I don't deal in 'beliefs'.

That's probably the bottom line right there.

I think solely in terms of possibilities anymore.

In fact, I tend to work like Sherlock Holmes. I dismiss the unreasonable and whatever is left is a candidate for truth.

The only thing that I would add to that is that my horizon of what I deem to be "reasonable" has expanded over the years.

I tend to be more open to ideas than I used to be. Especially if I can't find sufficient reason to dismiss them.

What made the belief false?

So you say.

1. You do this without ever holding the belief that X is the most unreasonable, or that Y is the most reasonable?
2.You do this without ever believing that this or that has the highest mathematical probability?
3.You think about these things without believing what you think?

I do. My experience. It is self evident.

There is only a false belief if the perceiver determines it false for themselves. For the believer it is not false. So in one way yea they are the same but in another no they are not.

It depends on if you are the believer or not.

Ever been wrong?

Yes many times... about other things.

But not about "I exist."

So as long as one believes that Hitler was nice, that the moon is made of cheese, that the easter bunny delivers easter eggs, or that God is vengeful, then those beliefs are true simply because they are believed to be so?



If believing that something is true makes it so, we would never be able to hold false belief, because believing it alone would make it true.

I told you already, I don't think of this in terms of 'beliefs'. I think of it in terms of accepting that some things are more reasonable than others.

Why is it important to you to pin things down with a specific word or term? That's just language. Language is merely used to convey our thoughts.

I'm telling you that my thoughts are better conveyed using the words that I choose to convey them with. I simply think in terms of accepting that some things are more reasonable than others.

That doesn't mean that I necessarily 'believe' them to be true.

For the believer yes it makes it true and if they believe, no amount of "proof" will discount it for them. That is why Christianity has survived this long. Well and other beliefs.

This is of course a philosophical truth we are discussing here since beliefs are mostly philosophical in nature.

Scientifically if I believe that we went to the moon, if I believe what scientists and astronauts have said then I believe that the moon is not made of cheese. I do believe them so for me this belief is a solid one. I could be wrong though, you know, depending on others verification, word, experiences, etc.... can lead one to be misinformed but the belief would still be true to me though.

True for science is more dependable then true for just everyone in the sense of being verified though.

Truly.

I thought Creative supported logical thinking?

How could anyone be "wrong" about believing that they "exist"?

Oops! I was wrong! I don't exist!

I can see where this thread has come to it's logical end.

I'm going to bed. Have a good night all.

Good night

I too am heading to bed here in a minute.

So good night to all, have a good rest of night,

Yes, I used to say that "I believe" those things too. Although over the years I have become more careful and simply say, "It sounds reasonable to me".

I have no clue whether men actually went to the moon or not. But, as I say, it sounds reasonable to me. So I 'accept' that it most likely did happen and weigh that information accordingly.

There's no need for actual belief when mere acceptance will do.

Okay then. If you don't believe that your thoughts about the most reasonable things are true, then I have nothing further... nothing at all.

Thank you for the dialogue.

Yes I would agree that the cup is on the table IFF the cup is no the table.

Are yo claiming that the cup IS on the table?

You realize that you're claiming that belief itself is sufficient for truth? If one believes does not make the belief true. Truth is presupposed in all belief. That does not make it true.

It is not true that the moon is made of cheese, no matter who believes it.

It is not true that the earth is the center of the universe, no matter who believes it.

It is not true that we can flap our arms and fly like a bird, no matter who believes it.

It was not true for the last guy who tried to jump off of a building while take hallucinogenics, even though he believed it.

--

We clearly know that false belief exists. We know that to believe something is to be something is true, is the case, is the way things are, etc. Because we know that false belief exists, we also know that belief alone is insufficient for truth. IOW Believing X does not not make X so.

Well, of course I am, there it is--------->

Alright Di, I expect by now you're ready to talk about perception and what not. I'm ready to purse a different line of thought here, as the other has just ended by my asking what the difference was between a true belief and a false one.

A subjective truth position cannot answer that question and remain coherent.

You don't believe that Smurfs exist? Why?

Ok - I looked over there -------> and I verified that the claim "the cup is on the table" corresponds to the cup I see on the table.

Next!