What's the term to describe this?

[nPeace]

NPeace. It's just giving you feedback on your conversational tone. Sometimes it's fine. Sometimes it's sarcastic. Sometimes it's accusative.

Instead of going down the list and pointing out when and highlighting where you say you weren't sarcastic, just be mindful that online, that's how your sentences and words translate.

It's not my personal view but just in English etiquette in general, the way you speak (or how you phrase your words) sends signals that you may not be aware of. I'm letting you know it is really throwing off your points.

Thanks. Is there a reason you are dwelling on this, may I ask?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

We all have beliefs.

On faith and hope and context, consider these...
Hope in (קָוָה - qavah) Jehovah
(Psalm 27:14 ; Psalm 37:34 ; Psalm 130:5 ; Proverbs 20:22)

Strong's Hebrew: 6960. קָוָה (qavah) -- wait
qavah ►
Strong's Concordance
qavah: wait
Original Word: קָוָה
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: qavah
Phonetic Spelling: (kaw-vaw')
Definition: to wait for

Click image to enlarge
View attachment 46037

Faith (אָמַן - aman) in Jehovah
(Genesis 15:6 ; Exodus 14:31; 2 Chronicles 20:20)

Strong's Hebrew: 539. אָמַן (aman) -- to confirm, support
aman ►
Strong's Concordance
aman: to confirm, support
Original Word: אָמַן
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: aman
Phonetic Spelling: (aw-man')
Definition: to confirm, support

NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin - a prim. root
Definition - to confirm, support

Some translations use the term believe or believed in. It is understood as, to put faith in, as in having confirmation of or support for, so that it merits trust.

One needs faith to wait for/on, and trust someone.
One does not trust a woman with no basis for doing so... unless they are gullible. They trust the woman based on evidence, and certain facts... even if those facts are created with intent to mislead.

Trust in God, is based on faith - the conviction / confirmation / demonstrable evidence, that God is reliable, and worthy of trust. Hence reason to hope in him - wait for him, or hope in his promises - wait on his promises.

The faith allows for the hoping, or waiting.
They are two different things. Two different words. Two different meanings.
Hope (קָוָה - qavah)
Faith (אָמַן - aman)

Okay.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Thanks. Is there a reason you are dwelling on this, may I ask?

I used assumption, hope, and faith and would have continued if you understood the context of what I was trying to say. But you were saying faith isn't hope but in a very unproductive way.

It would have been fine if you had gotten my point not focus on the words itself.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Pacifism

 

[nPeace]

I used assumption, hope, and faith and would have continued if you understood the context of what I was trying to say. But you were saying faith isn't hope but in a very unproductive way.

It would have been fine if you had gotten my point not focus on the words itself.

That does not tell me anything... but okay.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That does not tell me anything... but okay.

What did you want me to say?

Clarifying the discussion and points is actually a mark of a productive debate.

 

[nPeace]

What did you want me to say?

Clarifying the discussion and points is actually a mark of a productive debate.

I don't want you to say anything... other than what you have to say, but I don't understand your point, or why you are saying certain things. I am asking questions, but not getting a clear answer. I am making posts, and not getting a coherent response.
What do you want me to say, other than, okay?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't want you to say anything... other than what you have to say, but I don't understand your point, or why you are saying certain things. I am asking questions, but not getting a clear answer. I am making posts, and not getting a coherent response.
What do you want me to say, other than, okay?

I get side tracked when you side track and put immediate focus on words and definitions and not on the point and purpose of the discussion. No one is at fault. It would have been well if the sarcasm wasn't included. It's easier to clear up discussions by asking each other "what do you mean?" Even when we feel we don't need to, it does mean we can step back and say-I know she/he said this.... this sounds mean... should I reply back in sarcasm, take a break, or ask for clarification.

Bout time I ask what's wrong, what you're saying, and why the change of tone, the conversation is lost. I tried to bring it back with the hope/assumption thing since that's where it brought you off course with the pictures and all.

 

[nPeace]

I get side tracked when you side track and put immediate focus on words and definitions and not on the point and purpose of the discussion. No one is at fault. It would have been well if the sarcasm wasn't included. It's easier to clear up discussions by asking each other "what do you mean?" Even when we feel we don't need to, it does mean we can step back and say-I know she/he said this.... this sounds mean... should I reply back in sarcasm, take a break, or ask for clarification.

Bout time I ask what's wrong, what you're saying, and why the change of tone, the conversation is lost. I tried to bring it back with the hope/assumption thing since that's where it brought you off course with the pictures and all.

You responded to my response on hope and faith with, "Okay". Is that a "Yes. I agree, I get it", or "Whatever."?
I'm left to guess. I don't understand how you figure that's good dialog. So I am kind of.. actually very lost, where you are at, or where you are going... or want to go.
It seems like it's toward a lecture on sarcasm. I'm not being sarcastic.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You responded to my response on hope and faith with, "Okay". Is that a "Yes. I agree, I get it", or "Whatever."?
I'm left to guess. I don't understand how you figure that's good dialog. So I am kind of.. actually very lost, where you are at, or where you are going... or want to go.
It seems like it's toward a lecture on sarcasm. I'm not being sarcastic.

Please take it as constructive feedback. You don't have to agree with me but I don't being it up just because.

 

[nPeace]

Please take it as I constructive feedback. You don't have to agree with me but I don't being it up just because.

I understand that, and I thank you for it, but I was wondering, if that's it. In other words, have we finalized the hope faith issue? Is everything okay there?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I understand that, and I thank you for it, but I was wondering, if that's it. In other words, have we finalized the hope faith issue? Is everything okay there?

I'm curious, though, what did you mean by Pentecostals?

I certainly am not surprised you are scratching your head, but the floor...? Is that what Pentecostals experience when they get in the spirit?

What sense tells you that you are missing something from your life? Or do you think the only things that could be missing from your life are food, drink, and sleep?

I don't there's other senses outside the five senses. I guess it can be psychological. Freud did something similar in his pyramid-his hierarchy of needs. It starts from our basic needs such as food, drink, sleep and goes to self-actualization (which could be spirituality, self-fulfillment, and the other sense you may be talking about that's the "feeling" of missing something in one's life).

As with the design/designer discussion, I feel believing there is a designer in something that looks design is fine. There's a term for it I can't think of at the moment.

Here's something you may find interesting
Patterns: The Need for Order

"Humans have a tendency to see patterns everywhere. That’s important when making decisions and judgments and acquiring knowledge; we tend to be uneasy with chaos and chance (Gilovich, 1991). Unfortunately, that same tendency to see patterns in everything can lead to seeing things that don’t exist."

(Oh. This has to do with sound but there is a term for one finding meaning in visual disordered phenomena as well-pareidolia) Synchronicities would be another.

Human minds are interesting. They try to find patterns and meaning in what we experience with our five senses and interpret from our inner senses for survival and self-actualization so one feels whole.

I also believe if the design shows a creator in an obvious manner, it wouldn't depend on one's religion to figure it out. We would be able to say "look. that's the christian-god who created this" and nothing/no one else.

Those buildings needing a builder is something we understand from man-made things. It's alright to apply that same logic to things we cannot explain that are not man-made. The problem is stating that it is a fact (which is not the same as obvious conclusions/belief/or deriving things on faith) and assuming that one "should" see a designer just by, say, looking at a beautiful flower or sunset.

So, there should be a another (if there is) method to find out there is a designer to a design (if one likes). If there are none, why would believers assume people would take their word for it that there is?

 

[nPeace]

I'm curious, though, what did you mean by Pentecostals?

Have you never heard of "getting in the spirit"? When you said you were floored, that thought came to mind.
That was my little bit of humor. Don't worry about it.

I don't there's other senses outside the five senses. I guess it can be psychological. Freud did something similar in his pyramid-his hierarchy of needs. It starts from our basic needs such as food, drink, sleep and goes to self-actualization (which could be spirituality, self-fulfillment, and the other sense you may be talking about that's the "feeling" of missing something in one's life).

As with the design/designer discussion, I feel believing there is a designer in something that looks design is fine. There's a term for it I can't think of at the moment.

Here's something you may find interesting
Patterns: The Need for Order

"Humans have a tendency to see patterns everywhere. That’s important when making decisions and judgments and acquiring knowledge; we tend to be uneasy with chaos and chance (Gilovich, 1991). Unfortunately, that same tendency to see patterns in everything can lead to seeing things that don’t exist."

(Oh. This has to do with sound but there is a term for one finding meaning in visual disordered phenomena as well-pareidolia) Synchronicities would be another.

Human minds are interesting. They try to find patterns and meaning in what we experience with our five senses and interpret from our inner senses for survival and self-actualization so one feels whole.

I also believe if the design shows a creator in an obvious manner, it wouldn't depend on one's religion to figure it out. We would be able to say "look. that's the christian-god who created this" and nothing/no one else.

Those buildings needing a builder is something we understand from man-made things. It's alright to apply that same logic to things we cannot explain that are not man-made. The problem is stating that it is a fact (which is not the same as obvious conclusions/belief/or deriving things on faith) and assuming that one "should" see a designer just by, say, looking at a beautiful flower or sunset.

So, there should be a another (if there is) method to find out there is a designer to a design (if one likes). If there are none, why would believers assume people would take their word for it that there is?

Now this is what I call a productive, and coherent post. Many good points.

I am quoting scripture because the scriptures make a lot of sense. They present information in a very rational way, and so I will refer to them in making my points.

Patterns are important, especially for those involved in investigative study.
Image a detective who ignores patterns. Would you consider that a good detective?
Say a detective is trying to find an informant - a key witness in a case - who disappeared.
The detective looks for clues. He comes upon this...

"Aw. It's nothing." he says. "Just some creature scurried across the sand." ...and off he goes.
That's not what we would expect of course.

Psalms 10:4 says, "In his haughtiness, the wicked man makes no investigation; All his thoughts are: “There is no God."
Reading that scripture at a surface level, one would think it's meaningless, but that short text, has profound implications.
For one thing. a haughty person is dismissive of any consideration of any evidence related to a supreme being. Thus they make no investigation. The surroundings verses explains why, but I am not looking at that currently.
What I am focused on, is that the opposite to haughty - humble... the humble person is willing to investigate, and in doing so, is not dismissive of clues, or patterns that give indication to what they may point to.

I can say with certainly, that they are many clues that indicate, there is a supreme creator.
So that when Romans 1:19, 20 says, "God's invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made... so that persons are inexcusable." the verse is quite accurate. It does not lie.
In fact, as I mentioned before, we can see design. There is no question. That's a pattern.
If we see a very complicated piece of engineering, we are fascinated at how the designer put all those intricate parts together, to work harmoniously, as one masterpiece or artistry, we have no difficulty understanding that planning went into it, and we do not question intelligence. That is a pattern.


When we see something familiar to us, we use those patterns to draw logical inferences..
One is the cause. One is the effect. Designed... Designer.
I see design in nature. Not the appearance of it,
There are particular patterns to identify.
I go with Hebrews 3:4 "Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God."
As I said, I am not trying to convince you. This is how I see things.

I like very much what you said about there being "another (if there is) method to find out there is a designer to a design". I do agree with you, because even though we see evidence of a designer, it's not conclusive, and we have no idea of anything else really.
I think that's where God's wisdom is also evident.
Even he recognizes that one witness is not enough (Deuteronomy 19:15) . . .On the testimony of two witnesses or on the testimony of three witnesses the matter should be established. . .

The Bible is our second witness.
I have found the Bible a true witness testifying to the fact that God is, and then there is the spirit... but these are not things the fleshly man accepts.
(1 Corinthians 2:14) . . .But a physical man does not accept the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know them, because they are examined spiritually.

It's not therefore a straightforward case of, "Then Mary, Jane and Betty should all believe these things".

I'm interested to know what you meant by "I also believe if the design shows a creator in an obvious manner..." What do you mean "obvious manner"?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Now this is what I call a productive, and coherent post. Many good points.

I am quoting scripture because the scriptures make a lot of sense. They present information in a very rational way, and so I will refer to them in making my points.

Patterns are important, especially for those involved in investigative study.
Image a detective who ignores patterns. Would you consider that a good detective?
Say a detective is trying to find an informant - a key witness in a case - who disappeared.
The detective looks for clues. He comes upon this...

But think of this. What if he said "Oh there's a pattern... let me research this.. it could be a footprint (from what we are already familiar with). Wala! I got it!"

That would make more sense than him saying "Oh. I can't figure what it is. It 'must be god' who did it."

The logic behind something created must have a creator is fine. The nature of that creator doesn't quite connect with what one calls creation.

"Aw. It's nothing." he says. "Just some creature scurried across the sand." ...and off he goes.
That's not what we would expect of course.

Of course, no. Unless the investigator was christian, how would he conclude god did it?

But I will add with scripture, we're not on the same ground here. In order for something to be fact, investigators, scientist, theologist even, refer to multiple sources to prove the validity of the questions they are trying to solve. So, that footprint they wouldn't just include it from one source only.

In order to say "the creator created X" as a fact, it needs to be supported by multiple sources and those sources, in part, should not be religious in nature. For example, some of the biblical artifacts that exist (not thinking of any at the moment) isn't validated just by scripture but by many points of history and even science. Conclusions from design to designer is not the same in those regards.

Psalms 10:4 says, "In his haughtiness, the wicked man makes no investigation; All his thoughts are: “There is no God."
Reading that scripture at a surface level, one would think it's meaningless, but that short text, has profound implications.
For one thing. a haughty person is dismissive of any consideration of any evidence related to a supreme being. Thus they make no investigation. The surroundings verses explains why, but I am not looking at that currently.
What I am focused on, is that the opposite to haughty - humble... the humble person is willing to investigate, and in doing so, is not dismissive of clues, or patterns that give indication to what they may point to.

I can say with certainly, that they are many clues that indicate, there is a supreme creator.
So that when Romans 1:19, 20 says, "God's invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made... so that persons are inexcusable." the verse is quite accurate. It does not lie.
In fact, as I mentioned before, we can see design. There is no question. That's a pattern.
If we see a very complicated piece of engineering, we are fascinated at how the designer put all those intricate parts together, to work harmoniously, as one masterpiece or artistry, we have no difficulty understanding that planning went into it, and we do not question intelligence. That is a pattern.

Wouldn't you say you're drawing conclusions on what you already know and makes sense to you rather than drawing conclusions from facts that should make sense to all despite their lack of knowledge of scripture?

When we see something familiar to us, we use those patterns to draw logical inferences..
One is the cause. One is the effect. Designed... Designer.
I see design in nature. Not the appearance of it,
There are particular patterns to identify.
I go with Hebrews 3:4 "Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God."
As I said, I am not trying to convince you. This is how I see things.

I like very much what you said about there being "another (if there is) method to find out there is a designer to a design". I do agree with you, because even though we see evidence of a designer, it's not conclusive, and we have no idea of anything else really.
I think that's where God's wisdom is also evident.
Even he recognizes that one witness is not enough (Deuteronomy 19:15) . . .On the testimony of two witnesses or on the testimony of three witnesses the matter should be established. . .

Spoke to soon. Mind you, I only read the full text once or twice. I split them up so it's easier to digest so if I touched on something you've already said, it's probably because it was further down in the post I haven't yet came to.

With that said, is there an outside support for a design needing a designer or is it only religious oriented?

When you state it as a belief, there is no question really to the logic because you back it up by scripture. If you state it as a fact, there needs to be multiple support outside the bible to back it up.

Take this-the Shroud of Turin
Shroud of Turin SHOCKING revelation DISMISSES link to Jesus Christ and Researchers hung men on a cross and added blood in bid to prove Turin Shroud is real

“Professional medical personnel were invited to not only contribute to the experimental protocol and analyses, but also to ensure the medical safety of the subjects,” the abstract states. Then, the researchers applied the blood and “documented and analyzed” the “resulting flow patterns over the simulated, crucified subjects.”

While it's still a debate, these claims weren't solely based on scripture. Archeologist, scientists, et cetera are and probably still involved in proving if this shroud has the blood of jesus. To determine if anything is true from something direct to something abstract, it needs to have multiple support for the claims.

I like very much what you said about there being "another (if there is) method to find out there is a designer to a design". I do agree with you, because even though we see evidence of a designer, it's not conclusive, and we have no idea of anything else really.
I think that's where God's wisdom is also evident.
Even he recognizes that one witness is not enough (Deuteronomy 19:15) . . .On the testimony of two witnesses or on the testimony of three witnesses the matter should be established. . .

The Bible is our second witness.
I have found the Bible a true witness testifying to the fact that God is, and then there is the spirit... but these are not things the fleshly man accepts.
(1 Corinthians 2:14) . . .But a physical man does not accept the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know them, because they are examined spiritually.

It's not therefore a straightforward case of, "Then Mary, Jane and Betty should all believe these things".

I'm interested to know what you meant by "I also believe if the design shows a creator in an obvious manner..." What do you mean "obvious manner"?

Oh. Say both of us stood and watched the lobster (in your picture). Pretend I have no biblical knowledge and never heard of any abrahmic belief system. If there is a designer (if it's fact) I should be able to conclude from the awe of what I'm seeing that there is a. a designer and b. it comes from the christian god. I can't take your word for it but have to draw conclusions for myself.

If it's not apparent then you "could" be telling the truth. Then again so can many other religions and so can many people who are not religious who draw their own conclusions as well.

So, that's why I said there needs to be something more than scripture and drawing conclusions from what you already know.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Now this is what I call a productive, and coherent post. Many good points.

I get a strike once in a blue moon. Thanks.

 

[nPeace]

I'm not sure you have grasped what I am saying.
I have investigated all the dimensions available for searching.
I have found evidence for God, in creation, the Bible, and God's spirit, and the effects, results, and experiences.
Science does not have all the answers, and in the majority of cases, what they have are ideas - hypotheses, which are not facts, and which cannot be proven.
I've proven for myself that God is.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm not sure you have grasped what I am saying.
I have investigated all the dimensions available for searching.
I have found evidence for God, in creation, the Bible, and God's spirit, and the effects, results, and experiences.
Science does not have all the answers, and in the majority of cases, what they have are ideas - hypotheses, which are not facts, and which cannot be proven.
I've proven for myself that God is.

I'm not sure how this relates to my last post (you'd have to @name me or quote me) but I have a somewhat of an intermission topic that came to mind.

The zen question: if a tree fell in the woods and no one was there to hear it did it make a sound? If a designer created the physical universe, and no one was around to see it, was the universe actually created?

A believer may say that the tree makes a sound when it falls despite our not being there to hear it. Which is a logical assumption or intelligent guess based on what we know of life so far-when something falls, it makes a sound.

Likewise, a believer would say there is a designer despite our inability to see it create the design (say a rainbow). So, based on what we know-a creation (building) needs a creator (builder), we apply that same logic to an event even though we have not witnessed it ourselves.

--

1. The logic in these two (they're the same) is fine. We make connections so our brains won't be surprised or shocked (preventing response to a threat/danger) to something it is not familiar with. It's a survival thing.

2. Where the logic falls in both cases is assuming our conclusions above are facts: a sound "does" make a sound even though we are not there to hear it. A designer "did" create the design even though we were not there to see it.

The problem is not the logic-that's fine.
The problem is assuming that logic, claim, or conclusion "is" true-is a fact.

3. My (and other people's) question is not about the logic of how you got your conclusion. We believe buildings have a builder and why you'd use that same logic for the physical universe.

BUT

4. What needs to happen is to prove your conclusions "are" fact. Since no one heard a sound and no one saw a designer-that fact-can only be rebutted with proof (not suggestions). When push comes to shove, the closest we can get is an agnostic-like position: we don't know.

Q. My question is can you support conclusions with facts-direct cause/effect connections?

Q. Is it only by faith and confirmation bias (what you read in scripture confirms your already held beliefs/conclusions)?

If it's knowledge, there are no must-bes and suggestions. It must have strong support.

Q. What are they?

- Here's something you may find interesting-
The Bayesian Brain: An Introduction to Predictive Processing - Mindcoolness

"
During every moment of your life, your brain gathers statistics to adapt its model of the world, and this model’s only job is to generate predictions. Your brain is a prediction machine. Just as the heart’s main function is to pump blood through the body, so the brain’s main function is to make predictions about the body. For example, your brain predicts incoming sensory data: what you’re about to perceive from within (interoception) as from without (exteroception).

"
If your predictions don’t fit the actual data, you get a high prediction error that updates your internal model—to reduce further discrepancies between expectation and evidence, between model and reality. Your brain hates unfulfilled expectations, so it structures its model of the world and motivates action in such a way that more of its predictions come truer. Here’s a schematic diagram of how this all works:
"

The idea is that our brain already has biases on what we believe (building=builder... food=cook). So if something interrupts that logic we are used to ever since birth, we have cognitive dissonance. The problem is faith and suggestion. In order to get to this "fact" one needs to be skeptical of their conclusions. Since we were not there when the tree presuming made a sound and not existent when a designer assumingly created the design, we can only make our next best guess.

Since you're discussing this as if design=designer "is" a fact and not a assumption, are you able to be skeptical of your conclusions in order to prove what you're saying is a fact and not, say, based on faith or confirmation bias?

 

[nPeace]

I'm not sure how this relates to my last post (you'd have to @name me or quote me) but I have a somewhat of an intermission topic that came to mind.

The zen question: if a tree fell in the woods and no one was there to hear it did it make a sound? If a designer created the physical universe, and no one was around to see it, was the universe actually created?

A believer may say that the tree makes a sound when it falls despite our not being there to hear it. Which is a logical assumption or intelligent guess based on what we know of life so far-when something falls, it makes a sound.

Likewise, a believer would say there is a designer despite our inability to see it create the design (say a rainbow). So, based on what we know-a creation (building) needs a creator (builder), we apply that same logic to an event even though we have not witnessed it ourselves.

--

1. The logic in these two (they're the same) is fine. We make connections so our brains won't be surprised or shocked (preventing response to a threat/danger) to something it is not familiar with. It's a survival thing.

2. Where the logic falls in both cases is assuming our conclusions above are facts: a sound "does" make a sound even though we are not there to hear it. A designer "did" create the design even though we were not there to see it.

The problem is not the logic-that's fine.
The problem is assuming that logic, claim, or conclusion "is" true-is a fact.

3. My (and other people's) question is not about the logic of how you got your conclusion. We believe buildings have a builder and why you'd use that same logic for the physical universe.

BUT

4. What needs to happen is to prove your conclusions "are" fact. Since no one heard a sound and no one saw a designer-that fact-can only be rebutted with proof (not suggestions). When push comes to shove, the closest we can get is an agnostic-like position: we don't know.

Q. My question is can you support conclusions with facts-direct cause/effect connections?

Q. Is it only by faith and confirmation bias (what you read in scripture confirms your already held beliefs/conclusions)?

If it's knowledge, there are no must-bes and suggestions. It must have strong support.

Q. What are they?

- Here's something you may find interesting-
The Bayesian Brain: An Introduction to Predictive Processing - Mindcoolness


The idea is that our brain already has biases on what we believe (building=builder... food=cook). So if something interrupts that logic we are used to ever since birth, we have cognitive dissonance. The problem is faith and suggestion. In order to get to this "fact" one needs to be skeptical of their conclusions. Since we were not there when the tree presuming made a sound and not existent when a designer assumingly created the design, we can only make our next best guess.

Since you're discussing this as if design=designer "is" a fact and not a assumption, are you able to be skeptical of your conclusions in order to prove what you're saying is a fact and not, say, based on faith or confirmation bias?

You could always try a practical experiment.
Take your best shirt. Lay it out on the ironing board. Take a thin rubber tube, and prop up the iron. Now plug in the iron, and leave the house and go for a hour long walk. Joking Artist. I'm joking.

I don't recall saying the designer is a proven fact though. I said I proved to myself. I am convinced, based on the evidence I see.
You don't have to believe or accept.
I am not trying to convince you.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You could always try a practical experiment.
Take your best shirt. Lay it out on the ironing board. Take a thin rubber tube, and prop up the iron. Now plug in the iron, and leave the house and go for a hour long walk. Joking Artist. I'm joking.

I don't recall saying the designer is a proven fact though. I said I proved to myself. I am convinced, based on the evidence I see.
You don't have to believe or accept.
I am not trying to convince you.

Of course you don't have to convince me. That wasn't part of the discussion (wasn't in my mind). No one cares about my views of how the earth came to be . Anyway, if it isn't a fact (since you didn't claim it literally), are you agnostic about it?

If it's not a proven fact then what's the basis of your belief?

"Does" a building have a builder or is that what you believe but not necessarily true in the grand scheme of things?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I ask because when someone believes something is true, it forms the basis of their reality and how they see the world. So, if you said god is the creator of creation, I'm not assuming it's your belief which can change but what you accept as a fact-which cannot change.

Therefore, when I ask you questions @nPeace I'm asking you to support your basis of reality.