The funny thing is that both sides consider themselves 3d. 🤷 However, by asking specific questions, we can discern the actual difference between 2d and 3d, if we are aware of both.

The key belief here is, that I don't think we can arrive to the truth, as we do not know what questions to ask. Unless we take psychedelics or have some sort of an expreience. That's why believing in God is that - believing, not necessarily knowing. I don't know God, I believe in him, because I can see him in action, that is all.

Oh, it depends on what you call truth.

In the past 100 or so years the knowledge side has tried to move away from declaring it knows truth to saying more that "we have a model of reality that corresponds more and more to whatever we experience when we try things out". There is no definitive truth in knowledge in principle, but there are things that seem to work, things that turn out to not work or work for apparently different reasons, etc.

But it's a long process, and the fact that so many things now rely on knowledge and especially science, makes many people claim they're true. Insofar as they work, they are. But they are all approximations.


Belief is belief. You can have rational discussions about knowledge and change your mind. Beliefs are important, because they can't be changed by knowing something. 🤷‍♂️

Very good, something like this is enough i think.

Glad we could agree on something. In general I do not touch beliefs, except when they make claims, which encroach on current state of knowledge.

Your last sentence is an expression of belief.

It is an appraisal of a situation.

Please provide some arguments and I will reconsider my position.

Jo es arī esmu kristietis. Tāpēc ir tikai normāli, ka es diskutēju ar citiem kristiešiem.

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.