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

You're telling me to discern the difference between god and belief in god.

I'm asking you to do the same - how do you distinguish an atom from belief in an atom?

I'm asking you to do the same - how do you distinguish an atom from belief in an atom? — TheMadFool

I've answered that question twice already.

In the case of atomic physics, there is evidence in the form of traces, imprints on film or in bubble-chambers, and so on. Scientists make predictions, then they do experiments and make observations, which confirm or falsify the thesis, and if so they modify what they believe in accordance with the evidence. Science is often wrong about such things - which means that beliefs, or hypotheses, have to be changed in response to the evidence.

Is that clear enough?

In the case of atomic physics, there is evidence in the form of traces, imprints on film, and so on. — Wayfarer

In the case of god there is evidence in the form of temples, prayers, rituals, behaviors, etc.

not a legitimate comparison

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

Yes. In fact, it is continuously being refined. Currently, the most popular interpretation is the Copenhagen Interpretation, one of the older interpretation. There is a reason why it has been accepted for such a long time, for the simple reason that it works well with the currently available knowledge. Nonetheless, Copenhagen interpretation is philosophically a mess and very abstract.
Although it is not strictly an interpretation anymore, quantum decoherence is widely considered to be true (it can be tested experimentally). Copenhagen interpretation, Many-Worlds interpretation, and many other interpretations can still be compatible with the result of quantum decoherence. Therefore, quantum decoherence doesn't really disprove any other interpretation, but it surely is one that encompasses other interpretations, and quite a legitimate one.

He says it is and have been saying it is, no matter how many times other people explained that it is not. Welcome to the other side.

Temples, prayers, rituals, behaviors, etc. are proof that belief exists, not that God exists.

That roughly 6+ billion people participate in various behaviors connected with belief in God, or gods, is a testimony to the strength of belief. If 2 billion people say they believe Jesus is God, does that make it true? How about the 4 billion people who say Jesus is not God?

Anyone who seeks proof of God's existence will be sorely disappointed. That last statement does not reject the existence of God, only the likelihood of ever finding proof.

The way we conceive of God places God outside of the sphere of what we are capable of knowing. God is a transcendent being who is beyond our knowing. We could have conceived God the way many people have conceived other gods: present in this world, having a specific shape and location (the statue of the god = the god), and has very specific interests -- like fertility, or wisdom. Followers of the God of Abraham didn't take that approach.

The God of Abraham has never appeared in person, according to the religious record. On several occasions He spoke to people; He inspired the prophets to speak on His behalf; He appeared in other guises a couple of times (the burning bush, the pillar of fire, etc.) and He has appeared as the Incarnate Christ and the none-too-distinct Holy Spirit. But God Himself, God Almighty, Immortal, Invisible, has never appeared in person.

God also has not left calling cards, glowing blobs of divine substance, or anything else. We have conceived God as being approachable by faith or not at all. It's faith or nothing. Take your choice.

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?

How do you distinguish a stone and belief in a stone then? — TheMadFool

BY PICKING UP A STONE AND THROWING IT AT YOUR FACE.

BY PICKING UP A STONE AND THROWING IT AT YOUR FACE — Wayfarer

Similarly I can take you to attend a temple worship

I'd rather be stoned. X-)

I'd rather be stoned — Wayfarer

I would throw a shiva lingam at youX-)

or, you might believe you had thrown one at me. How could you tell the difference?

The God of Abraham has never appeared in person, according to the religious record — Bitter Crank

According to Christians, that's exactly what the God of Abraham did, in the person of Jesus Christ. I'm not saying you have to believe it, but you ought to acknowledge that they do.

God also has not left calling cards, glowing blobs of divine substance, or anything else. — Bitter Crank

But, according to them, He left 'the Bible', which they say is the 'inspired word of God'.

But I would not feel so all alone.
Everybody must get stoned.

The discussion seems to be around what are beliefs, can beliefs be used as "evidence" of any truths, what types of beliefs are held by different populations, and by what process each population uses to build up and instantiate their beliefs. It is an interesting discussion to the extent that one uses any discussion of beliefs to interrogate their own deep-founded beliefs.

Beliefs are integral to the process of exploration (Columbus believed the world was round and that he would discover another route to India), but these beliefs should always be subjected to me discoveries and understandings (he didn't bump into India but an altogether new continent). Beliefs are not only ideas, they are also processes. The process we arrive at any belief should always be subject to inspection.

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

Yes, there is.

Atomic theory (which is technically a hypothesis or a series of hypotheses that can be falsified) requires that atoms, molecules, and their behaviors actually exist to make sense. If atoms don't exist but we merely believe them to, then when we do testing and try to use real world applications in industry and such, we find out that reality does not work that way. When we try to combine the molecules together based on our belief, if there are no molecules, then we will quickly find out that we can't combine molecules like we should be able to. When we conduct the tests that should confirm the existence of atoms, the tests come up with results that we would not see if atomic theory is true.

There is no observable difference between someone motivated by a false belief in God and a true belief in God. We know that most of the people who practice religion today are wrong about their professed belief just by the nature of religions being exclusionary to one another. The fact that their respective cosmic entity is nonexistent does not prevent people from worshipping it and behaving on their beliefs. Therefore, we know the existence of God is irrelevant to whether God exists.

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 recognised for what it is and not confused with what actually might be.

You are right in one sense.

But it should be well noted that the Standard Model didn't just come out of nowhere by theorists. They all started from experiments, and then moved on to mathematical formulations to support or explain the obtained results that is consistent with other experiments and science. Finally, they test these theories again by doing controlled experiments. Once they observe what was predicted by theory using apparatus that is logically and scientifically capable for observing what they want to observe, then the theory is confirmed.

So in the end, these particles do "really" exist. Of course, we can't observe them with our eyes, but we use tools that we know for sure that is able to observe them. Once we do, then it really do exist. For example, we can actually observe an atom visually by AFM, SPM, TEM, and some other techniques. There is no problem calling these as atoms, and there is nothing mathematically symbolic about it. Digging that down with science is what allows us to confirm elementary particles.

I am not sure if you are a scientist or not, but they are much much more than just symbols interpreted from mathematical formulations.

According to Christians, that's exactly what the God of Abraham did, in the person of Jesus Christ. — Wayfarer

That's what I said:

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

I guess we could count the Bible as a rather large calling card.

You are ignoring observable effects in religion while calling on the same (observable effects) in science.

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.

We agree that there is something there there. By beyond that the subject gets far more complicated, always has been, and in all probability will always be.

The process of science is far more complex than the notion of refinement. At times, it is great leaps in intuition and creative images that allow theorists to approach a problem in a while new way. When Bohr described the nucleus as a water drop to Meitner, he was presenting an entirely new image of the nucleus which permitted the intuited motion of how energy tension from the nucleus may be released via fission. It was this new image together with new perplexing data from experiments that moved nuclear physics into a new perspectives and possibilities. The entire story is quite extraordinary and far more exciting than the banal story often presented in academic classes.

This process of discovery is very similar to the process of discovery in all other disciplines where it be the arts, history, philosophy, etc. There are no discernible differences that I can point to. It is how all humans explore in all the things they do. The symbolic mathematics that physicists use is just a tool to help predict within the tolerances of practical needs (Newton's equations are still a reasonable approximation for most problems). In some cases, new mathematics are created (and I do mean created) to act as a new symbolic language which is adequate for current practical needs.

As for the images of the atom, that is all they are, and scientists who pride themselves on precision and admission of their own limitations, will acknowledge that what is being viewed is a function of the photon disturbing the object as well as a function of the instruments being used, how the instruments were designed, and what the observers has decided what they will see. We are seeing the result of an interaction of a whole system and what is there there is there but what we view is a manifestation of perspective. I think it would be oversimplified to call them particles. It is real, but what it is cannot be said. My preference is to refer to it as a holographic field.

I believe that it is difficult to describe complex stories, and that simplified descriptions are useful but it v and be admitted that the simplified description is only that and if someone wishes to understand the complexity at a deeper level then further explanation is welcome. I personally always dig deeper for myself since I enjoy exploring.

That's what I said: — Bitter Crank

I do beg your pardon.

X-)

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

What I want to say is I'm simply following scientific methodology here. To verify the existence of a hypothetical entity we look for its effects - according to science. And I've shown you plenty of effects of god on people. Therefore god must exists.

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?

If you are talking about the definition of a particle, then that is something else. Likewise, we can say that about every single thing in this world. I'm sitting on a chair right now, but I am not sure if I can call a stone outside that people are treating it as a chair, a chair. If you are confused about the definition of a particle because you are confused about the distinction between a classical particle and a quantum mechanical particle, then we are talking about something else. You are perhaps confusing the difference between how things should be defined, with how things are. If not, then read below.


I'm sorry, but what you said in that post is wrong. In science, there is a specific term to express your description of particle: quasi-particle (in a loose sense. This term is actually used for solid or sometimes in molecules as well, but its definition seems to be rather loose and can be applied to others, recently.) These are actually not, particles, but "seems like" they have the properties of such, and are treated mathematically as particles, thus the term. Plasmon, phonon, exciton, are some of these examples. This is distinguished from actual particles, like the one we are talking about.

Also, an atom cannot be viewed with photon or any microscopes that utilize light source as probes (generally. There are several new methods like PIM (photoionization microscopy) and QEM (quantum entanglement microscopy) that utilizes photon in a very sophisticated way). This is because a photon has a large wavelength that exceeds the resolution of the material we are looking at. I said AFM (atomic force microscopy), TEM (transmitting electron microscopy) as well as STEM (scanning transmitting electron microscopy), STM (scanning tunneling microscopy), APT (atom probe tomography), etc. These probes do not use photon. Out of these microscopic methods, AFM may be the one that most accurately shows what atom should look like, since it is based on repulsion force that minimally interacts with an atom and changes its state, meaning it does not entail disruption of what we are trying to observe.

While you are right, and I agree, that the mathematical formulations of these particles are symbolic, these mathematical methods are chosen with precise care to make sure what we are observing is a real particle. Quantum mechanics works this way. So what we are observing is, in fact, a particle.

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.

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. My point about Islam and Christianity was to indicate that people can be highly motivated and base their lives around false beliefs, beliefs in things that are not actually there. People have died from the caste system in India; not because the caste system is true, but because people believe the caste system to be true and act accordingly. People can believe and pray to myths; it does not mean the myths actually exist independent of people's minds. a god does not need to exist for people to pray to it, as we clearly see by all the necessarily false religions in the world. Therefore, we do not require a god to exist in our hypothesis explaining religious behavior.

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.

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

The body has 10x more bacteria and viruses in it than human cells.

People may host the same gems and viruses, yet done will become unhealthy while others will not.

Some people will have the same unhealthy symptoms as others but will not host the same bacteria.

Gem theory is an excellent example in the highly flawed medical science theories. It is flawed because it ignores the whole system. It is the host that is unhealthy, bacteria is simply a symptom. By focusing on germs the primary problems are ignored.