Sure, whatever. I'm going to go with the understanding of doctors and other medical scientists, who are aware that there are germs in the body that do not cause disease and actually study the stuff, over some guy on the internet who I'm sure would not mind having a bunch of viruses and bacteria germ theory holds contain deadly diseases injected into him and would not seek medical help because modern medicine is based on germ theory.

I assume you are an anti-vaccine guy too, right?

One must study with precision. It is the host that is unhealthy, the germs are simply a manifestation. Understanding health lends itself to a healthier body. Medicine in the U.S is not equivalent to medicine in other developed countries, and the U.S. had the worst outcomes of 35 developed countries whole spending twice as much per capita. Medicine, as with all biological sciences, is highly subjective.

Setting aside the scientific method, which admittedly is flawed, as a philosopher, is the diversity of spiritual, emotional, mental, and physical experiences, as observed by you, best explained by an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent God — Rich

Well, what are the options available?

The only other option we have is that everything arose out of chance. How do we measure or verify that? The short answer is we can't.

There are other options that sit in the world between absolute chance and absolute certainty. Neither poles of absolutes are satisfying for me because they do not explain the universe I am observing. They are too absolute. So I pursue a middle path of intelligent evolution via experimentation and learning.

I am accounting for those religious observations. I'm saying that the hypothesis you are arguing for is unfounded and that the explanation for the religious behavior we observe can easily just be false belief in gods. — Chany

How do you know god-beliefs are false or true for that matter? This is the issue at hand. Your counter-objections to my argument is a circular one. You're already assuming god doesn't exist.

How do you know god-beliefs are false or true for that matter? Your counter-objections to my argument is a circular one. You're already assuming god doesn't exist. — TheMadFool

My argument does not aim to disprove God, it aims to disprove the argument you presented: God exists because many humans worship God and follow the rules of a religion. I am saying that your argument for God is bad. I said nothing on the other arguments for God's existence or even the actual existence for God. Those remain open questions.

I am saying that we do not require god to explain human religious behavior. We already know people can be motivated and act on beliefs that are false. Therefore, the truth of the content of a belief is irrelevant in explaining behavior. The person only needs to believe their religion is true in order to perform all the prayers and religious practices they do; the religion itself does not need to be true. Therefore, God's existence is irrelevant to the observation of religious behavior. Because religious behavior does not require God to explain it, you cannot use religious behavior as proof of God's existence. Again, God may actually exist, but God does not need to exist in order to explain the observation.

It comes across to me that you're making a distinction between the actual existence of a thing and belief in the existence of that thing. How do we distinguish between the two states with regard to something, say a stone or even god?

The entire field of how we know is epistemology. This is a philosophical field all on its own and we can spend generations talking about it. I'm going to ignore things like skepticism in my response, because, if I don't, we will go nowhere and be unable to do anything.

Let's look at it in a more scientific way:

I can directly observe stones. I can see a stone, hold it, throw it, and such. Unless I have reason to believe my senses are faulty to the point of insanity, I can say I see and touch it. This is a bad example to use as analogies with things like god, which as we cannot go down the street and find at a riverbed. I can directly observe rocks to exist. What we are talking about is how we know things that we cannot directly see actually exist.

In the things we cannot directly see, we must start from observations, make hypotheses, and then eliminate those hypotheses until only one remains. We eliminate those hypotheses by looking for evidence and observations that would falsify those observations from being true. We falsify the hypotheses until only one remains.

That's the extremely bare-bones version of it. In your example, you have not eliminated alternative hypotheses to God actually causing belief. I have shown how we do not need an actual god to exist in order to explain religious behavior because people are motivated by false beliefs all the time.

To the best of my understanding, the is no particle. Just a symbolic representation (am mindful image) of a particle when it is convenient for purposes. Likewise, the symbolic wave (another image) when it is convenient for practice purposes, as with the double b slot experiment. I believe it is imprecise to discuss it otherwise. There is a chasm of difference between instantiating it as a particle (or a wave) and labeling it a particle (or a wave) and that is what the philosopher may choose to explore. True, one can call it a wave-particle but where does that leave us other than a confused image.

My own preference is viewing it as a wave (not particle) with wave perburtations being viewed as patches but not such. This would be the De Brogle-Bohm version. In such an image, the is no real psyche though the permutations may be mathematically treated as such. As always, I am seeking precision. — Rich

If you are talking about Bohmian mechanics, that is merely one way to interpret quantum mechanics. It fails in several places with some other discipline of quantum physics in terms of how mechanics work. Unlike quantum field theory and quantum electrodynamics, Bohmian mechanics fail on the relativistic level, if I remember correctly (although there are several attempts to make Bohmian mechanics relativistic). Quantum field theory more correctly accounts for relativistic level of discussion. In fact, the interpretations and premises of Bohmian mechanics only clarifies some part of Copenhagen interpretation, but otherwise does not provide any practical formulation of things, thus the reason other interpretations are still used today.

Your concern with definition of particle arises from your confusion of a priori and a posterirori knowledge.

Before we proceed, I invite you to review this scholarly paper at your leisure, but most especially before you once again use the word, an expression most often used by the confused.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4616

Particles are an artifact of ancient models, and are still used today, to facilitate mathematical calculations and symbolic interactions. At best, using the notion of particles is incomplete, at worst is is misleading.

The is no confusion between a priori and a posterirori knowledge. It is all Memory.

That's the extremely bare-bones version of it. In your example, you have not eliminated alternative hypotheses to God actually causing belief — Chany

Thanks for your informative response. However can you name some alternative hypotheses to God.

For the observation of religious belief?

Directly, people's beliefs. People believe that their religion is true, and they act on their beliefs. Even if the beliefs are actually false, people still follow them so long as they believe them to be true. How did people get these beliefs? That's an open question, but here is a possible idea:

You have to remember that our philosophical god of classical theism was easily not the gods and goddesses people worshiped early in human history. The human need for closure, human fear of the unknown, the tendency to see agency when there is not, and the want to explain forces we did not understand can lead to people postulating forces outside of their control, forces that were aware and conscious. From there, it simply morphed in grew into religions as people tried to control those forces of nature, or, at the very least, understand them. Ever notice how pagan gods act like people and that the sacrifices they want are very human in nature, even though we have no reason to believe gods would be interested in the same stuff we are? In short, people, for whatever reason, may have made gods up and religions simply developed overtime, becoming ingrained in most societies.

Also, important to note, that there is often a big issue with the limits of understanding. "I'm not sure" is a healthy response to certain situations where we really do not know much. Social development and practice of early humans is a question of exploration. There are a lot of things we do not know.

If you're talking about some other observation, that would have to be handled on a case-by-case basis.

What I want to say is I'm simply following scientific methodology here. — TheMadFool

But why do you want to say something that has already been refuted in this discussion?

I've shown you plenty of effects of god on people. Therefore god must exists. — TheMadFool

No you haven't.

Do you realise that repeating a bad argument doesn't make it any better?

Directly, people's beliefs. People believe that their religion is true, and they act on their beliefs. Even if the beliefs are actually false, people still follow them so long as they believe them to be true — Chany

But how do you know religious beliefs are false? Can you tell me a method which I can use to show that god is a false belief ?

Please read my responses to other posters.

That's a discussion in itself. Each religion makes unique claims, so you would technically have to one by one and show how they are false (though you could probably make arguments that apply to a good number at once).

However, I know that, at most, one religion is true. I know that people can be motivated by false beliefs. My goal is not to disprove God or disprove a religion. It is to show that saying religion exists and people follow religion is not evidence of that religion being true. The same goes for God. There might be a knockdown argument for the existence of God; that does not mean other arguments are necessarily good.

I am saying that, regardless of everything else, your argument is bad. Belief in something is not evidence of that belief's truth.

To contrast the opening post:

I'm guessing (but please correct me if I'm wrong) that the most common intellectual reasons for atheism, are that, in the scheme of things, the arguments for the various gods of theism are woefully insufficient.

• they lack in proportionality among claim and justification (we're not just talking The Loch Ness Monster here)
• they lack in uniqueness; there isn't much pointing specifically at their god, and nothing else
• there's much more evidence for directed indoctrination, cultural dependencies and magical thinking, for example, than for any of the gods of theism
• they tend towards known cognitive biases (personification of the unknown, etc)
• sometimes there's a degree of narrowmindedness, incredulity or gullibility involved; broader horizons warranted (including history, science, biology, psychology, anthropology, philosophy, etc)
• inconsistent epistemic standards (like evolution versus scriptures)
• some definitions/arguments (like definitions from theism → problems of suffering → unknown greater good defenses → extraordinary appeal to ignorance → …) quickly turn wholly "academic" while remaining sufficient cause for existential doubts
• there's no clear demarcation of what warrants devoted worship, and how to differentiate such worship, and other religious practices, from obsession
• ...

Note, these may be intellectual reasons, whereas beliefs in general are not mere matters of exercising "free" choice.

Judgments About Fact and Fiction by Children From Religious and Nonreligious Backgrounds (Kathleen H Corriveau, Eva E Chen, Paul L Harris; Cognitive Science; Jul 2014)

Can you tell me a method which I can use to show that god is a false belief ? — TheMadFool

What about those who kill in the name of religion? Do you think that means God encourages murder?

I am saying that, regardless of everything else, your argument is bad. Belief in something is not evidence of that belief's truth. — Chany

Are you saying that people believing that "the sky is blue" is true, is not evidence that "the sky is blue" is true? What else would qualify as evidence that "the sky is blue" is true?

Generally, the fact that people believe something is nuetral. It may, at best, serve as very minor evidence or an indication of something that requires further study. Rather, the justification of evidence comes from realiable judgement. In the case of the color of the sky, people's senses are generally reliable enough to cast reliable judgement on the color of something they see everyday.

Please read my responses to other posters. — TheMadFool

Please don't assume that I haven't already done so, or that that reply is at all helpful or productive.

Generally, the fact that people believe something is nuetral. It may, at best, serve as very minor evidence or an indication of something that requires further study. Rather, the justification of evidence comes from realiable judgement. In the case of the color of the sky, people's senses are generally reliable enough to cast reliable judgement on the color of something they see everyday. — Chany

The point though, is that the colour which we call "blue" is the colour of the sky. What makes it true that the sky is blue, is the fact that people believe that the colour which the sky is, should be called "blue". If everyone believed that the colour which the sky is should be called "red", or that the colour of the grass is the colour which should be called "blue", then it would not be true that the sky is blue. So actually, contrary to your insistence, it is the fact that everyone believes that "the sky is blue" is true, which makes it true that the sky is blue. If people stopped believing this, it would no longer be true that the sky is blue.

I'm not entirely sure what your point is. Yes, if we called "blue" by another name or used "blue" to refer to something else than we usually use it, then "the sky is blue" would be false. However, changing defenitions and what the word refers to is irrelevant. What matters is the content of what "blue" refers to. The content is what matters, not the language we use to describe the content.

I'm not entirely sure what your point is. Yes, if we called "blue" by another name or used "blue" to refer to something else than we usually use it, then "the sky is blue" would be false. However, changing defenitions and what the word refers to is irrelevant. What matters is the content of what "blue" refers to. The content is what matters, not the language we use to describe the content. — Chany

Clearly, what the words mean is not irrelevant, to the contrary, it is the content. If we do not agree that "blue" is the word which refers to the colour of the sky, then how can it be true that the sky is blue? Contrary to what you say, truth is dependent on belief.

You seem to believe in some mystical concept of content, "the content is what matters". You say, "what matters is the content of what 'blue' refers to". How is this so-called "content" anything other than the belief of what "blue" refers to?

Perhaps my language was not the clearest. Allow me to explain.

We start with meanings first, or the "content" of the word, before we get to the label. The "content" is what is the word refers to: whether that is an object, feeling, idea, and so on. For example, the content of the word "square" is a specific shape. What matters is the shape itself; the name itself is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that we ultimately understand that when I say "square", people understand what I am referring to. "Square" operates as a label for the content (in this case, a specific shape). The word "blue" has content: it refers to something. You referenced something that is normally considered blue, but that is not what "blue" is exactly, as "blue" refers to a color that is on many different things. It is also possible to imagine our vision being nothing but "blue" for a while, similar to staring at a piece of blue paper until it is all that you see. "Blue" can either refer the physical interaction of light waves and objects that produce the color we call "blue", the qualia we see when we certain objects, like the sky, or something else. However, we are simply agreeing on what a word means. From there, we can evaluate the truth value of the claim, "the sky is blue". Potentially, we all have different qualia of what we collectively call the color "blue" and simply agree to call whatever that is "blue".

Once we establish what "blue" is, we can evaluate the truth value of the claim, "the sky is blue." Again, I'm not sure what you are saying. Whatever we say "blue" is, we are simply agreeing on terms. Our beliefs on the truth value of the proposition, "the sky is blue", are not related to the actual truth value of the claim. The only way it is possible is if it becomes true by definition "the color of the sky, but then we are doing nothing but stating a definition. My belief is not really influencing the statement- I am simply naming a color I see.

I do not see the case for the claim that the belief in something is somehow evidence for the truth of that belief.

I apologize if I am not making my position more clearly. I would have issues explaining something like this in real life, let alone over the internet.

We start with meanings first, or the "content" of the word, before we get to the label. The "content" is what is the word refers to: whether that is an object, feeling, idea, and so on. For example, the content of the word "square" is a specific shape. What matters is the shape itself; the name itself is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that we ultimately understand that when I say "square", people understand what I am referring to. "Square" operates as a label for the content (in this case, a specific shape). — Chany

Now my point. Isn't this "content" just belief? That the word "square" refers to a specific shape, is dependent on people believing this. If everyone believed that "square" referred to a specific colour, then it would not refer to a specific shape, it would refer to a specific colour. But people believe that "square" refers to a specific shape, and therefore "square" refers to a specific shape.

However, we are simply agreeing on what a word means. From there, we can evaluate the truth value of the claim, "the sky is blue". Potentially, we all have different qualia of what we collectively call the color "blue" and simply agree to call whatever that is "blue". — Chany

So this is the crux of my argument. Before we can evaluate the truth value of a claim, we must agree on what the words mean. So there is no truth or falsity without an objective, or agreed upon meaning. But meaning is determined by what we believe. Therefore truth is inherently dependent on belief. And this is contrary to what you have been claiming, that what people believe has no bearing on truth.

I do not see the case for the claim that the belief in something is somehow evidence for the truth of that belief. — Chany

So you don't see that the truth about the meaning of a word is inherently dependent on what people believe? The truth about the meaning of "square" is dependent on what people believe. And therefore belief that "square" refers to a specific shape is evidence that it is true that "square" refers to a specific shape. Do you follow that? What about the word "God" now? Do you not see that when people believe that the word "God" refers to a being which necessarily exists, then this is evidence that the word "God" refers to a being that necessarily exists? This is just like the fact that when people believe that the word "square" refers to a specific shape, this is evidence that it is true that the word "square" refers to a specific shape.

I just want to let you know that I have not had time to sit down and do a proper response. I still want to respond.

I'll give you a hint as to how to respond. Do like others confronted with the same, or similar, argument do, insist that what I've done is a semantic trick, pure sophistry.

There is nothing special about a square. It is a shape. It is a shape with for sides that are equal. What two people may see may be completely different internally (the is no way of verifying that internal images are more or less alike). However, if one person says that the box in question has four sides, all equal, and all at right angles to each other they may or may not agree that it is a square, but if they both were educated in a similar manner they will probably agree that the word square is a simplified way of describing the box. (One could also say it's a rectangle).

However, if one wanted to win a bet, one can also claim that it is not a square, but rather a shape with unequal sides and angles, and precise measurements would verify that this observation is not only valid but that the external image is also constantly changing. There is a very fine line between consensus and disagreement.

The concept of square is just part of a convenient learned belief sysyem that has been agreed upon, usually by the mechanism of formal education. In itself, the concept and word only serves as a communication device for what is some formed belief that had become part of one or more individual's memory.

I apologize for the late reply. I did read it, but did not have enough time to respond.

By all means, I know what particles refer to and what they are in QFT. I don't need you to tell me that. Also, forget about Bohmian mechanics. It clarifies Copenhagen interpretation, and it works in a non-relativistic level, but otherwise it is generally not well accepted in Quantum mechanics, not to mention they are not that practical in terms of how they do not help advance quantum mechanics at all. Unless someone works on it and works on it good enough to convince the science community, I highly recommend you not to try to believe it the true interpretation yet. What I did not realize was something more fundamental that you were talking about. Now I understand what you were trying to say below.

I think, upon inspection, the precise description of atoms, molecules, quarks, boffins, hadrons, bosons, quanta, photons, dark matter, spin, etc. are quite malleable and are more or less symbolic as are words and some other mathematical construct. I remember reading Bohr describing the nucleus as a water drop, which led directly to Meitner's description of fission. Symbolism should always be recognized for what it is and not confused with what actually might be — Rich

This is fallacious as a response to what Chany said (http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/52491). Chany's argument bases itself on the fact that, whatever an atom actually may be, atom must exist. Whether particles are classical particles, quantum particles, or quanta of a field, the target of the term particles still exists. It has not disappeared out of the concept. We can later redefine "atom", but that does not mean the target of what Chany said as "atom" has disappeared out of this world. It's just that there is another better and suitable noun to refer to "atom" in light of new evidence.

TheMadFool talks about an object called "God" that we do not know if it, in any form that it actually refers to, really exists. But he claims to scientifically prove its existence based on the fact that people are affected by the belief that it exists. This is, like you said, a bad fallacious argument. Chany attempted explaining this by talking about atoms. Chany's argument does not base itself on the premise that atom is what people classically refer to as atoms. The term "atom" is used in a way to refer to something that actually exists, and does not depend on whether what it actually may be. Whether or not an (classical) atom is actually something else, that "something" still exists. Chany claims that to argue in the way TheMadFool did, that "something" must exist. I think your type of fallacy is called referential fallacy or something. I told you about a priori and a posteriori knowledge because of this.