OK, now that we appear to be in substantial agreement, what's next?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If you haven't determined in your mind that X is true, then by definition you don't believe x is true. Which means by definition you are a non-believer in x. You are in a state of unbelief. Again, I can't explain this any more simply to you.
our criteria for truthfulness. For we humans, that all too often equates to functional predictability, which is a relative bias by it's own definition
and so is not that likely to lead to the "whole truth" (whatever that is).
insisting that you are both undetermined and dis-(un)believing is inherently self-contradictory.
why do you INSIST on interjecting the word "belief" into the label you apply to your supposedly undetermined state of mind, when what is supposedly still undetermined is whether to believe or disbelieve?
It's also not an "undetermined" position. Which is the source of the dishonesty and confusion in all of this.
God is not an evidential proposition, so it requires no evidential verification
you will (probably) demand "objective evidence" which by definition cannot exist. So your demands are logically incoherent and absurdly biased.
That's because you've bought into your own lie. Sorry, but that's just what I'm seeing, here.
So, in the face of this lack of evidence, you either choose to remain undetermined, or you choose to either believe, or disbelieve that God/gods exists.
Now, if you do horizontal black lines you will find the order in the intermediate frame.
Finally, in the intermediate frame (Loedel frame), the sequence of events is
1
2 and 4 simultaneous
3, 5, and 7 simultaneous
6 and 8 simultaneous
9
I had not prepared a diagram of Frame A and B with the events ordered from the POV of an intermediate frame, but have just finished doing so.
As you can see in the following diagram, my order of events is:
1
2 and 4 simultaneous
3, 5, and 7 simultaneous
6 and 8 simultaneous
9
Ergo, we are in agreement.
View attachment 34461
BTW, I like your diagrams.
And your acknowledgement of your error and correction of it ...
Any other issues here?
Thanks. I generally stick to v = 0.866c, but I can draw them for other speeds when I figure out the correct angles.
For v/c=.866, it appears you are using the sine of the angle is v/c. It should be the cotangent. S
I plead innocence on the grounds of ignorance and my reliance on Joel Gwinn's Module 603 "The Spacetime World: Loedel's Spacetime Diagram", relevant portioned presented below.
View attachment 34463
Yep, it's your source that messed up.
If you need help getting the angles, I can do any you want quickly.
Whew!
Just to confirm: so v/c (i.e. beta) = tangent of angle between ct and ct'?
Since it would take total information -- omniscience -- to know all 'evidence' perfectly (seeing what's real and what is not) "anywhere" on Earth (and throughout decades, centuries...), then the best position lacking confirmed evidence yourself (just with naturally limited information) is to say, accurately, "I don't know for sure."Disbelief is Sigma 5, i.e., 99% possibility. Not the slightest evidence of God and soul anywhere.
When you have to rely on dictionary definitions you have already lost the debate. Because dictionaries only record how words are being used, regardless of whether they are being used logically or illogically, honestly or dishonestly. The dictionary also says that being "gay" means being homosexual, even though we all know that being gay has nothing to do with being homosexual.That is not true. A belief is a position which is held to be true. Disbelief is to not hold that a particular position is true.
belief
noun
- an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
- trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something).
disbelief
noun
- inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.
So "disbelief" is not a belief. It is the withholding of belief.
False. It does not assume that proposition is false or invalid, it simply doesn't accept it as true.
Maybe your reference got these confused.
@Terry Sampson : I changed this post. Please see my changes.
sin(alpha)=2(beta)/(1+beta^2), where (alpha) is the angle between ct and ct', which is twice as large as tan(theta)=beta=v/c.
Right?
We do not know for sure if the sun would rise tomorrow but 'Sigma 6', 99.999% possibility is that it would and would not explode in the next 24 hours, that is why we say the sun would rise tomorrow.Since it would take total information -- omniscience -- to know all 'evidence' perfectly (seeing what's real and what is not) "anywhere" on Earth (and throughout decades, centuries...), then the best position lacking confirmed evidence yourself (just with naturally limited information) is to say, accurately, "I don't know for sure."
But you're the one contesting the use of words and asserting a specific definition of "disbelief" that hasn't been mutually agreed upon. I'm simply pointing out that those words have broader meanings.When you have to rely on dictionary definitions you have already lost the debate.
So what is dishonest about using a word according to its definition and clearly explaining so?Because dictionaries only record how words are being used, regardless of whether they are being used logically or illogically, honestly or dishonestly.