Can you prove anything to someone who wants to deny?

[InvestigateTruth]

Consider the most obvious truth. Should one wants to deny it, he/she can surely do, and there is nothing you can do to make him admit it.
What is the most obvious truth?

It is the bright sun, in the mid noon, in a clear sky!

If you are pointing to the sun in clear sky, telling me: look, the sun is in the sky!

I tell you, no, it is not. I do not see it! You must be imagining! You are wrong! You must be sleeping, seeing the sun in you dream!

I mean, when someone does not want to admit truth. When someone wants to deny it. Surely they can. Anyone can do illogical fallacy, and deny even the most obvious truth, when it is against the desire to accept!

So, why do you keep arguing to prove something to anyone, who does not want to accept it. Do you think you can win, and defeat him? What benefit is in these arguments, other than making yourselves tired?

 

[Secret Chief]

So, why do you keep arguing to prove something to anyone, who does not want to accept it.

I don't.

 

[Eyes to See]

It is common for people today to both display and admire pride, arrogance, and a rebellious spirit.

That mindset will never lead to the truth or an understanding or an agreement.

It takes what they consider weaknesses, but are actual strengths to accept the truth and walk in it, humility, meekness, and obedience.

What the world considers to be weak is powerful. And what is powerful to the physical-minded is the greatest weakness.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Consider the most obvious truth. Should one wants to deny it, he/she can surely do, and there is nothing you can do to make him admit it.
What is the most obvious truth?

It is the bright sun, in the mid noon, in a clear sky!

If you are pointing to the sun in clear sky, telling me: look, the sun is in the sky!

I tell you, no, it is not. I do not see it! You must be imagining! You are wrong! You must be sleeping, seeing the sun in you dream!

I mean, when someone does not want to admit truth. When someone wants to deny it. Surely they can. Anyone can do illogical fallacy, and deny even the most obvious truth, when it is against the desire to accept!

So, why do you keep arguing to prove something to anyone, who does not want to accept it. Do you think you can win, and defeat him? What benefit is in these arguments, other than making yourselves tired?

It becomes psychological warfare, and there are several strategies people employ to accomplish this. They don't work well in forums, but sometimes they can.

Shock and awe is one that occasionally works. If you just seem to know so much more and to be so much smarter, sometimes it cows people. Usually it does not work, but it can.

Money. If someone is in your pay, then this alters the psychology of your speech. I believe this is true particularly if they are dependent upon you. Its not absolute, but I think its true.

Authority. People listen to authority figures even if they don't like them.

Schmoozing. This means you start by saying agreeable things and get the person to psychologically hug you and trust you, and then you lead them into agreeing with you. Some people can, and some people can't. It doesn't always work but sometimes does.

Sex appeal. Don't be surprised. If someone suspects you might be attractive it changes their view of what you say.

 

[Eyes to See]

It becomes psychological warfare, and there are several strategies people employ to accomplish this. They don't work well in forums, but sometimes they can.

Shock and awe is one that occasionally works. If you just seem to know so much more and to be so much smarter, sometimes it cows people. Usually it does not work, but it can.

Money. If someone is in your pay, then this alters the psychology of your speech. I believe this is true particularly if they are dependent upon you. Its not absolute, but I think its true.

Authority. People listen to authority figures even if they don't like them.

Schmoozing. This means you start by saying agreeable things and get the person to psychologically hug you and trust you, and then you lead them into agreeing with you. Some people can, and some people can't. It doesn't always work but sometimes does.

Sex appeal. Don't be surprised. If someone suspects you might be attractive it changes their view of what you say.

Good points all. That is why one needs to be grounded in truth and already determined in mind. Such a one is not easily dissuaded. How's the saying go? You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Consider the most obvious truth. Should one wants to deny it, he/she can surely do, and there is nothing you can do to make him admit it.
What is the most obvious truth?

It is the bright sun, in the mid noon, in a clear sky!

If you are pointing to the sun in clear sky, telling me: look, the sun is in the sky!

I tell you, no, it is not. I do not see it! You must be imagining! You are wrong! You must be sleeping, seeing the sun in you dream!

I mean, when someone does not want to admit truth. When someone wants to deny it. Surely they can. Anyone can do illogical fallacy, and deny even the most obvious truth, when it is against the desire to accept!

So, why do you keep arguing to prove something to anyone, who does not want to accept it. Do you think you can win, and defeat him? What benefit is in these arguments, other than making yourselves tired?

All depends upon what 'obvious truths' are - as many with a religious belief are prone to point out when talking about existence, and especially life and human life. So it might be about how we look at what evidence there is.

 

[Left Coast]

Consider the most obvious truth. Should one wants to deny it, he/she can surely do, and there is nothing you can do to make him admit it.
What is the most obvious truth?

It is the bright sun, in the mid noon, in a clear sky!

If you are pointing to the sun in clear sky, telling me: look, the sun is in the sky!

I tell you, no, it is not. I do not see it! You must be imagining! You are wrong! You must be sleeping, seeing the sun in you dream!

I mean, when someone does not want to admit truth. When someone wants to deny it. Surely they can. Anyone can do illogical fallacy, and deny even the most obvious truth, when it is against the desire to accept!

So, why do you keep arguing to prove something to anyone, who does not want to accept it. Do you think you can win, and defeat him? What benefit is in these arguments, other than making yourselves tired?

Similarly, if someone really deeply believes something, even if their reasons are irrational or insufficient, it seems like very little would cause them to abandon their belief. A person has to have some training in critical thinking, evaluation of evidence, and more than anything the humility to admit they could be wrong to really have any kind of objectivity about their beliefs or change their mind.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Good points all. That is why one needs to be grounded in truth and already determined in mind. Such a one is not easily dissuaded. How's the saying go? You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything.

One can stand upon sand. Grounded in truth takes on a different meaning when its a matter of systems of words, because systems don't support truth well. They corrupt and break down. If I take Jesus parable correctly about the house built upon sand then the solid rock seems intuitively wrong to most people in that they expect a system or an institution. Whenever he refers to rock I think of the rock in King Neb's vision, which isn't made with hands. This seems to be Jesus point that we can't establish systems that will last, neither systems of textual interpretation (such as JW systematic theology or Methodist or Catholic prayer books and so forth) nor institutions nor methods of churching or anything. We can't rely upon systems. Its like when Uzzah touches the ark and is killed, or its like when the Israelites try to save more manna than is needed for one day.

Therefore when you say "Grounded in truth" I am not in agreement about what you mean, even if I acknowledge the wording.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Consider the most obvious truth. Should one wants to deny it, he/she can surely do, and there is nothing you can do to make him admit it.
What is the most obvious truth?

It is the bright sun, in the mid noon, in a clear sky!

If you are pointing to the sun in clear sky, telling me: look, the sun is in the sky!

I tell you, no, it is not. I do not see it! You must be imagining! You are wrong! You must be sleeping, seeing the sun in you dream!

I mean, when someone does not want to admit truth. When someone wants to deny it. Surely they can. Anyone can do illogical fallacy, and deny even the most obvious truth, when it is against the desire to accept!

So, why do you keep arguing to prove something to anyone, who does not want to accept it. Do you think you can win, and defeat him? What benefit is in these arguments, other than making yourselves tired?

Well, I don't believe in truth. So I don't care about truth. I use another belief system.

 

[Eyes to See]

One can stand upon sand. Grounded in truth takes on a different meaning when its a matter of systems of words, because systems don't support truth well. They corrupt and break down. If I take Jesus parable correctly about the house built upon sand then the solid rock seems intuitively wrong to most people in that they expect a system or an institution. Whenever he refers to rock I think of the rock in King Neb's vision, which isn't made with hands. This seems to be Jesus point that we can't establish systems that will last, neither systems of textual interpretation (such as JW systematic theology or Methodist or Catholic prayer books and so forth) nor institutions nor methods of churching or anything. We can't rely upon systems. Its like when Uzzah touches the ark and is killed, or its like when the Israelites try to save more manna than is needed for one day.

Therefore when you say "Grounded in truth" I am not in agreement about what you mean, even if I acknowledge the wording.

That's fine.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It is the bright sun, in the mid noon, in a clear sky!

If you are pointing to the sun in clear sky, telling me: look, the sun is in the sky!

I tell you, no, it is not. I do not see it! You must be

Well, both can't be right!
Maybe literally, the person has no eyesight.
But whether the Sun is shining or not, is quite obvious. (If one is literally blind, then he knows it, and he should realize he can't properly judge.) Other truths are not so clear.

 

[Eyes to See]

One can stand upon sand. Grounded in truth takes on a different meaning when its a matter of systems of words, because systems don't support truth well. They corrupt and break down. If I take Jesus parable correctly about the house built upon sand then the solid rock seems intuitively wrong to most people in that they expect a system or an institution. Whenever he refers to rock I think of the rock in King Neb's vision, which isn't made with hands. This seems to be Jesus point that we can't establish systems that will last, neither systems of textual interpretation (such as JW systematic theology or Methodist or Catholic prayer books and so forth) nor institutions nor methods of churching or anything. We can't rely upon systems. Its like when Uzzah touches the ark and is killed, or its like when the Israelites try to save more manna than is needed for one day.

Therefore when you say "Grounded in truth" I am not in agreement about what you mean, even if I acknowledge the wording.

Since you brought up the stone that is carved out of the mountain...

What do mountains represent in the Bible? Yes, governments. This mountain is above the kingdoms of this earth and it brings to ruin the kingdoms of this earth, by the stone carved "not by human hands."

So this mountain would represent God's kingdom government established in the heavens. It is the one referred to in Isaiah when we are told:

"And many peoples will go and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah."-Isaiah 2:3.

That kingdom government was what all the servants of old built their faith upon:

"By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place he was to receive as an inheritance; he went out, although not knowing where he was going. 9 By faith he lived as a foreigner in the land of the promise as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the very same promise. 10 For he was awaiting the city having real foundations, whose designer and builder is God."-Hebrews 11:8-10.

All who put their trust in God's kingdom government, therefore, in Jesus' hands will not be brought to disappointment.

Who are the ones in the last days that are going up to the mountain of the house of Jehovah doing as is foretold, learning war no more, being taught by God? This is done by God's spirit, and there is nothing that can be in opposition to it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, both can't be right!
Maybe literally, the person has no eyesight.
But whether the Sun is shining or not, is quite obvious. Other truths are not so clear.

That the Sun shines, is in a sense on itself a sort of tautology, because nothing else follows from that.
Here is an example:
Fact: The Sun shines, Therefore what?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So, why do you keep arguing to prove something to anyone, who does not want to accept it. Do you think you can win, and defeat him? What benefit is in these arguments, other than making yourselves tired?

The example you have given is obvious to most likely 99% of people, so in that case you would walk away, there would be no point.

If the sun had just risen and new studies have shown a great benefit to health, in being up early to immerse yourself in the rays of the sun and you yourself have found that to be sound advice, then you could engage in dialogue with the person, that still thinks remaining asleep is better.

There would also be a point in that dialogue, where one may also have to consider to offer no more and leave them to sleep and get back to greeting the rising sun with others that have also found the benefit.

Regards Tony

 

[epronovost]

That the Sun shines, is in a sense on itself a sort of tautology, because nothing else follows from that.
Here is an example:
Fact: The Sun shines, Therefore what?

Therefore there is light would be a consequence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Therefore there is light would be a consequence.

Yes, if you go all the way how all this is important, you end with something which is not true in the same sense as the Sun shines.

 

[Heyo]

So, why do you keep arguing to prove something to anyone, who does not want to accept it. Do you think you can win, and defeat him? What benefit is in these arguments, other than making yourselves tired?

I can't reason with someone who doesn't accept reason.
But often my interlocutor isn't my target audience. By showing that my interlocutor is unreasonable, I can indicate to anyone else that his idea is unreasonable.
That is worth the effort, preventing dangerous or false ideas from spreading even if those already infected can't be saved.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I can't reason with someone who doesn't accept reason.
But often my interlocutor isn't my target audience. By showing that my interlocutor is unreasonable, I can indicate to anyone else that his idea is unreasonable.
That is worth the effort, preventing dangerous or false ideas from spreading even if those already infected can't be saved.

I don't accept reason in all cases, because even reason has a limit. Reason is subjective and thus not always the only factor at play. There are other subjective factors at play and we haven't even gotten to what objective is or what objective reasoning is, if it exists.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Consider the most obvious truth. Should one wants to deny it, he/she can surely do, and there is nothing you can do to make him admit it.
What is the most obvious truth?

It is the bright sun, in the mid noon, in a clear sky!

If you are pointing to the sun in clear sky, telling me: look, the sun is in the sky!

I tell you, no, it is not. I do not see it! You must be imagining! You are wrong! You must be sleeping, seeing the sun in you dream!

I mean, when someone does not want to admit truth. When someone wants to deny it. Surely they can. Anyone can do illogical fallacy, and deny even the most obvious truth, when it is against the desire to accept!

So, why do you keep arguing to prove something to anyone, who does not want to accept it. Do you think you can win, and defeat him? What benefit is in these arguments, other than making yourselves tired?

I've only seen it from memory once or twice on RF that debates don't need to be arguments, and disagreements help each participant learn something new (which is energetic) rather than agree to every point and bored about the process of something new. This means learning something new and different from the eyes of the other rather than filter their intent through our own lens. Defeats the purpose. If anything, you're only constantly translating whether the other side agrees with your side-and yes, if you can't find agreement (rather than accept there is not with no denial involve), yes, that can be exhausting. I did that four years trying to believe in god and was in denial there was none. I searched in myself, step away from others point of view, and accepted I never believed in god.

As for denial, that's the eye of the beholder. Assume both people are in denial and one person feels he knows the truth and the other person is challenging that truth but either, because of how the brain works, don't know reality without their own interpretations of it. Maybe both sides are in denial, who knows. But it becomes exhausting when there is a constant "you're in denial" when accepting other people "do" know the truth just not yours. You save more energy for letting people know their own truth than constantly saying people are in denial for not knowing your own (you/your as a group generalization).

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Well, both can't be right!
Maybe literally, the person has no eyesight.
But whether the Sun is shining or not, is quite obvious. (If one is literally blind, then he knows it, and he should realize he can't properly judge.) Other truths are not so clear.

Maybe we are both delusional but one side denies it and the other is ignorant of it.