[Questioning Everything]

[ken]

Like the definition you get when you type 'define belief' from a google bar:
1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.

No mention of being closed minded to change of view even in the face of evidence.

But I have NOT used a different definition of 'belief' at all. In fact I have used the exact same definition of 'belief' as you have above.

HOW do you think I define 'belief'? NOW we will see if you have really been listening to Me, or if you have just been perceiving Me as what your already gained views of Me, want you to see Me as.

If I say I believe X, you interpret that statement as if I was completely closed to alternatives, which is completely not how the word is used. There is no mention of a closed mind in the definition. The very word conveys doubt.

In that example it may convey doubt. But, if I question you, for clarity, about whether you would believe (in) some thing if it were not true, then what would your answer be?

People can, and do, use words to mean absolutely any thing that they want them to mean. Some words today are even used in the completely opposite and contrary meaning to what those words meant when they first came into being. How you are using a word I can only gather through clarifying questions.

If you do not answer My clarifying questions, then I am not able to gain clarity of what you believe in, and thus that what you are trying to express to Me. I asked you before how do you think I define 'belief'.

By the way if you would only believe (in say) X if it were true, then by definition you would closed to alternatives. If, however, you would believe (in say) X if it were not true, then WHY?

"It rained here Tuesday" is a far stronger statement than "I believe it rained here Tuesday", which conveys that the statement is more of a best guess than a known fact.

So what you are really saying when you say, "I believe it rained here Tuesday" is "I do not know if it rained here or not Tuesday", is that right? If that is right, then the truth is it either rained here Tuesday or you do not know if it rained or not here Tuesday. Therefore, the truth can be very quickly and easily seen.

Saying, "I believe X" only detracts from the truth and the fact that that one who says it does NOT know.

Okay fair enough. But what about with given your definition of 'belief' would you believe (in) them then?

Afraid to answer that since you might interpret a positive response as being closed minded. So I abstain.

Why abstain giving a positive response? What is it that you are really afraid of? Is there some deep-down knowing that being closed, or as you and some others incorrectly call it "closed minded", is a wrong or incorrect thing to do or be?

By abstaining from answering clarifying questions you are not being truly open and honest. If you think/believe that not being open and honest with others, and/or with yourself, is better than being open and honest, then so be it. But just remember the more you are not being truly open and honest with others you are, subliminally, also teaching them to not be truly open and honest with you, and others.

Further to not being open and honest teaching others to do that you are also unable to learn more and anew while you are closed like this. Also, what do you prefer, others to be open and honest with and to you, or, closed and dishonest with and to you?

Ask using a different word than believe or hold-a-view, another term you've put off limits.

I have not put any word off limits. I just use words in a way they have been shown to Me to form a true clear and unambiguous picture, on the one topic, of Life.

Just your truly open and honest answer to My clarifying questions is all I am seeking in My questions. Nothing else.

WHAT? WHY did you go from do I believe that to do I unmovingly know that? I asked a simple straight-forward question about would you believe.... and somehow and for some reason you twisted it around to, would you 'unmovingly know it'. If 5+5=10 is right and you know it, then just say so. I do NOT care. I was just asking, for example, if 5+5=10, would you believe that?

Abstain due to ambiguity. I'll say that I could have 5+5=10 thrown into doubt. I've seen it done. Nothing seems immune from doubt. I used the word unmovingly because I wanted to think of some postition that no contrary evidence could put into doubt. I could not think of one. I'm not unmoving on anything.

So, you are unmoving on every thing, yet you still persist on wanting to believe (in) some things, correct?

The whole point in asking you would you believe (in) some thing is so that you could see that when you do, then you are NOT open to any contrary evidence being produced.

But I can't think of anything closed to contrary evidence.

If that is your view and how you see things, then thanks for sharing.

I would, however, suggest that maybe the Truth is closed to contrary (or false) evidence, obviously.

But this sharing of differing views, or the sharing of how we see or observe things differently, is how we ALL can gain more, better, and truer views. But that of course depends on how open or not we are being.

So, are you now saying that you would NOT believe in some thing even if there appears to be no doubt because there can be doubt?

I did not use the word believe in that statement. I'm trying to avoid it altogether.

Okay.

You could have used the word 'think' instead of 'belief', which would have also provided much more truth to the matter.

Works sometimes. "I believe that I am left handed" works. "I maintain a thought that I'm left handed" is just wrong. "I think in Santa Claus" is also wrong. So no, we can't just substitute "think" everywhere where believe/belief used to go.

I never said nor suggested to substitute the word 'believe' with 'think' everywhere. I said to that matter, which we were referring to, the word 'think' could be better suited than the word 'believe'.

"I use the left hand more often than not" also works.
I agree your second example is just wrong also. I am not sure why you would even say that here. You did not replace 'believe' with 'think' here.
I agree, "I think in santa claus" is wrong. But it is about just as wrong as "I believe in santa claus".

I am left wondering what did you actually mean when you said it that way? If there is some doubt I wonder why you would use the 'believe' word. Sure, it can mean I am not sure at all or it can mean I am totally and absolutely 100% sure. But which one are you really meaning I am not sure of until I ask for clarity.

How much time do you have to spend on learning My views?

At this pace, probably not enough. You gave some clues in the prior post. Be totally open and all will become clear. I attempted to query an opinion on something practical and urgent like the carbon thingy. If we're all open and just like you, what solution would we all collectively do to address that issue?

The solution become more obvious and clearer the more open more people become. But in short if you want to know the solution to the carbon "thingy", then you have to tell Me what the carbon "thingy" problem is exactly. In general, however, once adult human beings learn and/or discover and understand WHY they are greedy then they can prevent others from growing up to be greedy individuals also. Once greed is being eliminated from society, then that will be the start of something practical and urgent on what I am ONLY guessing is the carbon "thingy" that you are alluding to here.

While I'm open minded, I am apparently not sufficiently open minded to see the solution with the clarity that comes from total open mindedness.

Yes it appears that way. Although there can really only be one level of openness, human beings appear to have many differing layers of being open. Just like there also can be very many different layers of honesty in human beings. There appears to be a spectrum of honesty and of openness with human beings moving up and down or sliding along this spectrum from one extreme to the other, at differing points in their lives. Reaching and remaining at the end being truly open and honest ALL is revealed.

Your views seem perhaps to be social ones. You've not given a lot of thought to the nature of reality (have not expressed it to me at least), but you have given quite some thought as to how humanity can exist in harmony. But that's as far as I got.

The reality, and the nature of it, fits in perfectly with humanity co-existing in harmony. Like I have suggested earlier My idea of reality is probably completely different than your view of reality is now.

Unless I spot one I think you'll be more interested in, and involves less knowledge of physics. You said you wanted feedback.

Yes I did say I wanted that. And, I am still very interested in ALL perceived biases and beliefs that others see I have. I am not sure why you persist with only sharing the ones you think I will be more interested in, they are all equally of interest to Me. I do not know how you know what ones I will be more interested in. I am also unsure why you want to persist with only sharing things of less knowledge of physics. Do you think you know more knowledge of physics, or is it some thing else?

You said you have no beliefs. As to whether I believe that statement: abstain.

Yes I did say, I have no beliefs. I have NEVER said I believe nothing. That could imply a sort of nihilistic view of things. I neither believe nor disbelieve (in) any thing. That is much different than believing in nothing. Believing in nothing is still a belief, whereas not believing and not disbelieving is just that. That is being open.

Well, I'm not a scientist so I don't go through that formal process, but I have some patents that have a somewhat similar process. My work is peer reviewed, so I know what it is like to come out of that without significant flaws identified.

Okay.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has gained all views (or a lot of them at least), and believes in none of them.

The standford encyclopedia of philosophy is not a human being. Human beings believe (in) things, books or computers do not.

Truth hardly spews from a list of all views, none held. You say otherwise.

Do I?

You claim to have gained all views, but you don't know them all.

I do not recall claiming I have gained all views.

Sorry, I'm more trying to parse your sentence than deny what you're saying.

You appear to be misinterpreting what I am saying than understanding what I am saying.

I say you believe none of it simply because you endlessly state that you have no beliefs.

What you say does NOT fit in with what I have been saying. Again, having no beliefs can be very different, even opposite, than believing nothing.

If you can have no beliefs, but still believe some of those gained views, you need to explain the difference.

The difference is obvious, surely?

I do not need to explain the difference because that is NOT what I do.

And, after all this time of saying, "I have no beliefs", I am totally dumbfounded that you still write that I still believe in some gained views. When will you ever understand what "I have no beliefs" and "I neither believe nor disbelieve (in) any thing" actually means?

Suppose everybody was open the way you say we should all be.

I do not recall using the word 'should', but I do recall using the word 'better'.

Everybody sees the truth that currently only you see. What action does this truth give that transforms humanity into the cooperative whole that perhaps saves them?

The action of knowing the Truth. Truth, itself, is the action that will drive human beings to doing what is right. Doing what is right transforms humanity into the cooperative whole that will save them.

Or do we all just share everything and stop all the wars and crime but otherwise all carry on and be productive members of society?

This is also will be what happens along the way.

Sort of the "Give peace a chance" solution that Lennon suggested.

[/quote][/quote]

Give Honesty, Openness and a serious Want to change, for the better, a go then peace will be the natural outcome. We will not have to give peace a chance, peace will just be the normal. HOW is the formula, and the solution, to how peace can and will be given a chance, naturally.

[ken]

Noax

I started out saying it is better to question everything. Questioning everything is best done by being and remaining completely open. You seem to appear to be suggesting the opposite is better, that is being completely open and questioning everything is the WRONG thing to do.

Can you tell us what it is that you are trying to say in this thread?

[ken]

Some of what is being expressed is KNOWN to NOT be possible.

How can anything be known to be not possible if the person is open to any view? I don't seem to understand what you're trying to say this this statement seems to conflict with being completely open.

Just maybe it is your preconception of the word 'open' that is causing the conflict. I think your view of 'open' is something like being gullible to anything.

If you were already completely open, then you would have already seen how quickly the Truth is seen and known. A completely open person is able to see and know what the truth IS, for instance like what is possible or not.

What views would qualify as the more true, right, correct ones if no effort has been expended sorting the crap ideas from the more plausible ones, none of which is beyond doubt?

Obviously the MORE true, MORE right, and MORE correct views would be the views that would, and do, qualify as the more true, right, correct ones.

So you know the more true view because they're more true. How is that answer not circular?

Who said it was not circular or not meant to be circular?

It is just the answer to the question asked.

If people believe a story, and it does not matter who it was told by, then they are NOT open to more, or the true, facts.

I've been asking how a completely open person such as yourself would accept Galileo's interpretation as the more true one.

I do not recall you asking that question in the direct way.

The way a completely open person would accept galileo's interpretation as the more true one would be by the very obvious behavior of listening to ALL that is being said. But as I have already suggested how much interest one has in any given topic affects how much time is spend listening, no matter how open one is or not.

You seem to simply use todays teaching of the accepted answer (Earth goes around sun), but the people of the time had no such benefit, and you also state that one should ignore taught facts since they close one's mind.

I wish you would clarify before you make assumptions and jump to WRONG conclusions. I NEVER used today's teaching of that accepted answer. I also NEVER stated that one should ignore taught facts.

You really need to read the words I actually write.

So what possible reason did people have to accept this new interpretation?

That is all very subjective, and relative to the person involved. Obviously some people had no reason while others could have had a multitude of different reasons.

What sign should they recognize that is one is one of the true ones out of the list of a dozen other false theories about how it all works.

When one starts fitting with another one and then whey they all start fitting together as One. When one starts proving and becoming more evidence for another, then another, and then another, and so on, then that is the obvious and easily recognizable sign of the true ones from the false ones..

And apparently no expenditure of effort is required either. I have news. Truth is work. It takes effort.

For you maybe, but that is because you are closed.

It was demonstrated not accurate, so again not a truth.

What was demonstrated as not being accurate?

His proposed mathematics did not accurately predict the positions of things.

But the earth revolving the sun is accurate, right?

If one is to be completely open, there is no truth, which would only serve to close doors to the un-truths that conflict said truth.

Why do you say if one is completely open, then there is no truth?

Again, no answer to my clarifying questioning.

What questions are you still exploring? Maybe I might be able to help you find the true answers to them.

I don't think so. Effort seems required, so I'm clearly doing it wrong. I'm not looking for effortless answers.

So, you are not even open to My views at all on this, yet you want Me to just express My views on any thing.

WHY would you assign any probability to any thing that you have absolutely no idea about?

I know a great deal about this. Don't tell me what I don't know.

So you really do know a great deal about if unicorns exist or not.

So, I will ask the same question AGAIN, but in a different way, WHY assign any probability to some thing that you know a great deal about. If you know a great deal about the existence or not of unicorns, then how could there be any probability?

How much degree of a 'great deal of knowledge' requires that there is still some uncertainty?

Again I will ask, WHY not just remain open, always?

I realized that if everyone could agree on some thing, then that is a known truth.

That seems like poor logic. What if everybody is wrong?

What are the chances of EVERY one being wrong?

AND, if everyone is wrong, then as long as people are not believing in it, then they are remaining open to the true facts coming to light.

I realized that just about every thing adults, think they, know is learned, and because of children's gifted ability to be able to learn, understand, and reason, anything, then children can grow up believing that what they have learned is true, right, and/or correct when the exact opposite is what is really true, right, and correct.

You were taught that the Earth goes around the sun. Is the exact opposite of that what is really true, right, and correct? Sorry, just trying to figure out what you're trying to say, which seems to be that everything we're taught is wrong, or closes minds to other views.

My apologies. I wrote 'is' instead of 'could be'.

That's why I equated complete openness with ignorance. No effort required, and no view rejected by a closed mind.

I think you equated complete openness with ignorance before I wrote that sentence.

Would you believe in some thing if it were not true?

I have views that I know for a fact not to be true. Not sure if that's what you're asking since you continue to use that b-word.

No, I am NOT asking do you have views that you for a fact not to be true. We have gone through this a couple of times already. You also seem to by-pass the actual straigh-forward simple clarifying question I ask, which is, Would you believe in some thing if it were not true, (in your own head)?

I asked for evidence, if there is any, of how the beliefs you have and maintain are open to change.

Again, I have no idea what you would accept as evidence.

Do not worry nor be concerned what evidence I would accept or not accept. What I am asking for is for you lay out the actual beliefs that you continually say you have and that you also continually say are still open to change.

When you show the beliefs that you have and show how they are still open to change, then that is the evidence, if there is any, that I am looking for.

I am giving you plenty of opportunity to provide what you say you do and is possible.

If you can do that, then I will look at that, openly.

Heh... I've not seen evidence of this.

I could also say the same thing.

Why not just remain open and just look at WHAT IS?

I don't know what is. If I knew, I would be closed minded to what probably actually is.

That does not make any sense.

IF you knew 'what is', which can only be known when everything is in agreement, then you can still be and remain open. ONLY when you start believing (in) some thing is when you are closed, or what you call "closed minded".

Do you really think people who believe, wholeheartedly about some thing, are open to being challenged?

Open in what way?

In the only way.

Looking and/or listening without preconceptions, preconceived ideas, presumptions, prejudices, and anything else that is pre before what is going to be said or expressed.

Most will not seek out the challenge which can only cause discomfort. The ones on forums like this are an exception. Some who hold beliefs as you describe will listen to challenge, often to bolster their views even further. And some of those fall to the challenge, perhaps to their own surprise. But that does not mean they're going to drop their deeply held belief on mere suggestion of an alternative. The deeper the belief is held, the more powerful the evidence must be to dislodge the belief. Again, effort required.

EXACTLY.

The very reason I have been suggesting it is better to remain open always is because of everything you have just said here, and more.

Just look at your belief that you can have and maintain beliefs and still be open, yet when I ask you provide those beliefs you fall to the challenge.

It is your beliefs that stops you from being able to find, see, and discover the Truth.

Of course any person's beliefs are open to challenge, but people who have beliefs, I think you will find, are not open to being challenged.

You seem awfully closed minded about this assessment of everybody else.

Provide SOME contrary proof or evidence. Until then it is just a view I have.

Did you not just notice your own reply before this one backs up what I am saying here?

Show me this strange definition of belief. I've never seen a dictionary mention that beliefs are not open to challenge.

'belief'
bɪˈliːf/
noun
1. an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.

If you already accept that some thing exists or is true, then you are not really open to that thing not existing or that it not being true.

That part about being closed minded was not in the definition. If it was, link to it please.

Can you NOT read, within, what is written?

If some thing is already being accepted as true, then WHAT else contrary to this could they be open to?

If you are already believing some thing is true, then WHY would you be open to any thing contrary?

Just try answering My clarifying questions for once then you might see what it is that I have been saying all along. You some times agree with wholeheartedly with what I am saying, yet you continually "try" to disagree with Me. You do this because of the beliefs you already have and want to maintain.

I am still waiting for you to provide some of the beliefs you have and maintain, and then we will be able to see how open you really can be while having and maintaining those beliefs.

Don't have them.

So why say you have beliefs that are open to change, if you do not even have them?

WHY say people can have beliefs and still be open at the same time?

Again of course any belief can be challenged by any person, but a person with a belief will not allow themselves to be challenged. By definition when a person has a belief they already believe 'it' to be true, right, and/or correct. Therefore, they are not open to any thing contrary to the belief.

Of course what was being taught was wrong.

How so?

You do NOT think that teaching a person to believe some thing because "I" am telling you it is true or right, and/or because it says in the book it is true or right, IS NOT WRONG?

I already explained how so in the three sentences directly following that one of Mine.

You were the one who even wrote, what was being taught was wrong, no?

What was taught was simply a different interpretation, and one that made better predictions to boot. So what should have motivated open-minded citizen X to update where he puts his truth sticker?

What does motivate an open person to update is the Truth.

What does motivate a closed person to update is the perceived truth, which is usually a confirmation biased "truth".

One implies being completely open to any and all new information and knowledge and the other implies lacking in knowledge or information. I will let you guess which ones belong together and how they are rather distinct from each other.

I have guessed. Without effort, you just have a pile of knowledge, which is as ignorant as a science library. I don't see the distinction. Sorting the more correct views from the false ones requires a partial rejection of some and favoritism to others, all without every really totally accepting or rejecting anything. The process takes effort, and far more effort than any one person can take on by himself. Hence the building upon the work and views of others. This is part of why certain beliefs are hard to dislodge. It requires the rework of an awful lot of effort done by others that may have been working down a false path. But here you are rejecting effort and teachings, but then telling me the Earth goes around the Sun as some kind of obvious truth, when you never would have thought of it by rejecting your teachings and just being open minded. That particular fact is anything but obvious.[/quote]

HOW did galileo get to the truth then? Did he just accept what was being taught to him? Did he or did he not look at things from another perspective, which I will suggest to you was a far more open view than the one that was being taught to him at the time.

HOW do you think human beings discover and learn newer and more things all the time? Do you think this comes from being closed and believing in what has already been taught and is previously gained knowledge, or do you think this finding newer knowledge comes from being open?

The obviousness of all of this is becoming more and more ridiculous.

You just want to work on and on and on what has been taught as being what is true, right, and correct. Therefore, let us start with the "correct" knowledge that the Universe was created by God. Starting from the false premise in the beginning is about one of the most stupidest things to do. Or, maybe you would like to start the, just as ridiculous, false premise in the beginning there was a bang, and while we are at it let us call it a big bang. That should make it sound more believable.

If you want to start from premises like that and keep believing (in) things, then so be it. But at least try to be somewhat open to the very fact that being open is better than believing (in) things if you are serious about wanting to learn and discover anew.

I wish human beings had remained completely open back then and also prior to this. Human beings would not have created the mess that they are now if they had remained open always.

We'd be extinct actually. Learning what we are taught is pretty much our only advantage. Raise (protect, but without interference) a bunch of open-minded children and set them out in the wild once they've matured, but without all the belief crap that we saddle them with. See how long they last.

They will last forever without all the belief crap that you want to saddle them with. The beliefs themselves are the actual things preventing and stopping human beings progressing successfully. Beliefs are what is causing humans demise. But you will never know that while you keep believing what you do.

The person then goes on about his daily life, just as does the completely ignorant person who really doesn't care how the sun gets up there. At what point is true/right/correctness achieved from this openness?

That point is achieved, seen and known when it is.

You really have no idea, do you? You gave essentially the same answer above. You know it's true because it just is. OK, I agree that's effortless, but it is how people like Trump work: Truth is whatever I say it is. Lots of complaining when the whole world doesn't see the same truth. Truly open indeed.

You are so far opposite of what I am saying it is getting beyond a joke now. I have NEVER said Truth is whatever I say it is. If you have taken any notice I have not even wanted to share any views on what I think is True. Because this is not about one person and their point of view. This is about EVERYONE's point of view together.

You really are NOT listening to what I have been saying at all. You continually are looking at what I am writing from your presumptions, preconceived ideas, and misconceptions.

If you are at all interested in what I have been saying then you will show this by asking clarifying questions instead of continually making these type of wrong assumptions and wrong conclusions.

But one point I would like to emphasize is the fact that once truly open it is an extremely quick, simple, and easy path and process to follow.

For who to follow? Only the adherents? What about the ones that follow a different process?

You are only following what you KNOW is right.

Stop assuming, then you will stop coming to wrong conclusions.

A practical and most urgent problem for instance is the carbon emissions, which already seems to have passed the tipping point for full scale destruction of the biosphere. We might be able to reverse that inevitability by ceasing all carbon emissions immediately, but there's a cost to that.

What is the cost to doing that?

OK, you haven't thought about this at all.

Stop trying to be condescending.

It seems that all this open mindedness has let some truth slip by unnoticed. The carbon problem is not to be ignored. Immediate halting of all extraction and consumption of fossil fuels is probably no longer enough to prevent the destruction of the biosphere to a sufficient degree that most croplands will fail. We're already that far past the point of no return. The cost is bigger than that. Your vision of happy cooperative enlightened people giving peace a chance is not a solution to that problem. Those people have to cooperatively put their heads together, recognize the problem, and then implement a solution. What is that solution?

But you have already said there is probably no longer anything we can do and that we are already that far past the point of no return. If that is what you (want to) believe, then there really is no use in doing anything, is there?

BEFORE I or a solution can be given to a problem, the problem has to be given first. You may have not yet recognized this but you have not yet provided a problem. All you have done is alluded to "this" and to "that" and that by doing one thing is probably no longer enough to prevent some other thing.

You say those people have to recognize the problem. You are the one who is asking what is the solution so why do you not recognize the problem yourself, write it down clearly, and then see if the solution can be found.

A 'problem', for your information, is just a question posed for a solution. You have not provided a question yet. So, provide the problem, the question, first, and then we can see if a solution will be found.

ALL things can be found simply and easily if we start off simple and easy. What is the actual problem you recognize?

By the way I do not recall saying give peace a chance. I think you will find that was some one else who said that. Your presumptions lead you to thinking that is what I was saying. I have ALREADY explained that creating a truly pollution-free "world" is a part of living in peace and harmony with each other together. They both go together, not separately.

I can not show how to solve a problem if the problem has not yet even been shown.

I thought true ideas were recognized without effort.

They are. But what you are proposing ONLY you know. If you do not opening express and show what it is that you want solved, then how are others meant to know what it is that you are talking about?

How can you be unaware of carbon emissions and the greenhouse effect it has brought? Or have the scientists not screamed loud enough this last decade? Perhaps you buy the pro-industry story that it is all nonsense unless there is political gain to be had by the view?[/quote]

Perhaps your presumptions and preconceptions keep leading you to NOT look at what I write?

Who said I am unaware of those things. I just asked you one simple, straight-forward question for clarity, which was "What is the cost to doing that?" I was asking that in relation to your view that "We might be able to reverse that inevitability by ceasing all carbon emissions immediately, but there's a cost to that." All I did was ask, "What is the cost to that?" and you want to go on with all this other stuff instead of just answering the question. Again, what is the cost to ceasing all carbon emissions immediately?

That is not too much to ask for, is it?

HOW being open leads to a correct view is because there is no presumptive views nor preconceived ideas to distort the true or correct vision of things.

I thus far stand unimpressed by your ability to see correct visions of things.

You were not meant to be impressed. Or, what I have said was not meant to impress. What I have been saying was done to learn better ways to express. I am just looking for ways for ways to express better that will find those people who are willing to just give it a try to be truly open for once and see what they discover from this position. If people want to continue fighting for the beliefs they already have, then they can continue doing so. I am certainly not here to tell anyone to do anything.

These posts are getting too long. Will respond to the rest later. My responses seem to be getting a bit more impatient. I am losing faith that this will be productive.

That WHAT will be productive?

What is it that you are trying to produce?

What is it that you are wanting to Me to see and/or learn?

[Noax]

But, if I question you, for clarity, about whether you would believe (in) some thing if it were not true, then what would your answer be?

For clarity, I will not answer this because you will misinterpret my response.

So what you are really saying when you say, "I believe it rained here Tuesday" is "I do not know if it rained here or not Tuesday", is that right? If that is right, then the truth is it either rained here Tuesday or you do not know if it rained or not here Tuesday. Therefore, the truth can be very quickly and easily seen.

The truth is exactly what I said: I believe it rained here Tuesday. Either that or I am lying about what I remember. No statement about what actually happened on Tuesday was made, so the truth of that is irrelevant here. And there is not an actual truth to the unstated question of whether it actually rained here last Tuesday. The fact of the situation is open to interpretation. There is no one truth about it. That seems to be the nature of truth. There often is no actual truth, known or not.

Why abstain giving a positive response? What is it that you are really afraid of?

I'm afraid of how you interpret any answer of mine regarding belief. Use a different word, one we agree on, so I know what you're asking.

Is there some deep-down knowing that being closed, or as you and some others incorrectly call it "closed minded", is a wrong or incorrect thing to do or be?

If your questions are asking if I am completely closed minded to something, then the answer is always no, so stop asking. I heavily believe that the ground before me will bear the weight of my next step. I stake my life on it even. I could have that view altered by sufficient evidence to the contrary, in which case I will alter my plans to take that next step.

By abstaining from answering clarifying questions you are not being truly open and honest. If you think/believe that not being open and honest with others, and/or with yourself, is better than being open and honest, then so be it.

I am open and honest. But you have misinterpreted any answer I give to a question with the word belief in it, so I ask that you word your questions differently.

I have not put any word off limits. I just use words in a way they have been shown to Me to form a true clear and unambiguous picture, on the one topic, of Life.

Yes, I got that from the prior post. It seems you consider yourself a prophet, gleaning effortless truth from thin air. Considering evidence is apparently not part of the process.

Just your truly open and honest answer to My clarifying questions is all I am seeking in My questions. Nothing else.

I cannot answer if I cannot understand the way you word questions.

So, you are unmoving on every thing, yet you still persist on wanting to believe (in) some things, correct?

Great example of misinterpreting my responses. This is why I've been abstaining.

I would, however, suggest that maybe the Truth is closed to contrary (or false) evidence, obviously.

I don't think any evidence is false. The truth should contradict no evidence. Declaring evidence to be false if it contradicts the known truth is confirmation bias, the worst form of being closed minded.

"I use the left hand more often than not" also works.

No, different meaning. Suppose I was right-handed, but the right arm has been injured so long that I'm not sure anymore. I've been using my left for years. It will become more functional in months to come, and I doubt if I am still right-handed after the years of doing everything (especially writing) with my left. So I say "I believe I am right-handed". The wording conveys doubt.

But it is about just as wrong as "I believe in santa claus".

No, "I believe in santa claus" is the correct syntactic form, and most that do believe grow out of it over time, showing that they're not closed minded at all.

The solution become more obvious and clearer the more open more people become. But in short if you want to know the solution to the carbon "thingy", then you have to tell Me what the carbon "thingy" problem is exactly. In general, however, once adult human beings learn and/or discover and understand WHY they are greedy then they can prevent others from growing up to be greedy individuals also. Once greed is being eliminated from society, then that will be the start of something practical and urgent on what I am ONLY guessing is the carbon "thingy" that you are alluding to here.

See prior post about the carbon "thingy". Eliminating greed is not a solution to it. Makes it worse even I'd say.

Again, having no beliefs can be very different, even opposite, than believing nothing.

You said you have no beliefs.

Yes I did say, I have no beliefs. I have NEVER said I believe nothing.

Wow. I'm sorry, but I cannot follow your syntactic rules. You have no beliefs, but you don't "believe nothing" which implies you do believe something.

That could imply a sort of nihilistic view of things. I neither believe nor disbelieve (in) any thing. That is much different than believing in nothing.

Now you've changed the statement to "believe IN nothing". I never said that.

Truth hardly spews from a list of all views, none held. You say otherwise.

Do I?

Yes, you do. Given a list of all views, you pick the true one. That's pretty much how you've described it. You just know which one is the true one apparently. That's why I say it sounds like prophecy.

You appear to be misinterpreting what I am saying than understanding what I am saying.

Yes, that's what I'm trying to say. I ask for clarifications because I feel that I am misinterpreting.

Everybody sees the truth that currently only you see. What action does this truth give that transforms humanity into the cooperative whole that perhaps saves them?

The action of knowing the Truth. Truth, itself, is the action that will drive human beings to doing what is right. Doing what is right transforms humanity into the cooperative whole that will save them.

I'm asking what action is the right one, not if everybody will do it. Of course they'll do it if they all know the same truth as is our supposition here.

You're not going to answer this are you? You don't know the right action. If everybody is totally open and non-greedy as you describe, they will collectively not know what to do either. Truth tells you what is, but not what to do. The latter requires a goal, which is not something true or false.

[Noax]

Expressing this view about being completely open is the hardest one I struggle with;
1. The more people disagree with My view about being open then the more they are showing how they are not open and how they are showing they do not want to become more open.
2. Once how being truly open then all is revealed, is fully understood, then there is nothing much else left to express or explain.
3. Once I can get people to just do and follow voluntarily what they know is right anyway, that is being open is better than being closed, then I do not need to express any of My other views.
4. If people believe that it is better to have and maintain beliefs and believe (in) things, then so be it. But if they never try to be completely and fully open, then they will never know any better.
5. My actual views about what is right or wrong or what the truth is is not really important at all anyway. What is really important is what we all agree on and accept as being true.

1. If people disagree, it is because they're not entirely open. So you are correct by definition (being a true prophet apparently) and it is not possible that people might disagree with you because your views are not necessarily true.
2. Being totally open lets anybody get access to this prophetic truth. Not sure how we're to understand any of it if it is supposed to be an effortless revelation.
3. Knowledge of what is true does not imply knowledge of what correct path to follow.
4. B-word. I will misinterpret that line.
5. What if what everybody agrees on is in fact not true? Does that matter, or is the agreement more important? Does the agreement come with an obvious action?

But there are many things where doubt is reduced to 'known, for sure'.

Being completely open seems to mean never knowing anything for sure. Can you give an example of something known for sure? My attempt was 5+5=10, but you didn't like that example.

In My view nothing is enforced. Everything is done voluntarily, and with enthusiasm, otherwise, this would never work.

I agree, this is how you know its working. I said it has been done before, but even then there are members of the cooperative group that don't cooperate properly, and need intervention of one kind or another.

If by 'intervention' you mean 'support' then that I think is great, but if by 'intervention' you mean 'punishment', 'judgement', and/or ridicule, then I do not think that is the best nor most helpful thing to do. I found supporting each other builds a much stronger and better community.

How it is done is up to the society. No, punishment/judgement probably don't exist in the society of enthusiastic members. The ones with the uncooperative behaviors are physical defectives. I don't know of an example where this utopia works and still attempts to keep its physical defectives, but I sense you would find that to be part of your goal.

Meanwhile, it is hard for a starving family to share its insufficient food with an even more starving family, thus assuring all their deaths. So perhaps something like proactive starvation prevention is part of the solution everybody sees, preventing it coming to this sort of end.

I am not really sure what you are alluding to here.

You have 10 people who share everything, and enough food for 9 of them. So each gets 9/10ths of what they need to survive. They all die. A more greedy algorithm would require only one of them to die, but again I've not seen a successful cooperative society that works that way. Better that they all die than to let greed (any motivation for benefit of self instead of the whole) bleed into the system, encouraging an inequality that will inevitably destroy said society.

Why not just try the three words, and see what happens?

Clearly I'm doing it wrong. Truth did not come to me.

[Noax]

Noax

I started out saying it is better to question everything. Questioning everything is best done by being and remaining completely open. You seem to appear to be suggesting the opposite is better, that is being completely open and questioning everything is the WRONG thing to do.

Can you tell us what it is that you are trying to say in this thread?

My attempt to clarify: Being open (on any view) is a good thing, but 'completely open' has an implication with me of assigning equal weight to all views, essentially the ignorant stance of "I can't know for sure, so I have no views". So I am forced to have certain views, like eating food will prevent my starvation, or 5+5=10. I question both those things, but cannot function day to day without holding those two items as beliefs. So since the word 'belief' does not imply a non-open stance to me, I use the word. But how can I learn complex things if I have no trust in 5+5=10? I have to give that one higher probability than 5+5=11. Being completely open seems to imply that I must give equal time to the possibility that 11 is the correct truth.

[Noax]

Just maybe it is your preconception of the word 'open' that is causing the conflict. I think your view of 'open' is something like being gullible to anything.

Agree, but it would be nice if you defined the word open since all you tell me is that truth is just known if I am open. Doesn't give me any clue as to what you mean by being open. Open to prophecy that the rest of us fail to tune into?

Obviously the MORE true, MORE right, and MORE correct views would be the views that would, and do, qualify as the more true, right, correct ones.

So you know the more true view because they're more true. How is that answer not circular?

Who said it was not circular or not meant to be circular?

It is just the answer to the question asked.

Sorry, not an answer at all. It presumes the truth is already known, and you just pick that one. I want to know how the truth is deduced or obtained from a prior state of being open to multiple possibilities.

The way a completely open person would accept galileo's interpretation as the more true one would be by the very obvious behavior of listening to ALL that is being said. But as I have already suggested how much interest one has in any given topic affects how much time is spend listening, no matter how open one is or not.

But everybody is saying things. Galileo just adds one more story to the list. The church says the gods do it. A third story is that Earth and Sun are stationary and rotate in place. A 4th says the whole sky is just a projection on a screen with aimed lights being projected up there. A 5th says all of reality is a dream and none of the experienced stuff really exists, only the experience itself. Now I have 5 stories, and others not in the multiple-choice test. How does being open make me recognize Galileo's version as more true than the others, even if not completely true? All you've said is that I needed to be open to him, but my inherent openness also opened me to the other 4 stories, all of which are valid interpretations.

BTW, the sun goes across the sky not because the Earth orbits the Sun, but because the earth rotates. Orbiting is not necessary just to explain the Sun's behavior.

I wish you would clarify before you make assumptions and jump to WRONG conclusions. I NEVER used today's teaching of that accepted answer. I also NEVER stated that one should ignore taught facts.

Fine. You seem to think the earth orbits the sun. How did you come to know this unintuitive bit of knowledge? I know, you're a prophet and got the info from your oracle that only you're open enough to have tuned into. I find that explanation low on the list of things that are likely true, but as promised, I am doing my best to be open to it.

What sign should they recognize that is one is one of the true ones out of the list of a dozen other false theories about how it all works.

When one starts fitting with another one and then whey they all start fitting together as One. When one starts proving and becoming more evidence for another, then another, and then another, and so on, then that is the obvious and easily recognizable sign of the true ones from the false ones..

How did Galileo's story fit better than the others at the time. Assume this completely open person again who is evaluating the options without beliefs.

And apparently no expenditure of effort is required either. I have news. Truth is work. It takes effort.

For you maybe, but that is because you are closed.

Yes, I said I was unable to do whatever it is you do. You need to tell me a truth that nobody else has figured out the hard way by actually doing the work. Anybody can claim credit for somebody else's work (Galileo's) and then say they figured it out themself, and without effort no less. Galileo expended a lot of effort in his hypothesis. He didn't do it the way you seem to be able.

But the earth revolving the sun is accurate, right?

It orbits the sun and revolves about its axis, and that is just one interpretation. There seems to be no 'is accurate' about it. Some of the alternatives I listed above are also accurate in that they are reasonably free of inconsistency.

WHY would you assign any probability to any thing that you have absolutely no idea about?

I know a great deal about this. Don't tell me what I don't know.

So you really do know a great deal about if unicorns exist or not.

I chose them to get that reaction, but yes, I know a great deal about if unicorns likely exist or not. T-Rex's also exist, but I'm similarly not expecting to directly experience one. Hence the difference between objective and subjective facts. From my subjective point of view, neither exists, but evidence abounds for their objective existence. Objectively, the word "extinct" has no meaning. T-Rex being extinct is a subjective fact (requiring a point of view to be true, but not an experiencer at that point to make it true), not an objective one.

So, I will ask the same question AGAIN, but in a different way, WHY assign any probability to some thing that you know a great deal about. If you know a great deal about the existence or not of unicorns, then how could there be any probability?

There is doubt. To say there is 100% probability would be to state one's closed-mindedness to the alternative view, that unicorns do not exist.

How much degree of a 'great deal of knowledge' requires that there is still some uncertainty?

What?? Cannot parse this. There is uncertainty about everything, especially if an open mind is to be maintained.

Again I will ask, WHY not just remain open, always?

I am. Truth doesn't just come to me because of it. I'm a failed prophet it seems. I'm apparently unable to open up to that frequency, and am forced to do the hard way: mental effort.

What are the chances of EVERY one being wrong?

Pretty high. Pretty much certain for that matter. There was at a time not one person that suspected the earth was round. They all agreed on this, and they were all wrong. You would perhaps claim that none were completely open, and thus able to just know the truth.

AND, if everyone is wrong, then as long as people are not believing in it, then they are remaining open to the true facts coming to light.

I don't think they considered the earth being flat to be a belief. There was no other choice from which to choose. Nobody thought to question it. It only became labelled a belief when an alternative view forced the question. Only when there is an alternative to reject is the different view something that one might decide to consider being the correct one.

Do not worry nor be concerned what evidence I would accept or not accept. What I am asking for is for you lay out the actual beliefs that you continually say you have and that you also continually say are still open to change.

When you show the beliefs that you have and show how they are still open to change, then that is the evidence, if there is any, that I am looking for.

I am giving you plenty of opportunity to provide what you say you do and is possible.

I did that. I gave 5+5=10 as my example, and stated that the fact was seriously put into doubt. I knew at the time there was an inconsistency not yet identified, and 5+5=11 actually resolved the inconsistency. I gave it serious consideration. I had 5 fingers on each hand but counted 11 in all. Strange experience, and a very good exercise in what you're willing to doubt when your fundamental assumptions are messed with.

I could also say the same thing.

You have been saying that. I could be lying about my openness, so I don't see a way to give hard evidence of it. You don't like any of my examples.

Most will not seek out the challenge which can only cause discomfort. The ones on forums like this are an exception. Some who hold beliefs as you describe will listen to challenge, often to bolster their views even further. And some of those fall to the challenge, perhaps to their own surprise. But that does not mean they're going to drop their deeply held belief on mere suggestion of an alternative. The deeper the belief is held, the more powerful the evidence must be to dislodge the belief. Again, effort required.

EXACTLY.

The very reason I have been suggesting it is better to remain open always is because of everything you have just said here, and more.

Just look at your belief that you can have and maintain beliefs and still be open, yet when I ask you provide those beliefs you fall to the challenge.

I don't have any. Neither do you (so you say). But you will not accept the answer from another. You believe I am not completely open because I cannot glean truth without expenditure of effort.

You seem awfully closed minded about this assessment of everybody else.

Provide SOME contrary proof or evidence. Until then it is just a view I have.

You continue to insist I hold beliefs (and insist on examples) when I say I have none to offer that are closed to challenge. I have no such examples.

'belief'
bɪˈliːf/
noun
1. an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.

If you already accept that some thing exists or is true, then you are not really open to that thing not existing or that it not being true.

That part about being closed minded was not in the definition. If it was, link to it please.

Can you NOT read, within, what is written?

Yes. You wrote that second part about not being open. That makes it a redefinition of the word. Redefining words makes it no longer a common language, and ability to communicate breaks down, as has happened in this thread. I will not respond to questions with that word in it because it is not a word with a shared definition, and is thus ambiguous. In the English language, use of the word 'belief' conveys inherent doubt. I've given several examples showing this. So you're not speaking English, and half our posts are misunderstandings because of it.

If somebody is not open to the alternative to fact X, then they know X, not just believe X. You seem completely closed minded about what others mean when they state that the believe something.

If you are already believing some thing is true, then WHY would you be open to any thing contrary?

How else would I progress in my understanding of the world if not by challenging my views? I have been taught quite a bit of what looks like nonsense in hindsight. Had I not been open to contrary things, I'd still be stuck in that hole. I've progressed. I have not arrived. May I never arrive, since it would be the end of the growth.

Just try answering My clarifying questions for once then you might see what it is that I have been saying all along. You some times agree with wholeheartedly with what I am saying, yet you continually "try" to disagree with Me. You do this because of the beliefs you already have and want to maintain.

Maybe I don't do it because of my beliefs, but because I see contradictions in your asserted stance. You seem to know me better than I know myself since you're completely closed minded to being corrected when I think you state my position incorrectly.

So why say you have beliefs that are open to change, if you do not even have them?

That was using the dictionary definition of the word, without your addendum.

WHY say people can have beliefs and still be open at the same time?

Because that's what the word means.

Of course what was being taught was wrong.

How so?

You do NOT think that teaching a person to believe some thing because "I" am telling you it is true or right, and/or because it says in the book it is true or right, IS NOT WRONG?

I am talking about the taught view that the Sun goes around the Earth (the Earth was round by that time, pretty much dismissing the pile of dirt on a turtle idea), not the insistence of the belief in only that view, which was just a power play, truth having little to do with it. How was that model of the Sun going around us wrong? That's what I was asking.

What was taught was simply a different interpretation, and one that made better predictions to boot. So what should have motivated open-minded citizen X to update where he puts his truth sticker?

What does motivate an open person to update is the Truth.

What does motivate a closed person to update is the perceived truth, which is usually a confirmation biased "truth".

Sorry, but truth does not wave at me the way it does to you. All I have is perceptions of empirical evidence, which are not confirmation biases. Confirmation bias is not a belief, but rather a practice of discarding evidence that contradicts a view one is attempting to confirm. I am not doing that. I have the five views I listed (Church, Galileo, and 3 others), and not practicing confirmation bias, I have discarded none of them. All five are conclusions. Absent is the evidence which is to be used to support or conflict with each of the views. Without that evidence (and the work that goes with it), no view is better or worse than any other, and in the end the one that makes the best predictions (which IS evidence) is the best candidate.

You don't seem to work this way. You have commented little on evidence, considering only the two (or five) models. From only this you say an open person can know the true one. How did you not get perfect scores on every test in school if you can do this?

HOW did galileo get to the truth then? Did he just accept what was being taught to him? Did he or did he not look at things from another perspective, which I will suggest to you was a far more open view than the one that was being taught to him at the time.

He wasn't particularly more open. He just invented a new toy and used it to learn things not known before, and those things suggested that celestial things spin. That had never been observed anywhere before. Name any object that can be seen to spin via the naked eye. From that, not just gleaned truth from being open, was born the idea that Earth spins as well, which happened to roughly explain the sun and everything else processing across the sky each day. I say 'born', but the idea was around well before Galileo. He just added some evidence to what was otherwise mildly established idea with not a whole lot of backing.
The church view on that worked as well, and worked better. Centuries of astrology was making better predictions than one guy who never got the equations correct. It would be another century and a half before apparent locations of celestial objects were accurately predicted.

They will last forever without all the belief crap that you want to saddle them with.

No, they'd be cavemen, minus any skills that might have been passed from their elders. Dead in under a month I think. What would they eat? What would eat them, and how much effort would that be? We're not exactly built for flight. But they'd be totally free of belief at least.

You are so far opposite of what I am saying it is getting beyond a joke now. I have NEVER said Truth is whatever I say it is. If you have taken any notice I have not even wanted to share any views on what I think is True. Because this is not about one person and their point of view. This is about EVERYONE's point of view together.

You get your truth by no process to which you're willing to admit. That's what I meant by my suspicion that you're not planning to tell me how you know which views are the correct ones.

You are only following what you KNOW is right.

I don't know what is right. The process doesn't work for me. Only you, and you've not demonstrated any truth that I could not have learned from somebody who tells me this is what I should believe.
You can't expect everybody to know this one identical truth. It doesn't work for me, and I'm more open than most, but nowhere near as open as you are. The whole world is not going to agree on anything, so any solution that requires that unified openness is not viable.

But you have already said there is probably no longer anything we can do and that we are already that far past the point of no return. If that is what you (want to) believe, then there really is no use in doing anything, is there?

Great solution. Ignore it, making it far worse. Wipe out humanity and most of the rest of the species as well. Let the party continue until the cops break it up. That's actually the solution currently being implemented. I was hoping for something more proactive. The greenhouse and the destruction that comes with it is inevitable, yes, but the scale of the destruction can be limited by taking measures as soon as possible, leaving humanity intact on a damaged but not utterly destroyed planet.
So too late to prevent damage, but not too late to keep parts of the planet habitable. That's the problem: getting people to cooperate enough to limit the damage.

You say those people have to recognize the problem. You are the one who is asking what is the solution so why do you not recognize the problem yourself, write it down clearly, and then see if the solution can be found.

I did. Didn't find a solution at all.

By the way I do not recall saying give peace a chance. I think you will find that was some one else who said that.

It's a Lennon song. It sort of describes the world you have been describing to me with everybody enthusiastically cooperating with each other.

All I did was ask, "What is the cost to that?" and you want to go on with all this other stuff instead of just answering the question. Again, what is the cost to ceasing all carbon emissions immediately?

Considering that most of the world runs on carbon-based power, almost all industry and food production would halt. People need to die. The longer the wait, the more spectacular the bubble pop will be. You know what a bubble is, like the recent housing bubble burst we had over here? Anything dependent on growth beyond the growth of its dependencies will form a bubble which mathematically must burst.

Those that survive that (a few percent) might go on with self-sustaining farms much like the Amish have. Trick is to keep technology from being lost so it can all be reborn without reverting to an actual Amish backwardness. There have been incredible advances in solar power recently. Keep the internet. So do all that without a war. The cooperative society you envision would really help with all this.

[ken]

Noax

I started out saying it is better to question everything. Questioning everything is best done by being and remaining completely open. You seem to appear to be suggesting the opposite is better, that is being completely open and questioning everything is the WRONG thing to do.

Can you tell us what it is that you are trying to say in this thread?

My attempt to clarify:

Okay, so if you are saying that you are not really trying to say anything at all, and that you are just attempting to clarify what I am saying, then that is good.

'Attempting' to clarify shows a degree of openness, which is good in a way here because that shows much more openness than some others have shown on here so far. But becoming, being, and remaining completely open allows full clarity to be gained, and I found remaining completely open to be a much better prospective than just being somewhat open. If you looked for clarity from a completely open perspective, then you WILL see with a clear and unobstructed clarity not just from where I am coming from exactly but you will also see the big and whole true picture.

It is your already held presumptions, preconceptions, beliefs, et cetera that is stopping you from gaining the clarity you are 'attempting' to seek here.

I can NOT make you become completely open, and would never even bother trying, I can only suggest you become completely open, to just see what happens. How you can become completely open is by just looking without any preconceptions at all. If you do this and you find it is of no benefit to you, then it does not really matter. You will not have lost anything through the experience. You will have just gained another perspective or another way of looking at things.

However, as you have continually stated, subliminally, you will not even try to be completely open, let alone become or be completely open. You will not even come close to even trying to become completely open whilst you maintain those beliefs you have. You believe you can not function without beliefs, therefore you will maintain that belief to the enth degree. Meaning, whilst you maintain that stance, becoming completely open is not a possibility for you. You will, therefore, never understand what it is that I am actually saying.

So, the truth is you are not really attempting to clarify what it is that I am actually saying. What you are actually doing, however, is just "attempting" to defend your own already held position. The truth of this is obvious and can be clearly seen throughout all of your writings here within this thread, and especially so in the below quote of yours.

Being open (on any view) is a good thing, but 'completely open' has an implication with me of assigning equal weight to all views, essentially the ignorant stance of "I can't know for sure, so I have no views". So I am forced to have certain views, like eating food will prevent my starvation, or 5+5=10. I question both those things, but cannot function day to day without holding those two items as beliefs. So since the word 'belief' does not imply a non-open stance to me, I use the word. But how can I learn complex things if I have no trust in 5+5=10? I have to give that one higher probability than 5+5=11. Being completely open seems to imply that I must give equal time to the possibility that 11 is the correct truth.

The reason you are still looking for clarity is because you do not yet know how to find the clarity or Truth in and of all things. There is still confusion within you, of which you do not know how to rid yourself of.

No one is saying that any one HAS TO look at any or all things, including each other's views, from the completely open viewpoint. I am only suggesting that looking at any and all things from a completely open viewpoint is far better than not doing it. I say looking from a completely open viewpoint is how Truth is revealed or comes to light, and is thus HOW Truth is discovered, seen, and known.

By the way Truth is discovered very quickly, very easily, and very simply by being completely open.

Now, your responses have been and will continue to reveal just how much interest and how open you are to this view or how dismissive and closed you are of this view.

[Noax]

Now, your responses have been and will continue to reveal just how much interest and how open you are to this view or how dismissive and closed you are of this view.

It appears that any fallacious reasoning I see in your posts cannot be pointed out without my being labeled closed-minded. You seem completely closed to the idea that I might have a point. So I fail to meet your standard. It appears we have nothing more to learn from each other.

[ken]

Now, your responses have been and will continue to reveal just how much interest and how open you are to this view or how dismissive and closed you are of this view.

It appears that any fallacious reasoning I see in your posts cannot be pointed out without my being labeled closed-minded.

I just pointed out that your posts themselves reveal how open or not you are. I am just highlighting your own responses.

Others can see for themselves and will decide for themselves ir you are open or not.

You seem completely closed to the idea that I might have a point. So I fail to meet your standard.

What seems to you does not, itself, make it a fact, therefore jumping to the conclusion that you have here already, defined by the "So ..." may not actually be right.

You are completely free to choose to think and do whatever you like, so there is absolutely no standard to meet on My part. I will never say you should do anything, nor would I ever say to go any way or another, but what I will do is suggest that being completely open is much better, than being somewhat open, for learning and discovering.

Just maybe I am not completely closed to the idea that you might have a point. Just maybe I have looked openly at all the points you are making and just maybe your reasoning is not quite right or is just not the same as Mine. Your reasoning is you can have and maintain a belief and still be open to things contrary to the belief. I just say I do not see how this can be. I have asked you to provide any example of this but you have failed to provide any. So, without any evidence nor proof I still have the same view.

It appears we have nothing more to learn from each other.

All I have said is any "fallacious reasoning" you see is because of the beliefs you have and want to maintain.

I see 'beliefs' as the very things, themselves, which cause a person to not be open. You believe otherwise. You believe beliefs do not cause a person to be closed.

You KNOW that it is better to be open, than to be closed, but you also have the belief that a person can not function without beliefs, so you will always try to defend the belief that you have and want to hold and maintain, that belief is you can maintain a belief but still be open at the same time.

You are free to try to argue for this belief but to Me the self-contradiction of it speaks for itself.

[Noax]

It appears that any fallacious reasoning I see in your posts cannot be pointed out without my being labeled closed-minded.
...

All I have said is any "fallacious reasoning" you see is because of the beliefs you have and want to maintain.

Well, I can't say I didn't see that coming.

[ken]

It appears that any fallacious reasoning I see in your posts cannot be pointed out without my being labeled closed-minded.
...

All I have said is any "fallacious reasoning" you see is because of the beliefs you have and want to maintain.

Well, I can't say I didn't see that coming.

Well, it is just the truth.