plain-speaking man, if I ask the first my intent is that the first is answered, and not the second. Furthermore, it is possible for me to ask this question even if I believe the other person to be correct.
So, if this person chose to answer my question rather than to walk away or to do some other thing, which they might do, there are many things they might say. They might say "I have seen the sky, and I have seen it to be blue." They may also say "I have seen pictures of the sky, and I have seen them to be blue, and I believe these pictures to be accurate."
Perhaps I think these reasons are sound, but that does not matter. Perhaps I think these reasons are unsound, but that too does not matter. Perhaps this person thinks their own reasons to be sound or unsound, but even this is irrelevant to this question. The only thing I am requesting from them is an honest description of the cause for which the effect is their belief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
Straight to the good stuff, I like it.
How sure are you that the universe exists?
Created:
Posted in:
What is one single thing which you believe? It can be political, philiosophical, religious, something I agree with you on, something I disagree with you on, etc. Anything at all. I have some questions for you.
Created:
Posted in:
I believe what I believe because it is really obvious to me that faith in The Truth is better in every conceivable way than faith in vain things.
So you believe what you described because you think it is true and you wish to believe true things. That does not answer my question. I would like to know why it is that you think what you described in post 150 is true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Would you be willing to put a number on it, perhaps from 1 to 10 or 1 to 100? It is not necessary that you do so, just curious.
But more importantly, my next question. Why do you believe what you have described to be true?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Okay, that description of the trinity is pretty much what I am familiar with. It definately comes across more clearly when you speak directly to me rather than through a proxy.
So, how confident are you that what you just described is accurate?
Created: