It is a matter of just believing... When you take any idea that you have it is based on logic, even ideas of how the brain works, and logic is not proven but assumed. Ultimately it would seem that everything has a non-decernable definitive probability.
In otherwords. When we deside when something is true or false. There is asserted as being evidence to suggest it is true and evidence to suggest it is false. But the amount of evidence that can be stacked up is endless, and even when we reach what seems like an end there is no sure way of telling it is the end rather than just seeming so by logic or something. So what happens is that different people begin to belive things based on different levels of evidense. it is not like some particular probability is suggested by a particular amount of evidence. If you don't have any evidense it remains possible, and thus the possibility is greater than zero even when you have zero evidense (sort of, you could say that what it amounts to is that the idea of a thing is evidence in itself, thus not knowing of that thing constitutes zero probability, but that would seem even not to be true because one can recognize that it is possible otherwise, in otherwords that what you don't know might be true...abstract but logical) So when you say get 50 pieces of evidense stacked up on the side of truth, one can't specify that such a thing is actually of a particular level of certainty. Especially considering that we likewise don't know what accuracy our method of probabilistic assert ion has....
As such one could say that in reality everything, even the idea of a unicorn , is equally possible, it is just a matter of believing that it doesn't be believing in what evidense seems to suggest otherwise, and of course believing in that evidense requires believing in the idea that evidense is good...At some point it required just believing...
If you really believe this, then I'm not sure why you bother listening to any one or talking to anyone, because you could reduce every conversation into uncertainty, and you could permit yourself to believe anything because any given thing may have at least one billionth of a possibility.
Do you question whether you actually exist?
What lead you to believe in these things? And if you don't mind could you give me an example?
The relationship of love between people is not accountable.
We can account for the emotion and even measure it, but we cannot empirically account for the relationship of love itself.
That is the simplest example.
Human behavior is full of relationships with their own selves, others, and objects in manners not capable of being quantified by the empirical form.
Another example of such; faith.
Faith exists, but the faith in a thing is not able to be quantified empirically.
Wall Street tries every day and they can never get the values correct so the values keep changing as fickle and wild as human faiths move in their investment of money.
We could better predict storms, which is one of the harder empirical macro events to predict, than accurately predict human faiths.
I use it myself, I'm not suggesting not using it, but just realizing it is a "leg" just a means to justify what you choose to believe in. Rather than thinking it is some thing that cannot be wrong, or even something that has a tendency to be less wwrong than anything else. It may by use of its self show that useing it has a tendency to "work" but there is of course no gurantee that it won't stop working in the future. and relative to the amount of possible future time and thus the time possible for alteration in acuity the overal likely hood that it is the best method is equal to the number greater than zero but as close to zero as possible. In fact the overall likely hood of any method depsite tendency to be correct over some observable time does not lend to an overal increase in likely hood that it is or will continue to be a functional means at arriveing at beliefs.
Again I must ask...do you believe that you exist?
You conveniently mitigate everywhere, but your mitigation offers nothing. They are empty and implausible.
Basically, your only common theme seems to be to say that anything is possible.
Yes, anything is possible.
Like a fly getting hit 3 times by lightening and surviving is possible.
But the stretches by which they are probable?
Do you try to shoot the moon with a pellet gun?
Although it would seem that either way you wouldn't make much attention of it being there because it had always been there, assuming it had always been there I guess.
OK, then the point wasn't really worth making if we can't make any differentiation between a god and underwear.
For me personally when I began to understand the problems with our systems to arrive at beliefs stuff happened.
You have problems with it; that is clear.
I think you need some time to get over this stage of your experience.
Everyone goes through the questioning age of their foundations, but hopefully you'll see at some point that always bringing up the 100% concept is really not useful to anything unto yourself.
We don't need 100%.
We need better than beyond imaginably improbable.
Do you know what the probability of 7.4 duodecillion atoms quantum entangling is?
Again, you have a moon set pellet gun.
regardless can you think of an answer to this question:
Why is it that there must be space between two things in order for a thing to pass?(in other words water doesn't leave a container without a hole.) It seems illogical to work any other way as we are used to this way, but why was it not such that things were such as to logically work otherwise?
Why would things not be permitted to pass through concentrated bonds of complex atomic compounds?
Do you need that explained on the macro level really?
And honestly, not everything works that way; but in the case of the cup, do you really need atomic compound electron fields explained?
Your question more boils down to asking why atoms work in the manner in which they do.
And even if I did answer that for you, you would ask me why the constituents of that answer work in the manner in which they do, and then the same of that answers constituents, and that answers constituents.
You are losing my faith because you have invested no reasonable logic in your faith placing.
You simply mitigate out of uncertainty, even if the uncertainty is ridiculously small, and allow the smallest of possibilities to be in play in your logic instead.
Essentially, I see you simply doing nothing more than flipping the standard approach to logic from probability on its head so that the more improbable a thing is the more likely it is that you will be backing it and the more probable a thing is the more likely you will be to refute it.
You won't by it if you don't buy that the reasons are good in the first place.
Why do you buy what you buy?
Spiritually I work with what produces pragmatic results to my person directly and offers a psychological control over a neurological condition or state for a positive gain of satisfaction.