No, delusions are irrational beliefs, not behaviors.'Delusions' are defined primarily by social consensus regarding 'inappropriate behavior'. The fact that what we call 'brain functioning' may be correlated with this is a more recent view which has tended to replace 'spiritual possession'. — fresco
Correct Frank! We know when to use it , but nothing can be said about it except for its social signification as to agreement about ' what is the case '. — fresco
Dont you need evidence that the debate on evidence it futile? What reasons do you have to say that the debate is futile and wouldnt you be using your reasons as evidence?No. That word game doesn't work. It is the DEBATE based on ' evidence'
which is futile. — fresco
No. That word game doesn't work. It is the DEBATE based on ' evidence '
which is futile. There is no debate about 'utility' except where the social implications of theism might be imposed on others. — fresco
Im not asking you to chase words. I'm asking you to be consistent. You arent. Any infinite regress is one of your own making. I'm basically asking you how you resolve the regress your own claims make. But what would one expect from someone who thinks that evidence is in the eye of the beholder?Sorry Harry, I don't do words chasing words round infinite regresses — fresco
Which is no different than saying there is no evidence.The reason for the futility of the 'evidence for God' debate, is that The 'properties of God' remain disputed, even amongst believers, hence the choice of 'evidence' is arbitrary. — fresco
In short, the 'utility debate' rarely happens — fresco
Then why do you believe that the arguments about 'evidence for God' are futile? Why would you not believe that the arguments about the 'evidence for God' are not futile? Any reason you give for your belief is evidence for your belief. Whether it is good evidence - evidence that integrates well with the rest of what we know and how we use language - is a different story.I don't need 'evidence' to identify that arguments about 'evidence for God' are futile, anymore than I need 'evidence' for the futility of the claim that there is 'evidence for the beauty of the Mona Lisa'. i.e. The context of 'evidential' claims is one of agreed observational criteria.
Your demand for 'consistency' appears to be semantically vacuous. — fresco
It's not the complexity of the life process, it is the imperfect design of organisms, the extinction of 99% of life that has existed, and the vast areas of existence that are devoid of life that is evidence that existence was not intentionally designed with life in mind. If the properties of God are so difficult to agree on by believers, then how do the believers know that they aren't simply talking past each other? There could be many "gods". God could just as well be defined as an extradimensional alien. Is it the terms that we are disagreeing on, or are we simply talking past each other?No. It means that subgroups of 'believers' have there own parochial observational criteria including, for example, 'the complexity of the life process'. Atheists might agree on that 'complexity' observation but consider it as 'evidence' for some yet to be discovered 'other natural process'. — fresco
I'll throw that one back at you. How often have you come across debate about 'the utility of theism' ? — fresco
That's right...on the basis that 'existence is relative' is an usual or counter intuitive assertion. — fresco
I suggest that anybody actually interested in my position should listen to the Rorty clip before further comment. — fresco
... only consistent human 'interactions' with an aspect of the world ... — fresco
The problem, as I see it, is that what we call 'dead insects' do not 'exist' for starving frogs because their mode of interaction is not attuned to dead insects. — fresco
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.