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
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? Your counter-objections to my argument is a circular one. You're already assuming god doesn't exist. — TheMadFool
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
That's the extremely bare-bones version of it. In your example, you have not eliminated alternative hypotheses to God actually causing belief — Chany
What I want to say is I'm simply following scientific methodology here. — TheMadFool
I've shown you plenty of effects of god on people. Therefore god must exists. — TheMadFool
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
Can you tell me a method which I can use to show that god is a false belief ? — TheMadFool
I am saying that, regardless of everything else, your argument is bad. Belief in something is not evidence of that belief's truth. — Chany
Please read my responses to other posters. — TheMadFool
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
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
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
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
I do not see the case for the claim that the belief in something is somehow evidence for the truth of that belief. — Chany
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
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.