The logical truth and reality of God's believing mind.

[Nouveau]

Strawman

Snowman!

you can't in conclude nor assume something is true without believing it is true in reality.

I didn't say you could. What I said was that you can conclude and believe something without assuming it.

How do YOU know that...

Because I read your post and saw that you provided no support for your false claim.

 

[Nouveau]

How can you "conclude and believe something" is true "without assuming it" is true as well silly? The assumption of its truthfulness is entailed when one believes it is true.

Wrong again. Conclusions are not assumptions.

How do YOU know that, when YOU can't know of anything's existence and occurrence without a believing mind silly?

I know your false point was unsupported because I read your post and saw you offered no support for it.

 

[Tercon]

Wrong again. Conclusions are not assumptions.

Strawman. Concluding and believing something" entails "assuming it" is true as well. The assumption of its truthfulness is entailed in believing it is true.

"Assumption (noun)

1. something taken for granted; a supposition: a correct assumption.
   
2. the act of taking for granted or supposing.
   
3. the act of taking to or upon oneself.
   
4. the act of taking possession of something: the assumption of power."

 

[Nouveau]

Strawman. Concluding and believing something" entails "assuming it" is true as well. The assumption of its truthfulness is entailed in believing it is true.

Snowman! And you are wrong again. Conclusions are not assumed. They are inferred. To assume one's conclusion is to be guilty of circular reasoning - you might do this, but rational people do not just assume their conclusions.

 

[Nouveau]

Strawman, but "believing something" entails "assuming it" is true as silly. The assumption of its truthfulness is entailed in believing it is true.

Snowman! Belief does not entail assumption, as belief can be concluded rather than assumed.

 

[Tercon]

Snowman! Belief does not entail assumption, as belief can be concluded rather than assumed.

Thanks

 

[Nouveau]

Thanks

For correcting you? You're welcome.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Strawman.

You still do not understand what 'strawman' means.

Concluding and believing something" entails "assuming it" is true as well. The assumption of its truthfulness is entailed in believing it is true.

False. Assumption is not necessary to draw a conclusion.

"Assumption (noun)

1. something taken for granted; a supposition: a correct assumption.
   
2. the act of taking for granted or supposing.
   
3. the act of taking to or upon oneself.
   
4. the act of taking possession of something: the assumption of power."

Once again you show that you don't understand how to use a dictionary. All the above shows is what 'assumption' includes. It does not show what 'concluding' something shows.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Yes, we know you can quote the definition. We also know you don't know what it means, because you constantly misuse it.
No, it isn't.

.

 

[Tercon]

Yes, we know you can quote the definition. We also know you don't know what it means, because you constantly misuse it.

Edit personal attack

No, it isn't.

Sure it is, because you can't believe what you concluded without assuming it is true as well silly.

Wrong yet again. We'll put "assume" down on the long list of words of which you do not know the meaning.

Edit personal attack

 

[Electric Skeptic]

You're being dishonest. The truth is that you are strawmanning and not honest enough to admit it.

The truth is that you do not know what 'strawman' means, as everybody has repeatedly told you.

Sure it is, because you can't believe what you concluded without assuming it is true as well silly.

Still wrong. You don't know what 'assume' means.

We'll put "assume" and 'logic' down as just two more words that you don't understand.

Yeah, you alone understand them. Everybody else is wrong.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

You do not know what the word 'strawman' means.
No, it doesn't. You don't nkow what 'assume' means.

Yes, EVERYBODY. Christians too. NOBODY believes your nonsense.

No, it's not. Christianity is one particular religion that believes in the Abrahamic god.

Wrong. Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of gods.

Wrong. Weak atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of gods.

Wrong. Strong atheism is the belief that no gods exist.

Wrong. Agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible to know whether or not a god exists.

Repeatedly demonstrated to be false - which you always avoid. I know infinitely many truths. This shows your claim to be false.

Not in dispute.


It is unsupported that "Belief or a believing mind is the basis of the truth and reality". The fact that only a believing mind can perceive truth and reality does not mean that belief or a believing mind is truth and reality or the basis of it.

All knowledge is necessarily belief.

False. Many people believe things that are false and are thus not knowledge.

 

[Whateverman]

All knowledge is necessarily belief.

I disagree. If you walk into a room and accidentally touch a hot stove top without knowing it's hot, you know it's dangerous/hot before you believe it.

Most knowledge is indeed belief-based, but some is based on brute sense perception, which you receive input from before any belief is formed.

 

[Nouveau]

I disagree. If you walk into a room and accidentally touch a hot stove top without knowing it's hot, you know it's dangerous/hot before you believe it.

Most knowledge is indeed belief-based, but some is based on brute sense perception, which you receive input from before any belief is formed.

I don't see that your example disproves ES' point. Why would you think knowledge precedes belief in this case?

 

[Whateverman]

I don't see that your example disproves ES' point. Why would you think knowledge precedes belief in this case?

Because that's what I've experienced. There's no belief about the stove being hot or otherwise dangerous.

For a split second, you know it's hot before you believe its hot.

Sense perception precedes can precede belief. {edit by me, obviously}

 

[Nouveau]

Because that's what I've experienced. There's no belief about the stove being hot or otherwise dangerous.

For a split second, you know it's hot before you believe its hot.

Sense perception precedes can precede belief. {edit by me, obviously}

How are you defining belief and knowledge here? Belief typically isn't defined as needing to be occurrent/conscious/perceived, so I don't see how your experience in the moment is particularly relevant.

 

[Whateverman]

Belief typically isn't defined as needing to be occurrent/conscious/perceived

Neither is it defined as NOT needing to be any of those things.

Indeed, the idea of being able to unconsciously believe a thing is silly to me; every example of belief ever discussed in this forum has been predicated on the believer being aware of the belief. What would be the justification for suddenly calling this into question?

Is all awareness belief? That may be the crux of the matter...

 

[Nouveau]

Neither is it defined as NOT needing to be any of those things.

Indeed, the idea of being able to unconsciously believe a thing is silly to me; every example of belief ever discussed in this forum has been predicated on the believer being aware of the belief. What would be the justification for suddenly calling this into question?

Is all awareness belief? That may be the crux of the matter...

Belief is typically defined as a particular propositional attitude - an internal mental state disposing one towards action or behaviour consistent with acceptance of the proposition. What you seem to be thinking of is what is normally called an occurrent belief - one that is consciously in the mind of the believer. It is standard practice in both philosophy and psychology to acknowledge that most of our beliefs are not occurrent ones.

Belief - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Belief (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

 

[Electric Skeptic]

I disagree. If you walk into a room and accidentally touch a hot stove top without knowing it's hot, you know it's dangerous/hot before you believe it.

Most knowledge is indeed belief-based, but some is based on brute sense perception, which you receive input from before any belief is formed.

No, belief and knowledge are simultaneous in such a case.

 

[Tercon]

I disagree. If you walk into a room and accidentally touch a hot stove top without knowing it's hot, you know it's dangerous/hot before you believe it.

Most knowledge is indeed belief-based, but some is based on brute sense perception, which you receive input from before any belief is formed.

Wrong. If someone tells you that the stove is hot, and you avoid the stove, then this knowledge comes from believing what they told you and not "sense perception". A child can know a hot stove is dangerous by their parents telling them and the child believing the parents, before ever touching a hot stove.