æi is that you?
You forgot the (pb) tag again.
>one has no "belief", by your definition.
No…? I'm not sure how you got that from my insane ramblings last bread.
I conceded that everything is belief, but I also hold that some beliefs has to be taken as fact or all other discussion of knowledge versus belief becomes redundant.
>one knows as one knows
"The only thing I know for sure is that I know nothing."
Knowing is subjective. Truth is not.
>truth, by observable human sensory organs (including your delicate jellyfish brians), is sujective.
As opposed to your delicate jellyfish brains?
And no, you are just using a linguistic trick to say the same thing I did in a different way.
Truth exists separate from the subjective - again otherwise having a discussion becomes redundant.
The moment truth enters the brains it becomes knowledge, and so does lies.
Truth is a state. Something is either true or it isn't.
Even if I don't think something is true, that thing might still be true, the universe (in my experience) doesn't bend to my will.
>those sæм "jellyfish" are all you have. ergo, knowledge precedes putative truth…
And thus we are back at the point where everything is belief, because of our limited senses - which I have conceded to multiple times now - but as I keep saying some beliefs has to be taken as fact, such as:
I am real.
or the belief that there actually is someone on the other side of the internet posting replies to me.
If we don't everything becomes redundant.
Something… something… coincidences… something… mathematically impossible…
>you are wrong.
I'm not wrong, you are changing the meaning of words.
>God is the only "State"
>He is the only "T/truth" by your definition.
>all else is absolutely subjective
We are clearly not using the words in the same way.
But not really, by "my" definition experiencing is the only Truth I can verify.
The weird thing is, it sounds like we agree. We just disagree on what we call that constant that is "experiencing".
If that is the case; I don't understand why you insist on making that into an entity separate from you?
What makes it a 'him'? Does a state have a sex?
We can agree on, there is only God - but your image of God (and hence the God I agree to) is not the archetypical God figure that most religious people refer to.
And thus not what I was originally arguing against.
But why call it God then? It doesn't fit the usual definition of a God.
>уоц donot know the meaning of the words.
Kek. Ok, so dictionary definitions are just belief too?
>you donot know Him.
>you should prioritize тнат.
Shit when you put like that…
Kek
>they have changed an great deal in one's time…
You're not wrong. Kek.
I realized how bad my statement was as I posted.
More appropriate would have been to say:
You are changing the definitions I'm using to tell me I'm wrong.