Barriers to belief

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So is your answer No? Why did it take you 3 pages of waffling to say so?

It's just a silly, ripcord question. I was trying to conduct a conversation. I am not interested in your gimmicks.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Do you believe two contradictory statements can both be true?

What does this have to do with "barriers to belief"?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk

Do you believe two contradictory statements can both be true? Yes or No?

I would nudge you in the direction of Dialetheism but fear the idea that two contradictory statements can 'indeed' be true would send you over the edge.

Spot the dog is in the doorway to a room. Would it not be equally true to state that 'Spot the dog is in the room' and 'Spot the dog is not in the room?' even though the two are contradictory?

Zen Buddhists have managed to grasp this notion and is a commonly held belief by Jainists (my particular favourite) that 'all statements are true in some sense and false in another.'

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Spot the dog is in the doorway to a room. Would it not be equally true to state that 'Spot the dog is in the room' and 'Spot the dog is not in the room?' even though the two are contradictory?

I would say that they are not contradictory.

...that 'all statements are true in some sense and false in another.'
And hence, when checking whether they are contradictory, you must maintain the sense in which they are true, rather than switching senses. When your two sentences are interpreted in such a way that they are both true, they do not contradict each other.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I would say that they are not contradictory.

[b]...that 'all statements are true in some sense and false in another.'
And hence, when checking whether they are contradictory, you must maintain the sense in which they are true, rather than switching senses. When your two sentences are interpreted in such a way that they are both true, they do not contradict each other.[/b]

Stand them side by side and the contradiction is self evident. Spot the dog can not be both in the room and of out the room. In this instance, both statements are indeed true, despite the contradiction. The fact they are both true does not negate the contradiction. You are mistaken in that conclusion and barred from being a Jainist.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Stand them side by side and the contradiction is self evident.

No, it isn't.

Spot the dog can not be both in the room and of out the room.
Yes, he can as the two sentences demonstrate.

In this instance, both statements are indeed true, despite the contradiction.
Not so. When they are both true, there is no contradiction.

You are mistaken in that conclusion and barred from being a Jainist.
It is the Jainists that are mistaken and I have no wish to join them.

The very fact that they think logic is a religious matter is ridiculous.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, it isn't.

[b]Spot the dog can not be both in the room and of out the room.
Yes, he can as the two sentences demonstrate.

In this instance, both statements are indeed true, despite the contradiction.
Not so. When they are both true, there is no contradiction.

You are mistaken in that conclusion and barred from being a Jainist ...[text shortened]... o wish to join them.

The very fact that they think logic is a religious matter is ridiculous.

I know you're rather partial to dissecting a post so finely that the whole is no longer visible, so let us stick with the one assertion you have made; '...When they are both true, there is no contradiction.'

I don't think this is an assertion you have thought through very well and urge you to do so. (Take twenty). This particular discussion is about first identifying a contradictory pair of statements and then demonstrating that both can in fact be true. - Arguing, after the demonstration has been successfully made, that actually due to the success of this demonstration the contradiction wasn't there in the first place is a cop out.

2 opposing statements are a contradiction. The dog is in the room, the dog is not in the room. I like apples, I don't like apples. If I could somehow evidence that I both liked and disliked apples simultaneously, the contradiction wouldn't magically vanish, like your invitation to the Jainist tea party.

Originally posted by FMF
I already accept that something supernatural may be true and do so without having credible evidence. When I talk about the "revelation" that Christians and Muslims make claims about, I have in mind their notions about specific, elaborate communication with divine beings comprising instructions, rules, promises of rewards and punishments, and purportedly "true" and "real" set of ancient stories populated by a cast of human and non-human characters.

I wonder if any of the Christians posting here has had "specific, elaborate communication with divine beings comprising instructions, rules, promises of ..." as you mention. I don't know of any such reports on this forum. Maybe people are quiet about it because nowadays their sanity would be questioned, or they themselves may think it a hallucination.

At any rate, as David Hume suggested, should we trust the lesser miracle?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I believe the Bible is God's revelation to mankind. FMF does not find this credible. So the question is can both me and FMF be right or is one of us wrong?

No, this is what you said:

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk to FMF
So you only believe something because you find it credible and not because you think it is true? How do you know that the stuff you find credible is true? And how do you know that the stuff you don't find credible is not true?

To which I replied:
Originally posted by divegeester to Fetchmyjunk
Name something you believe that is not credible?
Name something that you think is true but not credible?

Are you going to respond to this or not?
If you want to be taken at all seriously you need to engage properly and stop pissing people about.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I know you're rather partial to dissecting a post so finely that the whole is no longer visible,

And in this case, the whole is being forgotten not by me, but by the Jainists.

I don't think this is an assertion you have thought through very well and urge you to do so. (Take twenty).
OK, now what?

This particular discussion is about first identifying a contradictory pair of statements and then demonstrating that both can in fact be true.
And it fails.

Arguing, after the demonstration has been successfully made, that actually due to the success of this demonstration the contradiction wasn't there in the first place is a cop out.
And that is not what I am doing.

2 opposing statements are a contradiction.
Are they? Are you sure? Then they are not both true.

The dog is in the room, the dog is not in the room.
Where is the contradiction?

I like apples, I don't like apples. If I could somehow evidence that I both liked and disliked apples simultaneously, the contradiction wouldn't magically vanish, like your invitation to the Jainist tea party.
When you have provided such evidence, then I will demonstrate that the contradiction has magically vanished.

Originally posted by FMF
It's just a silly, ripcord question. I was trying to conduct a conversation. I am not interested in your gimmicks.

By 'ripcord' you must mean a question you cannot answer. Since every question you have failed to answer you have labelled a 'ripcord'.

Originally posted by divegeester
No, this is what you said:

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk to FMF
So you only believe something because you find it credible and not because you think it is true? How do you know that the stuff you find credible is true? And how do you know that the stuff you don't find credible is not true?

To which I replied:
[i]Originally posted by div ...[text shortened]... you want to be taken at all seriously you need to engage properly and stop pissing people about.

Something is not true because I find it credible, I find it credible because I believe it to be true. FMF for some or other reason won't tell me what he views to be the truth, even though he should believe that his views are true else he would not have found them to be credible.

Originally posted by FMF
What does this have to do with "barriers to belief"?

Either the Bible is God's revelation, (which means my belief is true and your belief is false) or the Bible is not God's revelation, (which means my belief is false and your belief is true). So my question is basically how do you know that your belief (The Bible is not God's revelation) is true?

Originally posted by JS357

I wonder if any of the Christians posting here has had "specific, elaborate communication with divine beings comprising instructions, rules, promises of ..." as you mention. I don't know of any such reports on this forum. Maybe people are quiet about it because nowadays their sanity would be questioned, or they themselves may think it a hallucination.

It should be normal that human beings have fellowship and communion with God.

Your criteria should not insist that such communication be dramatic and spectacular. Nor should you insist it is only communication with God if it is elaborate, complicated, or sensational. I am not sure, but this could be a kind of cynical expectation.

Some forms of Pentecostalism bring disrepute to the Christian faith by sensationalizing man / God communication. And the Bible does indeed have some economically placed instances of the dramatic.

God does speak to us today. He need no have someone shouting "Thus SAYS the Lord" in the Old Testament style of the prophets. But learning to walk by the Spirit will involve God moving, urging, prompting, wooing even as a lover would, the behavior of the believer.

The symbol of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament is a dove. A dove is a gentle animal. In fact a dove is probably easily shooed away.

The symbol of the Holy Spirit is a gentle and single eyed dove not a pterodactyl or a giant condor eagle. This indicates that God is not intending to usurp your human will. But with gentleness and loving persuasion God woos the lover in one direction or another.

I would respectfully suggest you accept God communicating with us but drop the expectation that such communication must be spectacular, dramatic, and sensational.
In fact the Holy Spirit may so blend in with your personality that the voice of God may seem only to be the still small voice of your own conscience.

Why we are so convinced that we are being spoken to by God may be because over time the RESULT of saying "Yes" to this still small voice manifests real change in one's living. The transformation of life over a period of time is noticeable.

And you know that if you could have effect the freedom from sin you would have done so yourself a long time ago. You know that you have Someone ELSE to thank. That is the Jesus Christ, who surprisingly turned out to be so real. He got into one's innermost being and communicates and empowers from deep within.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And in this case, the whole is being forgotten not by me, but by the Jainists.

[b]I don't think this is an assertion you have thought through very well and urge you to do so. (Take twenty).
OK, now what?

This particular discussion is about first identifying a contradictory pair of statements and then demonstrating that both can in fact be t ...[text shortened]... e provided such evidence, then I will demonstrate that the contradiction has magically vanished.

The dog is in the room, the dog is not in the room.
Where is the contradiction?


Dude, them are ghost dogs.

Dialetheism was intended to discombobulate Fetchmyjunk. You seem to have thrown yourself, dogs and all, into the discombobulation.