Minds are for believing.
- Thread starter Tercon
- Start date
Pretending I don't understand what a strawman is isn't going to help you.
Strawman. But it is required to know what you are sensing. And our senses are meaningless without knowing what is occurring with our senses.
mikeT
Well-known member
That's the first time you've made this claim.
Just like your other claims, it, too, is wrong. Belief is not required for knowledge - and the proof of this lies in sense perception providing us with knowledge before belief is formed.
ps. also, you've proven us right: your example of a straw man is not a straw man.
Last edited by a moderator:
mikeT
Well-known member
Yup, it is. Today is the very first time you've made the claim that "belief is required to know anything about what we are sensing without belief, because belief is necessary for knowledge".
You also contradicted yourself. If we can sense things without belief, then we can also know things without belief.
Open mouth, insert foot.
If you didn't know this, then now you do.
Projection.
If you can't know anything about what you are sensing without first believing you are sensing something, then you can't know anything about your senses without believing first. What makes what you are sensing known to you, your senses or what you believe and know about what you are sensing.
And if your senses are not knowledge, then just how do you know about your sense?
Do you believe you can "know things without belief by sensing them"?
Last edited by a moderator:
mikeT
Well-known member
I know it.
How do you know it is true without believing it?
mikeT
Well-known member
Our senses are directionless and meaningless without any belief and/or knowledge of their occurrence.
mikeT
Well-known member
Thanks for your opinion, but do you have any support for the claim?
ps. fallacy of the red herring
But since we have belief and knowledge of our senses, they are not directionless and meaningless. God is an ad-hoc and unnecessary attribution to the process.
I agree. And I would have given you a Like if you didn't have the last part.
Yes, most of the thinking world agrees that 'belief is necessary for knowledge'. Even 5wize agrees, why don't you ask him to explain it to you.
But you have never credibly explained the need for God in this process of belief and knowledge of our senses. You've asserted His necessity, but never explained how or why it doesn't work without it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Red Herring....
I am not claiming that I know anything about anything without the benefit of belief and knowledge occurring in order to give my senses any direction or meaning.
I am claiming your assertion of God in that process is ad-hoc, unfounded, and unnecessary in order to reach the conclusion that belief and knowledge give my senses direction and meaning and vis-versa. They seem to work together communicatively to accomplish this without God acting as some middleman to the process.
The problem is still yours to prove your assertion that an externality like God has anything to do with any of that, and if so, how and why.
Last edited by a moderator:
How do you know what you are experiencing through your senses without believing you are experiencing something?
TeabagSalad
Well-known member
You still don't know what a belief is, do you?
How do you know you're not a brain in a jar?
I identify with belief because in reality belief is necessary in order to make the truth and reality known to me. And to identify with unbelief is the same as to embrace the source of ignorance.
I identify as a believing mind and not “a brain in a jar”.
And FYI, “a brain in a jar” can't make you know anything, since it is only a believing mind that can do that.
TeabagSalad
Well-known member
Thanks for confirming that you still don't know what a belief is.
Oh dear, you don't seem to know that minds require brains.