The only conclusion to be taken from the above is that you did assume the existence of God, otherwise the question wasn't silly. In which case you were begging the question. QED. — Benkei

And by the way, I don't assume the existence of God in such a discussion, I assume the POSSIBILITY for the existence of God. If God's existence is impossible, a priori, then you could adopt your attitude, but you haven't shown that to be the case.

So if you want to have a discussion, you must assume the possibility of God's existence too. Otherwise, no discussion can be had.

The only conclusion to be taken from the above is that you did assume the existence of God, otherwise the question wasn't silly. In which case you were begging the question. QED. — Benkei

Oh so, you're not actually getting closer to God, since he doesn't exist but you're just calling it that? — Benkei

The only conclusion to be taken from your statement above is that you did assume the non-existence of God, otherwise your question is stupid. In which case, you were begging the question. QED.

When you stop playing childish games like that, please get back to me, otherwise, it's really a waste of time for both of us, and doesn't get us anywhere.

And it's not a failure to answer a question. It's wisdom. You don't go around answering stupid questions. If I asked you "are you still beating your wife?" would you answer it? — Agustino

So that's why, actually struggling and trying to understand so that you can ask good questions is important. If you just come with a destructive attitude, you cannot make any progress in understanding the other. Not any question that you can ask is a good question and merits answering.

I'll take this personal attack and your failure to answer the question as an admission that your earlier points were silly. — Benkei

Then tell me - what does "God doesn't exist" mean?

And it's not a failure to answer a question. It's wisdom. You don't go around answering stupid questions. If I asked you "are you still beating your wife?" would you answer it?

Plato talked about a "true falsehood". A true falsehood is something that is believed in your heart, and thus makes you ACT falsely. A regular falsehood though, is something that is just words - that isn't believed in the heart. So if you study yourself, you will probably see this distinction - there are things you believe in your heart, and they reflect on how you act, and then there are things that you believe just in words. — Agustino

To give an example of this.

A true falsehood is if you believe that your brother had sex with your wife (for example) and you rush and kill him, even though he hasn't actually done it.

A regular falsehood is when you're delusional because of high fever and want to commit suicide, and I tell you that this pill is a euthanasia pill, while in truth it's just an anti-anxiety medication. I have told you a lie, and you will act according to the lie, but it is not a true falsehood because you don't misinterpret the correct nature of reality - which you would do if you were to commit suicide.

Are people who never heard of God and hell delusional? — Harry Hindu

There are two different issues at play here. Short analogy before I answer:

Plato talked about a "true falsehood". A true falsehood is something that is believed in your heart, and thus makes you ACT falsely. A regular falsehood though, is something that is just words - that isn't believed in the heart. So if you study yourself, you will probably see this distinction - there are things you believe in your heart, and they reflect on how you act, and then there are things that you believe just in words.

That distinction is important here. Because "God" and "hell" (as words) are referring to experiences. They are not self-referential - you don't find the meaning of those words by reading a dictionary entry. And it is their propositional content that is important, not the words themselves. So someone can absolutely never have heard of "God" or "hell" and yet still know what God and hell are. I'm sure there are even atheists who have this knowledge.

So the answer to your question is no - not necessarily.

Once they hear of God and hell, but see no evidence for it and reject it make them delusional? — Harry Hindu

If they just hear the words? Words must be understood first. That requires understanding their referrents within experience, not just being able to cite dictionary definitions. So if they just hear the words, don't understand and find no evidence, then they are not delusional. But if they do find evidence, which they reject, then they are indeed delusional.

In other words, you made up a story, for which the only evidence is an ancient book written by people with no access to the knowledge we have today, and is filled with slavery and murdering people who's only "crime" was believing in a different God. — Harry Hindu

Have you read the Bible from cover to cover? I can suggest to you a series of videos that explains it quite well. The Bible is formed of different literary genres, so it's by no means meant to be taken literarily. And the Bible is just one source of revelation - Apostolic Tradition is another, and personal revelations are yet another. So when trying to find the truth, you're looking for evidence being affirmed by all sources of revelation, and, where possible, also by reason. If there is a conflict between reason and revelation that must be resolved.

To design me with ignorance and then show no evidence of God's existence and then judge me based on that when God doesn't need to rely on faith that I'm a believer, is hypocritical. — Harry Hindu

Sure.

So then death is really the end then? — Harry Hindu

Yes, until the bodily resurrection of the dead.

How do you know there isn't any evidence that unicorns exist? — Harry Hindu

I have not found evidence that unicorns exist, but there might be horses with horns somewhere in the Universe, how am I supposed to know there aren't? :s However, whether there are or not, isn't very relevant to my life. Whether there is a God, on the other hand, is a lot more relevant.

There is no evidence of God's existence — Harry Hindu

Is that a fact, or your opinion?

So you don't believe that you are an eternal spirit and that the body is just a faulty (sinful) copy of yourself? If eternal spirits don't need bodies to exist, then what it the point of a body? What is the point of a soul when all that does is make me a faulty copy of myself? — Harry Hindu

Who told you eternal spirits don't need bodies to exist? As far as I'm aware, Christianity talks of a BODILY resurrection of the dead, so, by all means, it doesn't suggest there are spirits without bodies around.

Did you read, for example, Genesis? Before they sinned, Adam and Eve did have bodies. So the body in its natural state is holy, it is meant to be a temple for the spirit, and together the two form the person.

Questioning someone's premise for which there is no evidence is not indicative of having a grandiose delusion. It IS indicative of having delusions if you go about believing in things, unquestioningly, for which there is no evidence in order to make you feel better in the face of things for which there is evidence. — Harry Hindu

Affirming with your conviction that there is no evidence (which is actually a negative) is much more likely to be a delusion than not. You can say that you have not personally found the evidence, that is different than saying there is no evidence. Because, how do you know there isn't any evidence?

Oh so, you're not actually getting closer to God, since he doesn't exist but you're just calling it that? — Benkei

You have no clue what "God exists" or "God doesn't exist" means, so don't try to talk in languages that you don't understand. Go back to the experience of meditation.

IF hell exists, would I be afraid of it? Sure, I'd be afraid of hell — Harry Hindu

Okay. Thanks for that admission. It was a simple yes or no question, you could have answered it sooner and avoided all this dragged conversation. I'm not trying to ask you difficult questions.

Now onto the next part.

If the existence of hell would be a source of fear, then couldn't someone be an atheist and disbelieve in God so that he can go on under the delusion that there is no hell in the afterlife and not have to worry about it now while living his life? I mean you certainly have a nicer night's sleep knowing that whatever you happened to have done, nothing will happen in the afterlife.

This would be exactly like the theist who, because he is afraid of death under your conception, hearkens unto the notion of God. So too the atheist, because he is afraid of responsibility and being held accountable for what he has done, hearkens onto the notion that there isn't a God.

You say that you don't accept it's existence unquestioningly, but if you are changing your behavior as a result of you believing it does exist, then that is a true symptom of a delusion. You are changing your behavior based on an IF. — Harry Hindu

Right, and you too - you're changing your behaviour based on the if that God doesn't exist. You claim that the theist believes in God because he is afraid of death and mortality, while the theist claims that you disbelieve in God because you are afraid of hell. So either position is as much a delusion as the other based on the criteria you have offered.

All this shows is the limitation of thinking that either position is intellectually based on fear, as if there couldn't be rational reasons for believing or disbelieving. So this psychologising is kindergarten level philosophy. We have to go beyond those stupidities and finger pointing if we want to gain a deeper understanding of the issues.

You're asking me if I'm afraid of an "if"? — Harry Hindu

I see you're not very cultured. It's a conditional statement. If X is true, then Y. Do you know the truth conditions of a conditional statement? Obviously not, because if you did, you would know that if X is false, then the conditional X -> Y is still true.

How good is Montaigne' writings on superstition? — TimeLine

Most of it is good - my favorite was "On prognostications". It was short, to the point, and impartial. It would actually make a good topic for a thread.

I didn't know calling Wittgenstein as a 'saint' could be interpreted as offensive.

I stand corrected. — Posty McPostface

>:O >:O >:O

He'd have probably been horrified to hear you say that. The church was not friendly to homosexuals. — charleton

And yet, Wittgenstein was most likely a believer.

And yes we can meditate but you specifically related those things to becoming closer to God — Benkei

What do you obtain by meditating? That - whatsoever you call it - is what I call getting closer to God.

full essays of Montaigne — Maw

Some of them are good, but some of them are so boring :-d ... I often get lost in his ruminations. No wonder it took you so long to plough through everything.

Wittgenstein, I think this doesn't require further explanation. It's obvious that he was not only a supreme philosopher but as well as a great human being at it, too. — Posty McPostface

That's not obvious actually.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haidbauer_incident

http://www.openculture.com/2015/05/ludwig-wittgensteins-short-strange-brutal-stint-as-an-elementary-school-teacher.html

Wouldn't it be better in the long run to replace the "proof of work" performed in the creation of blocks with a social or economically useful task? — sime

I think some cryptos are already doing this. There's lots of variation among them. The interesting thing is in trying to predict the big winners. I think Ethereum might be one, I think it's definitely an improvement over Bitcoin, though Bitcoin does have better brand recognition atm.

But the recent huge increase in transactions is overwhelming the network, and the miners can't keep up. In order for the miners to even bother to put your transaction into the next block, you have to bribe them with a transaction fee. — fishfry

Yeah the market-based transaction fee was thought out to be there even when mining stops actually producing new bitcoins, so that the miners still do the work.

There is a revolution in human affairs about to take place. The revolution is about trust. End-to-end trust between and among strangers on the Internet, without the need for intermediaries.

Crypto is about certainty. About what is, and how we can know what is. Crypto-ontology and crypto-epistemology if you like. I hope some of the younger philosophers are looking at this.

As an example of what I mean, there are proposals for prediction markets on the blockchain. That's like a gambling parlor on political events. Will Trump make it through his first term? Will Brexit actually happen? There are prediction markets right now run by companies, but on the blockchain you don't need a company, just a decentralized blockchain network.

Now, how does a prediction market pay off? That is, how do they know for sure whether Trump is still president or whether Brexit has happened? In a centralized system, the people running the betting pool determine what's true. On a blockchain-based prediction market, the users say what's true and the system determines crypto-consensus. The blockchain determines truth.

There's a crytpo already doing this, called Auger. Great name for this concept. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augur

This is why I say the blockchain revolution is philosophically deep. Social revolutions are always the subject of philosophy. And this particular revolution is about trust and disintermediation. That's philosophy.

What do you think? — fishfry

I agree with what you're saying except that I think much the opposite from you. Crypto ELIMINATES the need for trust, meaning people no longer need to trust each other to do transactions together. This will make getting out of line more difficult than ever, especially if we ever move over completely to crypto. You may be able to trick and get around people, but you cannot get around machines.

So this is moving into the direction of a distopian society where the individual is at the mercy of society - meaning stronger social structures than ever before. So I am much opposed to all this, but I still don't think the technology can be stopped.

Do you think it is every worth considering the moral content of taking wealth out of the economy without working for it? — charleton

Yes, it's a good thing. If I don't take it out of there, others will. Then they spend it on useless crap, at least I'm a good money manager and will put it to good work. Even Engels loved playing the stock market and he was a Communist. I too am much against speculation, but while it's legal, I will do everything possible to profit from it, why not?

Yes that was the techno-libertarian reason for bitcoin, but it's the wrong reason! The crypto revolution is about much more. Cryptos-as-money can fail yet cryptos can still transform society. The crypto revolution is not primarily about money. IMO of course. The banks might still control the money. They are thousand-year incumbents after all, not that easy to dethrone. The disintermediation revolution is still huge. It's not necessarily about destroying the bankers. They're doing a pretty good job of that by themselves. — fishfry

Agreed.

I would join the convo in one of those physical vs. non-physical threads that have been going on for a few weeks, but they look so heavy such that if you join in them, you'll pretty much have no time for any other threads... >:O No wonder I haven't been hearing much from you Janus - like you live in a parallel universe now.

I'm actually most interested in why people choose to believe one or the other, and also whether religious faith of whatever stripe is necessarily (not historically) more aligned with one position than with the other. — Janus

I'm not sure how helpful the distinction is. I see the world as more hylomorphic than either physical or non-physical. The reason for that being that if you analyse physical things, you will actually end up with non-physical things, ie patterns which can often be recorded in mathematical equations. So I would agree with the Aristotelian version that matter is potency and form is act. So matter, by itself, without form, is nothing.

Well, yes, it is the experience of the world in itself; but, by mere definition it cannot be experience of the world as it is in itself. The 'for us' and the 'in itself' is a logical distinction that circumscribes our epistemic limits, according to Kant. — Janus

Can the world ever be "in itself"? I think this distinction is itself incoherent for those of us who don't buy into Kant's TI.

Generally speaking, I think non-physical things that are real are mostly patterns, relatively stable patterns of behaviour, of interaction, etc., of physical things. — gurugeorge

Exactly - so how can physical things be said to exist if they don't / can't interact at all? And the only way they can interact is precisely if they're not just physical - if they take part in a certain pattern.

OK, I certainly agree that abstract concepts do not exist extra-mentally. But the problem seems to be that, for example, numbers are independent of any particular mind. Does that mean they are independent of all minds, or independent of the totality of minds? If so, then does that "independence" constitute some kind of existence or being or reality? If we answer in the affirmative, then should we call that existence or being or reality physical or non-physical. If non-physical, then mental? But if mental, then numbers are not independent of mind, not "extra-mental". — Janus

I think that numbers (or more specifically ratios) exist both mentally and extra-mentally.

there is another order of being beyond the merely physical; an order that may be even be thought to be independent of the physical, and I can't see why this would not amount to a dualistic hypothesis. — Janus

Hmm, see, I think the "order" that you consider to be physical, is actually non-material.

Heidegger — Janus

Tell us more.

I have no aspiration for or interest in becoming an academic. — Janus

I've always been much the same. I also personally have a certain distaste (and distrust) of academics.

The shared core is one of the things which validates religion as a real thing. It is a real property of human existence. Likewise, as much as we are all very different, as human beings there is a "shared core", and it is the shared core which validates the claim that there is a single species called human being. — Metaphysician Undercover

I very much agree.

Which do you think are more deserving of your faith? — Metaphysician Undercover

The ones with a proven track record, obviously.

The different religions have fundamental principles which are very similar, God, communion, good behaviour, etc., especially if you allow for the different social conditions within which they exist. And if they have similar fundamental principles, then your claim "surely they can't all be right" is unjustified. Atheists like to pick at accidental differences and say "see they're all different, they can' t all be right". But look at all the different people out there in the world. Would you say "see they're all different, they can't all be human beings"? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, I think this is about right. There are differences between religions, but there certainly is a shared mystical core in all of them.

Yeah, so right now you're talking to an atheist so starting out like this is just begging the question to me. Let's not shall we? — Benkei

Nope, not begging the question at all. I expressed something in Christian discourse, you want me to translate to atheist? It's just a question of translation. You cannot figure the meaning of those terms. Read the rest of what I wrote. You don't have to be a theist to meditate for example.

grandiose (I am a eternal spirit and the body is just a faulty copy of myself (imposter)) — Harry Hindu

Really?

delusion of inflated worth, power, knowledge, identity or believes themself to be a famous person, claiming the actual person is an impostor or an impersonator. — Harry Hindu

>:O doesn't sound like what you were quoting above.

Erotomanic type (erotomania): delusion that another person, often a prominent figure, is in love with the individual. The individual may breach the law as he/she tries to obsessively make contact with the desired person. — Harry Hindu

This makes no reference to God. Clearly the delusion applies to actual human persons.

Not solely. You hold your beliefs for the purpose of alleviating the stress of knowing the world is a certain way that you don't like or agree with. Also, to make yourself feel more meaningful, more special, than your really are. — Harry Hindu

If eternal hell exists and if you are someone who is likely to be in hell in the afterlife, would hell be something to be afraid of? Yes or no?

Do you not accept your premise unquestioningly — Harry Hindu

No, not unquestioningly. It would be most productive if you answer my questions before anything else though. Please try to concentrate, it will facilitate having a discussion.

So it seems to me that you want to say that I hold beliefs solely for the purpose of alleviating the fear of death. Correct? — Agustino

I mean that you hold beliefs that alleviate the stress of knowing you will die and cease to exist. In other words, you cover up reality with your nice beliefs in order to feel better about your existence. — Harry Hindu

Good, so you don't mean delusions in a medical context, therefore the list of symptoms used to diagnose the psychiatric condition of delusions that you provided is worthless, and that's a fact.

Now let's discuss this new assertion of yours. So it seems to me that you want to say that I hold beliefs solely for the purpose of alleviating the fear of death. Correct?

Irritability synonyms: irascibility, testiness, touchiness, grumpiness, moodiness, grouchiness, (bad) mood, cantankerousness, curmudgeonliness, bad temper, short temper, ill humor, peevishness, crossness, fractiousness, pettishness, crabbiness, tetchiness, waspishness, prickliness, crankiness, orneriness — Harry Hindu

>:O - yes, quoting the dictionary certainly does make my point very well. You don't understand what ANY of those synonyms mean in the context of diagnosing a psychiatric condition.

I gave you an answer. It's not my problem if you don't like it. — Harry Hindu

No you haven't. You said I suffer of delusions. What does that mean? Do you mean the medical condition known as delusions? Yes or no?

You suffer from delusions. — Harry Hindu

I asked you for a yes or no answer. Are you incapable of following directions? I want a yes or no answer to the following question:

Is your claim that I suffer of the medical condition known as delusions? — Agustino

I never made that distinction. — Harry Hindu

Yes, that's the problem. You never made that distinction, but you gave me a list used to diagnose a medical condition. Is your claim that I suffer of the medical condition known as delusions? Yes or no?

Here's the symptoms of depression:

Persistent sad, anxious, or “empty” mood
Feelings of hopelessness, or pessimism
Irritability
Feelings of guilt, worthlessness, or helplessness
Loss of interest or pleasure in hobbies and activities
Decreased energy or fatigue
Moving or talking more slowly
Feeling restless or having trouble sitting still
Difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions
Difficulty sleeping, early-morning awakening, or oversleeping
Appetite and/or weight changes
Thoughts of death or suicide, or suicide attempts
Aches or pains, headaches, cramps, or digestive problems without a clear physical cause and/or that do not ease even with treatment

Now someone may think they meet all of them, because they don't understand what they mean. Take the first one... If you feel sad every now and again, and get a little anxious when you go out of the house, etc. you may think you have a tick for that one. FALSE. The sadness, anxiety, and empty mood described there actually mean that you're so sad that you can't bring yourself to wash, you're so anxious you can't go out of the house anymore, etc.

In other words, you can behave normally, except when your delusion is questioned. Most people with delusions have them as a means of coping with the stress of life and the knowledge of death and an unfair world. — Harry Hindu

Those are not delusions in a medical sense.

headache is only one symptom out of many that could indicate brain cancer or something else. — Harry Hindu

Most people who have brain cancer don't experience other symptoms prior to diagnosis.

I didn't list one, I listed many, most of which you meet. — Harry Hindu

No, you listed many, and failed to understand all of them. I don't meet probably any of those, I might meet a few, but definitely not all that you've bolded.

You have to look at ALL the symptoms and perform tests to know what the root cause is. Going by one symptom doesn't get you to the cause. — Harry Hindu

Yeah, you do have to look at ALL the symptoms, and in addition, you have to understand what they mean. Delusions are usually part of psychiatric disorders. Psychiatric disorders are manifestations which halt someone's ability to function in society, that's one key characteristic. So unless my "delusions" harm my ability to function in society, they can't be medically qualified as delusions.

Read again. It says OFTEN, not always. Maybe you should check what you read? — Harry Hindu

Yes I am perfectly aware it says often. So what? That's a red herring.

An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility. — Harry Hindu

Yeah this is a case in point. You have no clue what "inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility" means. That means that the person starts swearing at you, cursing you, threatening you, being physically violent, etc. That's what a delusion actually looks like. But of course, you know none of that.

I think you have problems in understanding what you experience. — Harry Hindu

No, you listed to me a bunch of symptoms and shown ZERO understanding of how medicine actually works or what those words mean. Headaches are the primary symptom of brain cancer. Does having a headache mean that you have brain cancer? Probably not - and not just statistically, but also because brain cancer usually produces a SPECIFIC TYPE of headache, that is different from what you've likely experienced before as headaches. When you just regurgitate a list of symptoms, you miss all that.

I think you really do have problems in understanding the meaning of what you read. When you have a headache, do you think you have brain cancer? >:O