"If you claim that you don't believe anything then there is no point in asking questions or making statements."

Sure there is...

You must convince everyone that they should not believe anything.

To do that you must ask questions to assertain the point at which you should 'insert' your 'proof' of belief.

Since your belief is that one should never believe anything.

Okay, now I'm confused.

absurd analogies.

TimeSpace is an inferred concept. The concept could not have been inferred without first having had some questions pertaining to all the previous knowledge which also came about through previous human perceptions.

All previous human knowledge or beliefs are cumulative having passed to new generations, whether directly or indirectly, and all such knowledge or beliefs have been influenced by human perception both past and present.

Humans perceive time apart from the concept of timespace. When we refer to time we refer to a linear concept because that’s the only way in which humans can perceive the passage of time – we pass from moment to moment in a progressive linear fashion. A human lives, progresses, and passes out of this realm. Born into an active scenario and then exiting an active scenario reflects the linear progression of events.

We have no knowledge of future but we certainly can infer future events based on current knowledge and beliefs. We are motivated to stock up on food because we know we will eventually get hungry but how did that belief come about. Did someone from the future send a message to the past through unknown channels to tell people to stock up on food or they will suffer from hunger and eventually die? Why did we develop the belief that we needed to stock pile our food? Isn’t that what led to the technology which enables ability to stock up on food and what are the chain of events that led to this ability? What new knowledge and beliefs have occurred because of the chain of events that began with the belief that we need to stock up on food?

We don’t look to the future – we have no way of doing so. We look to the past. It’s the only method known to man that yields repeatable, fairly dependable results. From those results we gain knowledge and form beliefs.

Adding another element into this discussion which is based on belief that was developed through a creative process without any empirical evidence only belabors the course of the discussion. With that, I would suggest that for this topic it should be accepted that humans progress in a linear fashion.

Thus the quote


Should be acceptable or not but if not then the argument should still be based on the only empirical concept that humans have of time.

Okay, thanks.

For a person with a deep set belief that you 'can not beleive any thing'.

Asking questions is a necessity.

(people with a deep set belief will usually attempt to convince everyone to accept that belief)

Asking questions is the only way to for such a person to learn where they can 'attack' the belief structure of the listening audience so as to replace it with their own.

We are but carriers of our memes; puppets executing their will.

All talk of believing nothing is nonsense. It is humanly impossible to hold no belief. To claim "I believe nothing" is a belief expressed via language; a self-refuting one at that. Prior to putting language to use, one must adopt pre-existing belief(s) regarding what things are called. Thought/belief formation about the way things are is the basis of acquired knowledge. We cannot learn about this or that without first thinking/believing that this or that is here or there. Empirical knowledge requires thought/belief and it must be true. To deny belief about the way things are is to deny empirical knowledge. Our knowledge is limited to that which appears in space and time. We cannot know anything about what may or may not exist beyond that.

Thought/belief is mental correlation between objects of perception and/or ourselves(our emotional state of mind). Correlation presupposes the existence of it's own content. That is the engagement of truth with thought/belief about fact/reality. This is reinforced at language acquisition.

If it where possible, it would be a person who could not function. This person would be handicap in a way so profound it would make Stephen Hawking look normal by comparison. No dig on Mr Hawking, just an example, even people who cannot form new memories are not so handicap, they at least hold some beliefs about old memories and can usually base understanding off of those old beliefs even if they then loose that understanding shortly there after.

Without belief no understandings can be had. No knowledge can form, no actions would be taken, the person would not be able to function.

Now that's a philosophy I can believe in!