Your best argument that god exists

[Ouroboros]

The point is I know, I don't believe.

In anything? The weather report says it's going to rain tomorrow. Do you know that it's going to rain? Or do you know that it's not going to rain? Or do you believe there will be either outcome but you don't really know? Weather is a different context where these words can be used. So, this is an example of a context where you either believe or you know either way.

 

[outhouse]

In anything?

Non sequitur.


The point is belief can change to knowledge, with increased levels of knowledge. I know the answer is 2, I don't believe it is 2.

If I see a storm coming in and Doppler shows rain and rain is imminent, I do not believe it will rain I know it will.


Its all about levels of knowing. If one is not sure it will rain and does not have all the knowledge, one might say he believes it will rain, because he only knows the sky is partially cloudy.

 

[Ouroboros]

Non sequitur.

It wasn't an argument. It was a question. Question can't be non sequiturs. Actually, to point out that a question is non sequitur is a non sequitur. It doesn't follow that a question is invalid as an argument because it is accused of being non sequitur. So the question still stands. Do you believe in anything at all? Anything. Like, do you believe there will be a new day tomorrow? Do you believe that your best friend will always be there for you? Do you believe you have enough money for tomorrow? These are questions to just check if you have any beliefs at all. That's not non-sequitur to ask those questions.

The point is belief can change to knowledge, with increased levels of knowledge. I know the answer is 2, I don't believe it is 2.

Didn't say that. Didn't ask that either. I asked you if you believe in anything. Anything at all. Or are you as a person completely devoid of any beliefs?

If I see a storm coming in and Doppler shows rain and rain is imminent, I do not believe it will rain I know it will.

I see. So you have removed all beliefs in your life. Interesting.

Its all about levels of knowing. If one is not sure it will rain and does not have all the knowledge, one might say he believes it will rain, because he only knows the sky is partially cloudy.

Knowing is a level of belief.

Knowledge is sometimes called well-justified true belief. Do you believe that's a true statement about knowledge?

 

[outhouse]

It wasn't an argument. It was a question

There is not anyone who does not hold a belief about something. We all have beliefs, its why your question was non sequitur.

I see. So you have removed all beliefs in your life. Interesting.

Baseless accusation.

I have never implied such. I have only stayed on context to belief evolving into knowledge when enough knowledge has been obtained.


YOU can state you "believe" the answer is 2, but we all know that you know the answer is 2. This is nothing more the a wording choice that states how sure you are about said context.

 

[Ouroboros]

There is not anyone who does not hold a belief about something. We all have beliefs, its why your question was non sequitur.

No, it wasn't, because the way you talked about other things before suggested that you have no beliefs at all about anything. So I wanted to confirm that it was your position or not.

Baseless accusation.

Not accusation. I asked to check your position. That's not an accusation at all.

I have never implied such. I have only stayed on context to belief evolving into knowledge when enough knowledge has been obtained.

Well, you say you know what the weather will be like, and not believe either way. So I had to confirm that you really mean this, that you never have any beliefs but always just know things.

YOU can state you "believe" the answer is 2, but we all know that you know the answer is 2. This is nothing more the a wording choice that states how sure you are about said context.

I didn't say that.

1 sandpile + 1 sandpile = 1 bigger sandpile.

So no. I don't believe the answer is 2. Neither do I know the answer is 2. I only know that in arithmetics, the answer is 2. So again, context.

 

[outhouse]

Neither do I know the answer is 2

That's to bad, I do know. Its not about you anyway. But brother, if you cannot tell me the answer to [1 + 1 = ] then you have no business debating anything because you have taken this into an inane conversation.

1 sandpile + 1 sandpile = 1 bigger sandpile.

Non sequitur. Completely out of context.

And your factually wrong. No where did you indicate you added both piles together. as stated you have 2 sand piles, not one large one.

Well, you say you know what the weather will be like

No I did not. I stated with more knowledge I have went passed belief into knowledge. I stated I only knew based on the knowledge I possessed.

 

[McBell]

1 sandpile + 1 sandpile = 1 bigger sandpile.

And your factually wrong. No where did you indicate you added both piles together. as stated you have 2 sand piles, not one large one.
.

One wonders what the symbol "+" means to you?

 

[Ouroboros]

That's to bad, I do know. Its not about you anyway. But brother, if you cannot tell me the answer to [1 + 1 = ] then you have no business debating anything because you have taken this into an inane conversation.

We were talking about knowledge within different contexts.

Non sequitur. Completely out of context.

No. We were talking about different contexts and how truth can change within them. Knowledge and belief also changes within different contexts.

And your factually wrong. No where did you indicate you added both piles together. as stated you have 2 sand piles, not one large one.

Add one sand pile to another sand pile, and you have ...?

No I did not. I stated with more knowledge I have went passed belief into knowledge. I stated I only knew based on the knowledge I possessed.

You were suggesting that you didn't have any beliefs. I just wanted to make sure that's what you said.

 

[Ouroboros]

One wonders what the symbol "+" means to you?

To me? It means to add two things.

 

[outhouse]

One wonders what the symbol "+" means to you?

If you could not follow the context laid out quite clearly.

Its a personal problem of yours not mine.


It was obvious simple math. You chose to take it to the complete inane.

 

[outhouse]

Add one sand pile to another sand pile, and you have ...?

You did not state adding "one to another".

 

[outhouse]

You were suggesting that you didn't have any beliefs. I just wanted to make sure that's what you said.

That is fine we all can believe.

I stated earlier in this thread at one time I had a belief there was no deity. Only with knowledge do I now not hold a belief.

 

[McBell]

If you could not follow the context laid out quite clearly.

Its a personal problem of yours not mine.


It was obvious simple math. You chose to take it to the complete inane.

Bull ****.
He quite clearly had the "+" symbol between the two "1 sandpile".
There fore he did in fact indicate he added the two piles together.
Which means you are just plain flat out wrong when you claimed:

No where did you indicate you added both piles together.
.

 

[outhouse]

We were talking about knowledge within different contexts.

Correct.

I don't think "believe" is the correct word to use, nor applies to certain levels of knowledge.

 

[outhouse]

He quite clearly had the "+" symbol

To bad.

The answer as stated is 2 sand piles.

Had he stated he was adding one pile on top of another pile, how many piles would he have ?


This is not trick math, And his question and problem were in context to my 1 + 1 = 2.

 

[McBell]

To bad.

Ah, so you have no interest in admitting your error.

Fine by me.

I mean, it is your credibility taking the hit, not mine.

The answer as stated is 2 sand piles.

Nope.
You are just plain flat out wrong.

Had he stated he was adding one pile on top of another pile, how many piles would he have ?

Semantics games will not help your credibility on this one.
Nice try though.

This is not trick math,

No, it isn't.
Which is why I am surprised it has tripped you up so much.

Of course, I am assuming you are not merely sticking your head in the sand to ignore/dismiss your being just plain flat out wrong...

And his question and problem were in context to my 1 + 1 = 2.

ROTFLMAO

again, nice try.
But again, isn't going to work.

Now I understand you are likely going to try one of your "I am so much smarter that you cannot possibly understand what I am "really" saying" rabbit hole adventures, so I will let you know right now, that that is not going to work either.

but since this tangent bothers you so much, I shall allow you the last word.


have a nice day

 

[Ouroboros]

Oh, here's another one.

1 light speed + 1 light speed = 1 light speed.

Nothing can go faster than speed of light. The only difference is that the outcome has changed energy. It has higher energy, but it's still the same speed.

Just sayin'.

 

[McBell]

Oh, here's another one.

1 light speed + 1 light speed = 1 light speed.

Nothing can go faster than speed of light. The only difference is that the outcome has changed energy. It has higher energy, but it's still the same speed.

Just sayin'.

so what happens when I turn on the headlights of a vehicle going the speed of light?

 

[Ouroboros]

Correct.

I don't think "believe" is the correct word to use, nor applies to certain levels of knowledge.

Well... as I mentioned before, knowledge is said to be a "well-justified true belief." In essence, everything we "know" is a subjective claim of our own state of mind. Belief is also a state of mind. Knowledge is a form of a state where the belief has gone to a form of conviction based on evidence and such. It's a strong conviction. Perhaps conviction is a better word for you to use?

 

[Ouroboros]

so what happens when I turn on the headlights of a vehicle going the speed of light?

The light from your vehicle is still traveling at the speed of light. That's how relativity works. The light in front of you increase in energy, blue shifts I think. Somethin' like that. Mysterious things, but that's how I understand relativity.