Clearly you don't understand what you're quoting, so unless you care to try explain it further, I think the discussion is finished — Wayfarer
I'm asking you to do the same - how do you distinguish an atom from belief in an atom? — TheMadFool
In the case of atomic physics, there is evidence in the form of traces, imprints on film, and so on. — Wayfarer
Can we test these interpretations, or, at the least, collect more data and evidence to further refine them? Science is not my field beyond some research into it for various reasons, like epistemology and having to listen to people talk about the Kalaam Cosmological Argument. — Chany
Temples, prayers, rituals, behaviors, etc. are proof that belief exists, not that God exists — Bitter Crank
How do you distinguish a stone and belief in a stone then? — TheMadFool
BY PICKING UP A STONE AND THROWING IT AT YOUR FACE — Wayfarer
The God of Abraham has never appeared in person, according to the religious record — Bitter Crank
God also has not left calling cards, glowing blobs of divine substance, or anything else. — Bitter Crank
This same logic must apply to science and all its knowledge. There's no way of distinguishing whether atoms, molecules, etc. actually exist or whether these are simply beliefs as you put it. — TheMadFool
According to Christians, that's exactly what the God of Abraham did, in the person of Jesus Christ. — Wayfarer
He has appeared as the Incarnate Christ — Bitter Crank
But, according to them, He left 'the Bible', which they say is the 'inspired word of God'. — Wayfarer
The way I see it is people are some kind of measuring instrument and we detect/measure god's effect. Each person being unique we detect and measure god's effects differently, sometimes in seemingly contradictory ways. However, these "contradictions" can be explained in terms of the uniqueness of each individual. In short different instruments (people) detect god in different ways. This doesn't mean god is non-existent. It simply means there are different paths to the same destination (god). — TheMadFool
That's just speculation, and I can do that too. For example, the way I see it, they're the effects of a celestial teapot.
It is crystal clear at this stage that you're unable to rule out any other competing theory, and that you're going to merely repeat yourself, make false analogies, and so on.
I suspect that this is another case of wishful thinking: you want to make this argument work, even though it doesn't. But your want is greater than your reason, so you keep trying to put your cube through the triangular slot — Sapientia
Germs exist independent of people's minds though. Even if you do not believe germ theory, you still get sick from bacteria, viruses, and other microorganisms. If you think demons possessing you cause you to get severely ill and get an exorcism to cure your illness, you are still going to be sick because the underlying cause of your illness is still present. If germ theory was not true, methods we developed to prevent the spread of germ-based illnesses and kill germs in the body would not stop the spread, development, and existence of observed illnesses. The hypotheses surrounding germ theory require that germs actually exist; I cannot develop an alternative set of hypotheses that illnesses are caused by a belief in germs to explain the observations we see in medical science. — Chany
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.