(August 15, 2009 at 6:29 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Can you explain those two statements then please Kyu?

Work it out! Belief is not a choice!

Kyu

I've provided my reasoning. Provide yours.

(August 15, 2009 at 5:49 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You can test the truck is real. Try to walk through it and you may end up with a sore head. God is not, by his nature, that sort of reality.

I'm not talking about testability here. Whether it can be tested or not is irrelevant to whether you are compelled to believe or not. You are still compelled or not, I still don't see where the choice comes in.

Sounds to me like you're speaking of 'belief in belief', when you 'choose belief' becasue it's a 'good belief to have', but that's not literally believing, that's just believing in belief.

Quote:I've said before.. IMO belief doesn't really apply to things we're sure exist.

I believe something either does or does not exist. So yes it does.

Quote: Belief does not = 'to know'.

I don't believe we can absolutely know anything. Whether we believe we can or not is another matter. You still either believe X is true or false, or believe Y exists or doesn't.

Quote:I know the truck exists.

Do you? You could be hallucinating.

Quote: I can't know, in the same way, that God exists.

Whether you can know it or not I see to be irrelevant to whether you either believe God or whatever else exists or not.

Quote:Are you saying my belief is in a non transcendental God??

I never mentioned transcendence. I don't see how it applies here, I don't know what you're talking about here. Whether God can transcend things or not, what has that got to do with this matter?

EvF

(August 15, 2009 at 7:02 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

(August 15, 2009 at 5:49 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You can test the truck is real. Try to walk through it and you may end up with a sore head. God is not, by his nature, that sort of reality.

I'm not talking about testability here. Whether it can be tested or not is irrelevant to whether you are compelled to believe or not. You are still compelled or not, I still don't see where the choice comes in.

So if you're saying it's a mechanical choice... then I agree with that. If you're not, I have no idea what you mean by 'compelled'. You mean compelled in the same way you're compelled to believe in the truck's existence? That would be ridiculous do you agree?

And if it's mechanical, then mechanically reasoning can (and does) change.

I think you're making unnecessary hard work of this. Either that or please try to say precisely what you mean, because it's not clear.

(August 15, 2009 at 7:02 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Sounds to me like you're speaking of 'belief in belief', when you 'choose belief' becasue it's a 'good belief to have', but that's not literally believing, that's just believing in belief.

WTF

So I believe to believe in God right? What does that mean? More psychobabble I guess?

My belief is first person & not 3rd person. My belief is direct. I choose to believe or not believe. It seems very simple to me.

(August 15, 2009 at 7:02 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:I've said before.. IMO belief doesn't really apply to things we're sure exist.

I believe something either does or does not exist. So yes it does.

MY use of the word belief is different. That's why I bring up transcendentalism. You don't accept transcendentalism. I believe in a transcendental God. You cannot then understand the choice to believe. Simple.

You're trying to understand my statement, not assert your own beliefs.

(August 15, 2009 at 7:20 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You mean compelled in the same way you're compelled to believe in the truck's existence? That would be ridiculous do you agree?

No. What's the difference? You either believe something is so or not right?

Quote:I think you're making unnecessary hard work of this. Either that or please try to say precisely what you mean, because it's not clear.

You either believe something or you don't. This is the case with a truck, and with anything else. Can I make that any clearer? How is it different with God exactly? You still either believe he exists or you don't!

Quote:So I believe to believe in God right?

By belief in belief I mean, you believe that belief in God is good...because if you believe he actually exists then how is that not the same kind of belief as anything else? Either you believe he exists or you don't - just like with everything else! You believe it is so or you don't!

Quote:MY use of the word belief is different.

What's your definition here then? You don't mean belief as in believing 'X' exists or not?

Quote: That's why I bring up transcendentalism. You don't accept transcendentalism. I believe in a transcendental God. You cannot then understand the choice to believe. Simple.

Can you please explain the difference for me? Transcendental or not...how does that change the fact that you either believe it...or you don't? Either X exists or it doesn't.

Quote:You're trying to understand my statement, not assert your own beliefs.

I'm trying to do both and comparing. And trying to see what on earth you mean if you don't mean you either believe 'X' exists or you don't. And how exactly that could be any different for God.

How is belief in God any different to belief in a truck, if we're talking about existence here? It's still a belief in whether something exists or not. And you are either convinced by that or you aren't. So what's the difference between the two?

EvF

(August 15, 2009 at 7:36 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

(August 15, 2009 at 7:20 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You mean compelled in the same way you're compelled to believe in the truck's existence? That would be ridiculous do you agree?

No. What's the difference? You either believe something is so or not right?

No. I see you don't get it.

(August 15, 2009 at 7:36 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:I think you're making unnecessary hard work of this. Either that or please try to say precisely what you mean, because it's not clear.

You either believe something or you don't. This is the case with a truck, and with anything else. Can I make that any clearer? How is it different with God exactly? You still either believe he exists or you don't!

Your idea contradicts what we observe. How do you conclude that belief in God is completely 100% knowable? Because that's the only way I can see your logic working here. I know no sane person who knows beyond doubt that God exists. If this has been your problem all along, perhaps you can make a breakthrough here.

(August 15, 2009 at 7:36 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:So I believe to believe in God right?

By belief in belief I mean, you believe that belief in God is good...because if you believe he actually exists then how is that not the same kind of belief as anything else? Either you believe he exists or you don't - just like with everything else! You believe it is so or you don't!

Because he is transcendental. You are insisting he isn't by your statements. Which of course isn't my belief you're talking about, but your own misunderstanding of my belief.

(August 15, 2009 at 7:36 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:MY use of the word belief is different.

What's your definition here then? You don't mean belief as in believing 'X' exists or not?

I think I've been very clear above and previously with you. I state that belief is a knowledge of something though faith. Not a something that can be simply 'known'.. which would indicate proof.

(August 15, 2009 at 7:36 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote: That's why I bring up transcendentalism. You don't accept transcendentalism. I believe in a transcendental God. You cannot then understand the choice to believe. Simple.

Can you please explain the difference for me? Transcendental or not...how does that change the fact that you either believe it...or you don't? Either X exists or it doesn't.

X's type of existence is unknown by definition (transcendental). Only God = X. The physical universe, Y, is different. It exists actually. Belief in X & Y are known differently. You can never know X like you know Y. (remember this is my reasoning you're trying to understand. You're reasoning denies transcendence).

(August 15, 2009 at 7:36 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:You're trying to understand my statement, not assert your own beliefs.

I'm trying to do both and comparing. And trying to see what on earth you mean if you don't mean you either believe 'X' exists or you don't. And how exactly that could be any different for God.

It's besides the point tho isn't it? You're never going to explain something you deny in your own words. You're going to have to step outside of your self imposed confinement.

(August 15, 2009 at 7:36 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: How is belief in God any different to belief in a truck, if we're talking about existence here? It's still a belief in whether something exists or not. And you are either convinced by that or you aren't. So what's the difference between the two?

EvF

Please don't keep repeating yourself. It's very boring!

EvF Wrote:What's the difference? You either believe something is so or not right?

(August 15, 2009 at 7:56 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: No. I see you don't get it.

So you are saying that you don't either believe something or not? I would have thought that was....true by definition??

Quote:Your idea contradicts what we observe. How do you conclude that belief in God is completely 100% knowable?

I don't. I don't conclude that anything is 'completely 100% knowable', ultimately - I'm agnostic on all matters.

Quote:Because he is transcendental. You are insisting he isn't by your statements. Which of course isn't my belief you're talking about, but your own misunderstanding of my belief.

Could you explain it then? You say you've explained it...but however you 'reason about it', how does tha tchange the fact you believe something or you don't as I said above?

Quote:Not a something that can be simply 'known'.. which would indicate proof.

I haven't spoke of proof or knowledge. I'm speaking of evidence and belief.

Quote:X's type of existence is unknown by definition (transcendental).

God is unknowable, fine. What's that got to do with what I've been saying?

Quote:The physical universe, Y, is different. It exists actually.

So God doesn't then...actually exist? Oh, I thought so lol.

Quote:Belief in X & Y are known differently. You can never know X like you know Y. (remember this is my reasoning you're trying to understand. You're reasoning denies transcendence).

But I'm not talking about whether you can 'know' it or not...I'm talking about whether you do believe it or not. Two different things.

Quote:Please don't keep repeating yourself. It's very boring!

Sorry, I'm doing my best to improve

EvF

(August 15, 2009 at 8:52 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

EvF Wrote:What's the difference? You either believe something is so or not right?

(August 15, 2009 at 7:56 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: No. I see you don't get it.

So you are saying that you don't either believe something or not? I would have thought that was....true by definition??

Believing in God is different to believing in a truck

(August 15, 2009 at 8:52 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:Your idea contradicts what we observe. How do you conclude that belief in God is completely 100% knowable?

I don't. I don't conclude that anything is 'completely 100% knowable', ultimately - I'm agnostic on all matters.

Quite. You don't understand. Therefore you're question of my belief is unfounded. It's meaningless to you.

(August 15, 2009 at 8:52 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:Because he is transcendental. You are insisting he isn't by your statements. Which of course isn't my belief you're talking about, but your own misunderstanding of my belief.

Could you explain it then? You say you've explained it...but however you 'reason about it', how does that change the fact you believe something or you don't as I said above?

You can't accept the transcendental. Surely it's a simple concept to grasp? Of course if you keep on insisting that you won't consider the transcendental then you're never going to get it. How can you transfer the transcendental to the physical? You seem to be asking me to work that one out for you. To me it's madness. You can't. In your reality you never ever will make it fit. It just doesn't. This is getting circular now. Just answer this one point.

(August 15, 2009 at 8:52 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:X's type of existence is unknown by definition (transcendental).

God is unknowable, fine. What's that got to do with what I've been saying?

How can you conclude irreversibly (as you demand) something unknowable? ..if the horrific absurdity of that doesn't slap you in the face then I give up now. There's no hope for you!

(August 15, 2009 at 8:52 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:The physical universe, Y, is different. It exists actually.

So God doesn't then...actually exist? Oh, I thought so lol.

I knew you'd have to jump on that one

(August 15, 2009 at 8:52 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: But I'm not talking about whether you can 'know' it or not...I'm talking about whether you do believe it or not. Two different things.

Now you're advocating a different definition. Previously you said belief = know.

(August 15, 2009 at 8:52 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:Please don't keep repeating yourself. It's very boring!

Sorry, I'm doing my best to improve

EvF

Stopstealing the moral high ground

(August 15, 2009 at 9:31 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Believing in God is different to believing in a truck

It is still an existence question is it not? And you still believe he does or does not exist? As with the truck.

(August 15, 2009 at 8:52 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:Your idea contradicts what we observe. How do you conclude that belief in God is completely 100% knowable?

I don't. I don't conclude that anything is 'completely 100% knowable', ultimately - I'm agnostic on all matters.

Quote:Quite. You don't understand. Therefore you're question of my belief is unfounded. It's meaningless to you.

My question is that whether it's a question of God's existence or a truck, whether God is transcendental or not. It's still an existence question. Either you believe God exists or not, as with the truck. Whether he be transcendental or not, how does that make a difference? The question is still whether you believe he exists...or not.

fr0d0 Wrote:You can't accept the transcendental. Surely it's a simple concept to grasp? Of course if you keep on insisting that you won't consider the transcendental then you're never going to get it. How can you transfer the transcendental to the physical?

What has this got to do with whether you believe something exists or not? Transcendental or not transcenental, you either believe it exists or you don't!

Quote: Just answer this one point.

My answer is that I'm asking whether you believe something or not. Whether that be something transcendent or something physical is irrelevant.

(August 15, 2009 at 8:52 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: But I'm not talking about whether you can 'know' it or not...I'm talking about whether you do believe it or not. Two different things.

fr0d0 Wrote:Now you're advocating a different definition. Previously you said belief = know.

Could you show me where I said that? I am speaking of belief not knowledge. Whether you believe God exists, whether you believe a truck exists, or whatever.

(August 15, 2009 at 8:52 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:Please don't keep repeating yourself. It's very boring!

Sorry, I'm doing my best to improve

EvF

fr0d0 Wrote:Stopstealing the moral high ground

Sorry!!

EvF

(August 15, 2009 at 10:15 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

(August 15, 2009 at 9:31 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Believing in God is different to believing in a truck

It is still an existence question is it not? And you still believe he does or does not exist? As with the truck.

We cannot know. there is no try.

(August 15, 2009 at 10:15 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Sorry!!

S'ok


So you agree now that there is a choice of believing in God or not then Evie?