The OP has a false definition of belief, because he refuses to accept that the words evidence and proof are not interchangeable. Instead, all while questioning the relevance of absolutely anything and flooding the forums with dictionaries, they constantly deny the dictionary definition of the word synonym, leading to an unrelevat discussion of its meaning.

What I imagine was meant is, in the context of christianity.

I'm holding only my popcorn.

If we had the upvote function, I'd be confused whether I should upvote that comment or not use it because of my principles.

Unless you are suggesting it can be observed elsewhere? — Samuel Lacrampe

Yes.

we cannot observe morality directly; only acts which we then judge to be morally good or bad. But then this judgement presupposes a moral knowledge. — Samuel Lacrampe

Unless we can observe the moral values without making the judgements ourselves.

Yes this might lead to needing to redefine morality but given how there's no consensus on that anyway I don't see that as an issue.

There can be no such thing. You know it. — TheMadFool

Yes there can, and no I don't. Are you claiming slef-destructive behaviour in general doesn't exist?

Surely only statements can be right or wrong? — Purple Pond

No, they can be true or false.

P3 is incorrect. What if we learn the morals without being taught? What if they exist independently of humanity, and can be observed?

To demonstrate why the P3 doesn't work: It is absurd to suppose that knowledge of anything is taught. If it was, then who was the first teacher, and "why would he tell us?!"

Guess what? I don't see the relevance to the OP. And regarding the relevance of my previous comments, wrt my previous comments.

Really? That's ok, just answer it and I'll draw the conclusion afterwards to make it easier for you.

You just avoided the whole "and even if I didn't" thing. Even if the words were synonyms, they would have drastically different meanings for this discussion.

But fine, let's forget the synonym topic and all that mess, and see the question from another angle. Do you admit the difference between the concepts of evidence and proof?

I have seen, read and acknowledged your URLs, and I refuse to recognize the authority of them. And even if I didn't, the words might be similar in colloquial use, which wouldn't have any weight in this topic. And even if it did, it would only mean they'd be similar, not the same.

That's technically correct but the word proof expresses that definition in a more exact way.

Thanks *virtual hug*

As prior mentioned, whether or not you like or oppose or admit it, synonyms are words that are either similar or the same in meaning. — ProgrammingGodJordan

A claim is not a valid response to its own counter. The only thing it implies is that you either didn't read or understand my reply.

Similar words are synonyms. The two words are not similar. Therrefore the two words are not synonyms.

that belief (something that does not prioritize evidence) — ProgrammingGodJordan

False. Belief does not prioritize proof.

equates with science (something that does the very contrast, i.e. prioritize evidence). — ProgrammingGodJordan

Science prioritizes evidence, but not proof (excluding mathematics).

And what exactly counts as similar? Synonym is a grammatical term, and your OP does not concern grammar. In the context of this discussion proof and evidence have huge differences, so whether they're concidered synonomous by dictionaries is irrelevant.

I don't detect the relevance of your response above, wrt the OP. — ProgrammingGodJordan

Its relevance is that science is a belief (with the exclusion of mathematics). Therefore you must reject science in the name of non-beliefism.

Why don't you instead focus on critiquing JustSomeGuy on that matter, who claimed that they supposedly weren't synonyms at all? — ProgrammingGodJordan

Because it's more technically correct than what you claim. I oppose calling words with similar but not the same meaning synonyms.

Your third point at (2) is invalid; mathematical proofs may be demonstrated to be true. — ProgrammingGodJordan

Is this a counter to my point 2 or 3? Because it doesn't counter 2, but you still mention the number 2 there for some reason.

If it's supposed to be a counter to 3, I'll answer by fixing my argument into the form: "there're no proofs in science, excluding mathematics, only evidence".

You haven't answered my point about us being more motivated by our inner moral codes than by external incentives set by, for example, society.

You can't deny that the altruist is happy to be one. — TheMadFool

Can't I? I'll call this self-destructive altruism: altruistic behaviour with negative effect to one's happiness and/or well-being.

Belief and science are disparate, belief does not prioritize evidence, while science does. — ProgrammingGodJordan

1. Proof and evidence are not exact synonyms.

1.2 Stop writing your arguments in numbered lists, using screenshots of dictionaries and copypasteing your previous arguments. Dictionaries are not exact, often using colloquial meanings of words. And your comments are unpleasant and inpractical af to read.

2. Thinking anything unproven to be true or false is a belief.

3. There're no proofs in science, only evidence.

4. Thus science is belief.

Ok. We are an illusion

In one sense.

and all illusions are accurate reality

Not all.

Reality are illusions.

No, just out perceptions of it.

Illusions are reality.

On some subjective, irrelevant to the topic, level, perhaps.

There are no particles bouncing iiffeach other

Yes there are.

You exist

True.

and you don't.

False.

I exist

True.

and I don't.

False.

I'm talking to you

If we define text-based discussion to be talking, yes.

and I am not.

If we define text-based discussion to not be talking, no.

everything has become meaningless.

Maybe to you on subjective level, which I'm sorry to hear. As an objective truth, that claim is false.



Wow, what a wall that was to write. Are you purposefully making a straw man out of physicalism? It does not make the world an illusion, it doesn't make us not real, it doesn't make anything meaningless, it's not directly connected to hinduism.

You don't exist. I don't exist. — Rich

Yes we do. Our conscious experiences are illusions (yet they exist as illusions), but we still exist.

Particles don't exist. — Rich

Yes they do. We perceive them, that perception is an illusion, that illusion is accurate and true.

What is the source of this internal motivation then? — MonfortS26

How the heck do I know, but altruistic self-sacrifice often does not have an external incentive yet people decide to do so.

I guess incentives and motivation could also be differentiated by having instrumental or intrinsic value if that's preferred.

I don't see any valuable distinguishment between those two words. — MonfortS26

In the context of this discussion, the distinction means my comment makes sense - people do things motivated by their inner moral codes with intrinsical value, even though there are external incentives or motivators with instrumental value.

Now one can meditate for the rest of his/her life with the hope of breaking free of illusion. — Rich

Why would you do that? The illusion is an accurate representation of the reality and it's not like you're meditating to break free of your experiences. That the consciousness is an illusion doesn't have to have any effect on one's life or how one lives, experiences or evaluates it. You're just misinterpreting the word illusion.

Motivation and incentive are effectively synonyms. — MonfortS26

To motivate and to incentivize, maybe. Motivation and incentive, not so much. Motivation is internal, incentives are external (although incentive can be a source of motivation).

Illusions have no meaning in the world of determinism and physicalism. — Rich

Debatable; I can agree if you stuff the word "objective" somewhere there.

They are neither reliable or unreliable. — Rich

Does not follow from anything. The meaninglessness and lack of reliability of illusions are false premises that you don't derive from anything.

And I see you're going to make me ask a third time: (I'll narrow it down even more to just one simple question) do you believe you are speaking to a human right now? — JustSomeGuy

Isn't it obvious that the only logically self-consistent answer is no?

There is no proof of anything scientific. Only evidence. This means that every scientific truth is a belief.

It is just bouncing balls creating illusions. — Rich

Illusions that we call perceptions and that appear to us as perceptions. Determinism and physicalism don't make those perceptions any less real or reliable.

All of a sudden illusions are reliable? — Rich

Since when are they not? What? Why? :s

Descartes' arguments apply without determinism as well. The mind being an illusion does not make the perceptions any more or less reliable.

Most people do not do evil, even though there're incentives.
— BlueBanana

Exactly. We are motivated by incentives rather than by moral considerations. — TheMadFool

What, no. It's exactly the opposite. If we do things that contradict incentives that means we're not motivated by incentives, which here means that we're more motivated by morality.

They become meaningless — Rich

Why? Your claim that an illusion is less reliable than a not-illusion has no basis.

How does it affect the reliability of the perceptions if they are an illusion?

A true Determinist ultimately has to succumb to the inevitable that if ,the mind is an illusion so it's their whole existence and experience. — Rich

People do still have experiences of the reality outside them, and as long as those experiences do not deny the possibility of one's experience of self, those experiences can be trusted to represent the reality, even if they are an illusion. This means that at least according to the current scientific knowledge what you describe is not necessary.

Sure, for anyone who adopts Determinism as their philosophy everything is an illusion - including Determinism. — Rich

Interesting point. Declaring causality to be an illusion is certainly a thing that has been done, but it's not a part of determinism. If consciousness is illusion, then knowledge and information must be as well, and that would lead to concepts being illusions. However, the concept represents something. What people understand when the word determinism is used would be an illusion according to determinism, but what the concept represents, what the word determinism refers to, would not be an illusion.

I understand it very well. — Rich

Looking back, mistake would've been a better verb to use. As Michael pointed out, you've been arguing against physicalism - the conclusions of yours can't be drawn from determinism alone.

What illusion? — Rich

The illusion that you said there'd be if determinism was the case.

What a funny way to look at life? Particles are admitting illusions? I guess for some people it is fun thinking of themselves in this manner. Who am I to question such? — Rich

Dude, I don't even believe in determinism myself. I'm arguing against you because your arguments are fallacious and you've misunderstood the concepts of determinism and physicalism.

How many people are out there doing charity work? Compare that to how many criminals are out there?

Why do we have CCTV cameras? Why do we have punishment through law? Deterrence, no?

How many charity organizations are there? So few, right? — TheMadFool

There's an incentive to do evil, and there's often an incentive to not do good. The comparison is invalid. Most people do not do evil, even though there're incentives. Most people do not do huge amounts of good either, but that can be explained with incentives to not to.

So you admit that the illusion of self exists in determinism (btw what you are describing is physicalism). Then this illusion is what is called self, therefore it is the self, therefore the self exists, as an "illusion" that emerges from the particles.

Besides the reasoning for that claim, no.

This is a mistake because morality only relates to life or, in a narrow sense, human existence. — TheMadFool

So you claim.