Why I think God exists.
One critical aspect of existence of something is its effect on other things that unequivocally exist. Is this a scientific take on the meaning of ''existence''? I don't know.
To clarify, a piece of stone ''exists'' because it has an ''effect'' on other objects that exist e.g. you can break your neighbor's window with it, it has mass and affects a weighing scale, etc. I think science would agree with this point of view. I remember reading that in the early 90's scientists postulated the existence of ether as a medium for EM waves. Scientists promptly brought out their instruments and attempted to detect the ether. In other words the whole idea of existence in science is based on measuring the effect of something on other things.
Keeping that in mind let us look at the God question. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that God has an effect on people - in the way they conduct themselves, in what they eat, in what they wear, etc. In fact no other entity has as broad and deep an effect on us humans as God. In some cases these effects may even be measurable.
Therefore, scientifically speaking God must exist by virtue of the multitudinous effects God has on us humans.
To clarify, a piece of stone ''exists'' because it has an ''effect'' on other objects that exist e.g. you can break your neighbor's window with it, it has mass and affects a weighing scale, etc. I think science would agree with this point of view. I remember reading that in the early 90's scientists postulated the existence of ether as a medium for EM waves. Scientists promptly brought out their instruments and attempted to detect the ether. In other words the whole idea of existence in science is based on measuring the effect of something on other things.
Keeping that in mind let us look at the God question. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that God has an effect on people - in the way they conduct themselves, in what they eat, in what they wear, etc. In fact no other entity has as broad and deep an effect on us humans as God. In some cases these effects may even be measurable.
Therefore, scientifically speaking God must exist by virtue of the multitudinous effects God has on us humans.
Comments (278)
Given your argument:
As andrewk stated, every form of deity must exist, at least the ones currently being worshipped/acknowledged.
Ancient aliens must exist.
Magic and the occult (ghosts, demons, palm readings, out-of-body projection, etc.) must exist.
And so on and so forth.
Under the argument, there is no distinction between the effects caused by people's beliefs in something existing and that something actually existing, which is clearly false.
Under that logic, I would say anything imaginary like unicorns, Harry Potter, Big Brother, and any of those fictional beings exists. They all have affected our lives whether it may be significant or minor.
Is there anything new here?
Science uses observation, hypothesis testing, and experiment to narrow down a list of possible causes for an observed phenomenon. You have not shown any testings of hypotheses, any studies, any numbers- all you have is the observation that people behave in certain ways and that said people say they do so because of a particular god.
Now, as a scientist (or just a philosopher), we have to consider the various opposing possible explantions (hypotheses) in order to test them to see if we can prove any false. It is true a possible explanation for at least one god is that said god exists. However, you have no demonstrated, even in the weakest philosophical sense, how the competing explanation- people act that way because of their belief in a particular god, not because said god exists- is false. This is especially bad given that we know that this hypothesis has to be true, given that people believe and base their actions around mutually exclusive gods.
Likewise Ican see people avoiding pork, going to church, praying, doing charity, all of which are detectable, measurable effects of God. Therefore, god exists
If these are God's effects, whose effect is this?
Quoting TheMadFool
To clarify this a little more let me take the example of the ether hypothesis of science. Its existence was suspected/hypothesized just as god's existence was. Then we move to the second stage. In the case of ether scientists tried to detect the effects of ether on their instruments. They didn't find any but had they found some they would have concluded ''ether exists''. Now use the same logic for god. We look for the effects of god in our world. I see plenty - prayer, temples, festivals, marriage ceremonies, burial rituals, etc. It's quite obvious now that I must conclude that god exists.
Or maybe they could have several hypotheses that explained the effects. That's my point. Ideas, will, the self, or matter explain the effects as well. Many people would say that they explain them better. So, it's not that obvious, at least to me!!!
1. You never actually explained why andrewk's rebuttal on how you prove every god (even gods that logically oppose each other's existence) or my rebuttal with proving ghosts and the occult exist do not show the form of your argument is faulty.
2. You never falsified my equally valid hypothesis to explain the observation, one that you must accept in at least some cases because certain gods cannot coexist: people's belief in their god causes them to perform actions, not the actual existence of said god. Said god could not exist and people would still behave the way they do based on the false belief that said god exists.
3. You created a false analogy between the stone-window and god-people. With the stone, I clearly see the cause and watch the cause create the effect. With god, I only see the effect of people's behaviors, not the cause of god in any direct sense, so much so that I can question a god as an actual cause. To make the stone anology proper, imagine we have a broken window. We want to find out what caused the window to break, but we have a bunch of possible causes: baseball, stone, sledgehammer, bullet, and so on, all of which are valid, but untested, hypotheses as a cause of the broken window.
People observed the universe and all its wonders. All types of people - idiots, average joes and very intelligent people. Having made their observations they came up with two hypothesis:
1. The universe and all it wonders arose by chance
2. God created this universe
These are the competing hypotheses you both are referring to.
I choose to test the hypothesis that god exists by searching for the effects of god. I find plenty as mentioned above. Now am I not right in concluding that god exists for I find many many effects?
Of course there is the competing hypothesis that everything arose by chance. How do you test that? Beats me. And being untestable the chance-hypothesis (if I may call it that) is actually unscientific.
I hope you understood now?
I don't understand :P
Quoting TheMadFool
No, you are not right :) You just assume that it is God's effects. You haven't showed that they are indeed God's! What I mean is something like this...
All of them.Quoting Accursius
I'm not a mathematician but to speak mathematically if there's no problem with the soundness of the main theorem I care not for the corollaries.
>:O I think he's pulling your legs guys. Best let him stay beneath the bridge.
I have to agree with you. Either this is a very witty and clever use of reason (A suspected witch that drowned in a body of water is innocent) or we are enabling something we shouldn't.
You are simply proclaiming the teleological argument and are trying to phrase a philosophical argument in science in order to make your argument appear stronger.
You cannot scientifically test either hypothesis "God exists" or "chance created" without being able to falsify either. You cannot run tests at all because it would require us to be outside the universe and set up a bunch of tests on possible worlds.
Normally, I would agree with you, but I have seen very bad arguments before, particularly on the topic of god.
I agree. I could not help but to laugh at that statement: "Scientific proof"...hahaha, I'm sorry.
I'm a scientist myself, so it makes it worse...lol
I don't agree with that requirement. If you had some sort of particle isolated in a vacuum, that for some reason couldn't not be in that vacuum, in principle, that wouldn't imply that the particle in question doesn't exist. It wouldn't have any effect on anything, and maybe you couldn't know that it existed, at least not via direct evidence, but you can't conflate epistemology (re how you know something) with ontology (re what there is).
Re the God thing, the idea of God certainly exists--after all, here we are talking about it. Is it anything other than an idea that some people have though?
Science is empirical. Empirical claims are not provable.
I'm not conflating anything. I'm actually staying true to the scientific principle of verifiability of a hypothesis. In other words you detect the effect of x and then infer the existence of x.
What do you do with empirical claims?
What? "Either or better I declare"? That doesn't make grammatical sense to me.
Quoting TheMadFool
Wait--there are a number of problems with this, but the first one I'm curious about is this: how are we getting from "verifiability of a hypothesis" to "this is what it amounts to for something to exist"? You're apparently claiming that those two are the same thing. What is the basis of that claim?
Quoting TheMadFool
What do you want to do with them? You can do all sorts of things with them. You just can't prove them. At best you provisionally verify them in lieu of falsification.
Also, you ignored "Is it anything other than an idea that some people have though?"
I'm not claiming anything. [B]Science[/b] makes the claim that for something to exist its effects must be detectable, measurable and clearly god(s) does have easily observable effects.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Perhaps you can explain to me the difference between ''prove'' and ''verify''.
How are the effects different from people believing in god, even though god does not exist? In other words, what testable and observable difference is there between people practicing Christianity when Christianity is true and people practicing Christianity when Christianity is false and the practicioners of Christianity are simply wrong about their beliefs?
Again, in science, you start from observations, go to testable hypothesis then go to experiments to eliminate those hypotheses that are false. You are beginning with the hypothesis being true and then are looking for ovservations that would be there if the hypothesis is true. You are assuming the conclusion.
Whether you accept it or not is not my concern at this point. Your replies to the other posts have shown that you are not easily convinced regardless of the legitimacy of their argument.
What you'd just said is something about hypothesis verification. That's not the same thing as what you're saying here. At any rate, show me an example of "science making a claim" that if something doesn't have detectable and measurable effects, then it can not exist.
Quoting TheMadFool
Don't forget the word provisionally, by the way, or the phrase "in lieu of falsification " Those words weren't just there for decoration.
If you prove something, it's not possible for a contrary or contradictory claim to be true. A proof is a guarantee that something is the case.
Verification, on the other hand, is a matter of checking that facts, say, match a claim. That in no way amounts to it being impossible that the claim is wrong. It's not a guarantee that the claim is right. After all, a claim woudln't be falsifiable if we've proved it. So a provisional verification in lieu of falsification is a matter of a claim matching the facts insofar as we can tell, but it would still be possible for the claim to be wrong, and part of what we do in science is regularly challenge whether a claim isn't in fact wrong, which would thereby falsify it instead.
And for the second time now, you ignored "Is it anything other than an idea that some people have though?"
If the lack of God affects the non-believers does that mean the lack of God exists?
Textbook example of circular reasoning
I don't get it. "God" is not automatically seen as the cause of these effects on people. Rather, a belief in God is what should be (naturalistically) seen as the cause of these behaviors.
It's like saying it doesn't take a scientist to realize that astrological signs have an effect on people. In reality, it takes a scientist, or at least a scientifically-oriented reasoner, to realize astrological signs are bogus and aren't doing anything at all.
I'm simply adhering to a scientific principle viz. [I]existence[/i] is a function of observable effects. To repeat, a stone exists by virtue of its effects on measuring instruments. Ditto god - His effects are observable in human behavior. Therefore god must exist from a scientific point of view.
Quoting Chany
Kindly tell me what other hypothesis there exists to explain this wonderful universe of ours. Let me take a guess - chance. Given so how do you test the chance hypothesis? I won't hold my breath.
Good point. Thanks. However it follows that you also accept, given your stance, that atoms, chemical reactions, physical laws are also simply beliefs
Ask this question to science. I'm simply following the scientific principle that for something to exist it must have observable effects.
In addition the lack of existence is a default or initial position. In this case we've clearly gone past that.
You mean this?
Quoting TheMadFool
Well, you have replied to most of the counter-argument other people made, but it does not correctly address the actual point they have made. It is like saying you like apples when someone is asking if you like swimming or not. In fact, your response to Chany does not correctly refer to the argument Chany made either. What were you reading?
People have already mentioned this, but I'll rephrase it with my own words.
One of the logical fallacies you have made is the disagreement in the target of "existence." It is our concept of God and the entailing religion that affects our lives, not the existence of God itself. Some people few millennia ago created the concept of God in an attempt to explain the world. That is not the same as actually observing a god. Unless one is actually affected by this - borrowing your words - unequivocally existing God, we cannot say that our lives are affected by God.
What you are saying is analogous to saying unicorns exist because we know unicorns from fantasy books.
Another is your claim that you are "scientifically" proving the existence of God. Just because you are using the same logic in the scientific method on the existence of God does not mean you are doing science. If you apply scientific method anywhere other than science, then that method itself is already pointless. That is not science but just some other logic. It is more commonly known as philosophy. And you don't even know if that logic can be legitimately applied to this argument. So no, you are no way "scientifically" proving anything.
Also, this is just simply wrong. I don't even slightly understand why you even thought that follows?
Nitpick time:
I don't think this is the scientific method at all. There has not been an establishment of how to falsify the hypothesis, why the observations cannot be explained away by another hypothesis, or even a proper way of looking at cause and effect, i.e. science looks at the effect, observes it, and does testing to falsify other competing hypotheses for this effect until only one likely canidate remains, while this is an argument for increduility for a cause, then cherry-picking data from observations and making them fit into the hypothesis.
My position, repeating for the nth time, is that my reasoning is based firmly on the scientific principle that existence is a function of observable effects.
Therefore, if you find fault with my argument then, inevitably, there is a flaw in scientific thinking.
Quoting FLUX23
I think you're viewing the issue from a narrow perspective. Scientific principles are rational first and foremost and rationality is a universal requirement. Therefore i object to your stand that science is so blinkered in its application.
You're right. Well, since my reasoning is unmistakably scientific do you agree with me that science is not entirely correct in its methods and principles.
You keep saying that, but you never actually addressed a single one of my criticisms.
I am addressing your conception of science. If you have a decent hypothesis for an observation, the hypothesis, by definition, will explain why we see the observation. Furthermore, science throws out hypotheses that are not falsifiable, as they are pragmatically unable to be used and including them would lead us to have to include any possible statement, no matter how absurd (for example, it would allow defendants on trial for murder to say "An alien created a body double that did the murder. You can't prove it false, so you must find me not guilty."). Simply positing a hypothesis and saying it explains our observation doesn't mean anything on its own in science.
Let us look at the observation you initially provided:
People show certain behaviors (acting certain ways, refraining from certain foods, dress, and activities, performing certain rites and activities like reading holy texts, etc.) that they attribute to God.
What are the hypotheses we need to consider? Honestly, I'm having a hard time formulating a testable hypothesis for your position, so I'll simply go:
H1) God exists and indirectly causes people to believe in God, therefore causing people to behave on those beliefs (our observation).
We can consider this against the opposing hypothesis:
H2) People believe in God, therefore causing people to behave on those beliefs (our observation).
The main and obvious difference is that H1 requires God to exist, while H2 is indifferent to the existence of some conception of god. In order to show God exists scientifically, H1 must be true. Scientifically, in order to show H1 is true, you must falsify H2, and vice versa. In order to falsify H2, you must illustrate why H2 cannot account for some other observation that H1 explains. In order to falsify H1, I must show that the actual existence of God is irrelevant to the belief fueling their behavior.
I can easily falsify H1. We know that there are adherents of mutually exclusive religions that behave in different ways and believe in different conceptions of God. The god of Christianity has Jesus as full man and full divine and does not have Muhammad as a prophet. The god of Islam does not have a divine Jesus, but rather a prophet Jesus and a prophet Muhhamad. Christianity and Islam have different practices, theologies, and gods. Only one is right. Therefore, I know that there is a group of people who belief in a god that does not exist. However, does the nonexistence of their god prevent people believing in it and practicing its tenets? Clearly not. Therefore, H1 is false. God's existence is not required to explain the observation of religious practices and belief, as people can act on false beliefs. Therefore, H2 is true.
Now, H2 does not state that God does not exist. God may exist and may interact with humans in some form, thus causing those beliefs to emerge. People might be completely justified in their belief in God and may even be correct. However, the existence of God is not required to explain the observation; mere belief is all that required, regardless of the actual existence of God. Therefore, observing people behaving a certain way and attributing it to God is not scientific evidence for the existence of God.
Then please tell me in what way one could provide evidence/proof that an entity exists?
This is you on this thread:
You: I like apples better because they are healthier than oranges considering that they have fewer calories.
Others: Well, oranges have much more good nutrition than apples. Besides, an apple is only 2/3 of the calories of an orange. It's not much of a difference.
You: Well you have admitted that apples have fewer calories than oranges. So apples are more healthy and better.
Others: Like I said, the calories difference is not that significant, and there are so much more good nutrition that oranges have than apples. Besides, higher calories don't necessarily mean bad for health.
You: I am just simply stating I like apples.
Others: I know, but your reasoning behind it is not legitimate.
You: Like I've said thousands of times before, I am only simply saying that I like apples because they have lower calories and is better for your health.
Others: WTF?
You see what is wrong here? First, you are not addressing other people's concern correctly. Second, you are simply making a mistake that lower calories are always better. This is exactly what you are doing in this thread, so much that this thread isn't a discussion anymore. Can you actually, for once, correctly address what other people is trying to say? Can you actually, for once, at least attempt to understand the logical fallacy you are making that other people are telling you so many times, instead of stating same fallacious statement over and over again?
Seriously? Are you even reading anything other people are saying?
Besides, if you are going to start on ontology, which you have already made huge fallacy out of it on this thread, I do not believe you will be able to understand.
You could say that God exists for believers and does not exist for non-believers; but to say that would be to say something quite different from, and irrelevant to, what you have been claiming, I think.
Have I spoken about evidence?
I'm very confused by this. Kindly give me some examples where a lack of existence of something/anything has been demonstrated in the way you seem to be suggesting.
If you go back and read my post before last you will find my reasoning clearly laid out. If you find a fault with it then point it out, so we can discuss. I can't really see any point repeating myself.
And note, I am not here claiming that god either exists or doesn't exist. I am only concerned with finding out why you think your reasoning should be applied differently in the cases of believers and non-believers being affected by God and the absence of God repsectively.
And also please note that what I have said has absolutely nothing to do with demonstrating a lack of existence of anything.
Please consider the following very closely.
1. Sometime in the 1900's electromagnetism was discovered. The next question was the medium in which EM waves propagated. Scientists hypothesized the existence of a substance they called ether.
Sometime in human history human beings hypothesized the existence of god based off of the observations they made (order, design, etc).
2. For ether scientists attempted to detect the effects of ether on instruments. They found none. Therefore, as per scientists, the ether didn't exist. However, had they detected the ether they would've concluded that the ether did exist.
As concerns the god question we can very easily see the effects of god on people. Therefore god does exist.
This is nonsense because by the same argument people who thought the ether existed would have been affected by the existence of the ether, and so you should then conclude that the ether existed, at that time at the very least. Or alternatively if no one believed in God anymore and therefore no one was being affected by the existence of God, would you conclude that God had never existed, or at the very least had ceased to exist, as you do with the ether. If not, why not?
There's plenty of physical evidence for god - temples, prayers, rituals, beliefs.
Then you should agree that...
Mass, volume, charge, velocity, etc. are evidence for the mere belief of electrons, protons, neutrons, in fact the whole of science is nothing more than a belief.
If you want evidence that a photon hit a plate, then you can find the mark on the plate where the photon hit it. You can also find evidence of the speed and angle at which things hit other things and infer from that, angular momentum, mass, and all manner of other measurements which physicists are adept at making.
If you want 'evidence for God', what are you even going to look for? There were, some years ago, some attempt to measure the effect of prayers on healing of the faithful. From memory, none of those studies were ever conclusive, or ever showed anything beyond chance.
Now, as it happens, I think there is actually quite solid evidence of miraculous healings, namely that preserved in the Vatican archives, concerning the supposed deeds of saints. But that is very specific - there, you're looking at actual pathology reports, medical opinions and judgements, and a lot of documentation about very specific cases.
But the idea that simply because a large number of people believe something, therefore it must be true, doesn't even amount to an argument. If you want to believe it, then by all means do, but there's no point trying to rationalise your belief in terms of weak arguments which are really nothing like 'scientific evidence' at all.
Measurable effects of God:
1. How many people pray?
2. How many times do people pray?
3. How many people avoid a certain kind of food item?
4. How many people undergo circumcision?
Etc.
Indeed I do
If you want to talk about electrons, protons, and any of those elementary particles, you should probably study them a little before you make such an awfully wrong statement. Mass, charge, spin are properties of electrons, not evidence for electrons. They were measured to characterize electrons, not to find electrons. Also, a velocity of electrons changes with the applied electric field. Its direction of path can also be manipulated to a degree with applied magnetic field due to intrinsic spin that the particle has. It means there is no intrinsic velocity to an electron. Also, electron is known to work well in quantum electrodynamics, a highly sucessful field of quantum physics, when treated as point particle. This means that the electron itself as a particle do not have any volume. (People mistake electron probability density as electron volume but this, under definition, is wrong.) We can also directly measure most of these particles. Checking wikipedia can still give you basic qualitative background. I wonder why you haven't done it.
That tells me that you understand nothing of science nor scientific method. I wonder why you even thought of trying to apply something you don't understand to something irrelevant.
Quoting TheMadFool
Logical fallacy, like me and everyone else mentioned so many times.. Those are measurable effects of our concept of God, not the existence of God itself.
You're right BUT...
One has to measure these, you say, properties. The only way you can do that is by observing effects of these properties on instruments. In the case these properties are undetectable and unmeasurable it must be that given object doesn't exist. I'm still on the right track here.
''Measurable'' simply requires a unit of measurement and we can count how many people pray, how many times we pray, etc.
''Scientific'' means one must have measurable evidence. Kindly refer to the paragraph above.
You're not, because in saying that God has measurable effects you're assuming that God exists, so the argument begs the question. Others have pointed this out.
Quoting TheMadFool
And both have been discredited. In the latter case, many times, but unlike the former case, it has persisted through revision or otherwise, which is due in no small part to faith, willful ignorance, fanaticism, wishful thinking, and that sort of thing.
As it happens, as a bit of an aside, I was reading just the other day that while it took several decades following the discovery in 1929 of our expanding universe for the notion of a Big Bang to achieve independent empirical confirmation, Pope Pius XII heralded it in 1951 as evidence for Genesis. Given that the Big Bang theory was proposed by a priest, one might have thought that Lemaître would have been thrilled with this papal validation, but he had already dispensed in his own mind with the notion that this scientific theory had theological consequences. He later voiced his objection, saying “As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside of any metaphysical or religious question.” And the pope never again brought up the topic in public.
Let me clear up the matter. My reasoning, in complete agreement with the scientific method, is as follows...
If god exists there should be observable, measurable effects.
There ARE observable, measurable effects
Therefore, god exists
Of course this is a fallacy - affirming the consequent. However I don't see how one can be justified in ignoring it for science but not in the case of god.
You yourself admit that it's a fallacy, so that spells the end for your argument, irrespective of what you or I think about science.
I think the difference is that affirming the consequent is an error in deductive reasoning, but science doesn't claim to use deductive reasoning. Instead it justifies its inferences using Bayesian probability theory (according to this) which (apparently) shows that in certain cases affirming the consequent is permissible.
So your argument fails if you claim it to be deductive or if probability theory doesn't justify the (non-deductive) inference.
Formal fallacies, such as affirming the consequent, only have relevance to deductive arguments, in which the conclusion necessarily follows. Science isn't deductive, it's inductive.
Thank you. No, the certainty in my proof is at par with the certainty of science. Not more and also, not less.
Then you should further clarify your claim. What are you claiming, more precisely? That an existing God is a more likely cause of all of these effects than any other possible cause? Where's your evidence for that, then? Good luck... you'll need it.
But I've only applied scientific principles. Does this mean science too is flawed?
Compared to a sound deductive argument, yes, of course it is. I don't think any reasonable person would claim that the scientific method is without flaws.
What other cause do you have in mind? Also please read my reply to jamalrob.
Ok. So what sort of evidence do you want of god's existence?
It wouldn't make much sense to answer that question without going into specifics, but if you do so, you could probably answer the question yourself by first applying some common sense.
And I had already read your reply to jamalrob, and I've replied to it.
Guys, I think it is about time we stop answering to this guy. We have had to answer same thing over and over again about the fallacies for five pages and TheMadFool seems unable to address this issue and claims he is still "scientifically" (but as a matter of fact fallaciously) proving existence of god (fallaciously). His method is fallacious and his conclusion is also fallacious as well as any other claims he makes about science/measurement/logic crap is also fallacious. This is getting ridiculous. He is too ignorant to understand his mistakes no matter how much we point them out.
TheMadFool, I think you should stop for a moment and come back like a week later. Maybe it is better if you read the entire thread again to see how little the discussion has advanced. It is obvious that the last few replies you are reading right now is essentially the same replies you got initially. Why do you think everyone is saying the same thing over and over again?
That isn't what I asked for. I made reference to evidence that an existing God is a more likely cause of all of these effects than any other possible cause. If you think you have it, then I simply ask that you provide it.
Quoting Terrapin Station
I almost spat out my drink! >:O
What does [i]that[/I] mean? Evidence that you're just trolling?
Scientifically:
If we can directly observe the entity, well, we can look for the actual entity itself. If I want to prove that there are sharks, I find an actual shark and document its existence.
If we cannot directly observe the entity, then we must do what I described before: we have to first set up conditions that would falsify the hypothesis we have ("This entity exists") and must falsify the other hypotheses that would serve as alternative explanations for our observations and potential evidence of "this entity exists". The point to nail home is "falsify": we have to show why the other hypotheses cannot work and are not true. We cannot appeal to intuition and say "that hypothesis seems less likely than that one". For the observation of "people perform certain behaviors and religious practices in the name of God", please refer to my previous example of Christianity and Islam that shows why we do not need some conception of god to exist in order to explain the observation.
As for my arguments they are sincere attempts to understand our world.
Sorry. I've adressed every counterpoint made against my position.
No, I don't think you have. You've replied, but that isn't the same thing.
Quoting TheMadFool
Are you sure you're not a troll? Because that is pretty funny.
Even if you have "addressed" every counterpoint, you're still making the same basic errors, which stand out like a sore thumb.
Let's try something more direct.
Which of the following do you believe:
1. Judaism
2. Christianity
3. Islam
4. Zoroastrianism
5. Other Theistic Belief
If you do not want to say, you do not have to. Just make sure you have one picked.
But, scientifically, they can't, as they are mutually exclusive hypotheses, as they make contradictory claims about God, what God is, and what God has done. The Trinitarian conception of god that mainstream Christianity adopts is incompatible with the Islamic conception of god, whose theology emphasizes the oneness of Allah. Christianity says Jesus was fully divine and fully man, making Jesus the "Son" part of the Trinity. Islam says Jesus was a divinely inspired prophet, but was certainly just a man and could not be God, as this would violate Allah's oneness and uniqueness. Islam claims God divinely spoke to Muhammad and made him the final prophet. Christianity claims God never spoke to Muhammad, making him a false prophet. Both gods cannot be true, so, scientifically, we know that at least one hypothesis, either the Christian hypothesis or the Muslim hypothesis, is false, and that the adherents of the religion are not motivated by God, but by something else. Correct?
Good point. However I think you're being unfair.
In science light is both a particle and a wave. Waves and particles are mutually exclusive BUT that doesn't mean light doesn't exist.
Correction: light is observed in experiments to behave as both a wave and a particle and we have found that applying light as both a particle and wave is workable in our models. Explanations that explain why we see this observation and how light can both be a particle and a wave are hypotheses. At this point, unless you are a physicist who deals with quantum mechanics regularly or would be considered an expert in the field, whatever you have to say is conjecture. I do not like when people bring quantum mechanics and use it to justify whatever bad argument they are making at the time, considering that most of them have never done any experimentation involving it in their lives and probably could not do physics at all. I am not versed in quantum mechanics, so I would suggest we submit to the position of scientists working the field and let them sort it out.
Islam and Christianity are both hypotheses about the overall metaphysical nature of things, particularly about God. They are complete metaphysical pictures. The contradiction is both internally present in both hypotheses and both systems actively exclude the other from being true. Either God has a trinitarian nature or God does not. Either Jesus was full man/full divine or was full man. Islam specifically states that Christianity is wrong, and vice versa; you cannot endorse Islam without saying Christianity is false. There is no wiggle room between mutually exclusive hypotheses.
You're simply affirming what you believe and bandying words about.
The fact that 'millions of people' do something, proves nothing apart from that's what they're doing. There are also millions of people who don't do that.
'Science' means considerably more than a slogan about measurement.
If you're going to bother to turn up here and post, at least know what at argument is.
Quoting TheMadFool
You haven't 'addressed' them at all, you've simply ignored them and talked past them.
Quoting Chany
For your information, the particle-wave duality is a classical attempt to understand quantum physical particles. Most physicists consider and accept that quantum physical particle as it is, a particle with properties of classical particle and wave. There is no classical definite analog. Explanations to how and why we observe these properties has to do with interpretations, not hypotheses. That is why it's called Copenhagen interpretation, Many-worlds interpretation, quantum decoherence interpretation, etc.
You are absolutely right that most of those people out there using quantum physics as a way to explain God or some other philosophical argument are simply bogus. Some famous physicians also made the same mistake of applying this to explain heaven. In fact, most of the physicists consider such attempt to be a poor application of reasoning. I've seen people make hilariously bad interpretation of quantum physics and its application to something unscientific because they are not used to the formulations used in quantum physics. They have to rely on the classically intuitive picture, which will always be wrong one way or another.
In the end, trying to interpret any philosophical idea with science or use science to explain philosophical idea generally lead to an illegitimate argument. It is well advised that you don't do this.
Quoting Wayfarer
This.
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.
I remember you posted on a thread regarding how many observations cancel out subjectivity and the result is objectivity. Same principle applies here. The majority of the world population are theists of some kind. Using your rationale shouldn't that be considered objective proof/evidence for god?
Quoting Wayfarer
I'll ask you something. Can science exist without measurement? Obviously it cannot. So I'm not sloganeering here. I've actually mentioned a very essential/necessary feature of science viz. measurement.
Quoting Wayfarer
Have I addressed your issues as regards my view?
Problems are born when people, especially scientists but also often philosophers, confuse the theories and tools we create with We the creator. It is not only problematic but also quite unhealthy.
To emphasize, I'm not attacking the existence of God, I'm attacking the notion that people worshiping God and following the tenets of a religion is scientific evidence for God.
The Christian believes his conception of God to be true and acts accordingly. The Muslim believes his conception of God to be true and acts accordingly. The Muslim and Christian would scoff at your explanation (I've witnessed it firsthand). If what you are saying is true, then Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Zoroastrianism are false and you picked option five from my list (Other Theistic Belief).
1. Judaism
2. Christianity
3. Islam
4. Zoroastrianism
5. Other Theistic Belief
These are mutually exclusive hypotheses about the nature of God. If one is true, the others must necessarily be false. However, all these religions have adherents who are motivated by their unique faith and attribute their behavior to their religion. This means at least four of the religions are incorrect. Therefore, people can be motivated by false beliefs, even if those beliefs are about God. If Islam is false, then Muslims are motivated by a false god- they are motivated by a fantasy. Therefore, I've falsified the hypothesis that God is causing this belief, as I've shown how the belief in a nonexistent entity can generate the observation we see.
No, because it's not a question of democratic governance. Just because large numbers of people believe something, doesn't mean it's true. It's not decided by a majority. Japan has the lowest percentage of people who profess belief in God - less than 7%, I seem to recall. But that doesn't prove the non-existence of God, any more than countries with large numbers of believers prove the opposite.
You've got a problem in your argument with what constitutes evidence or proof. You're basically arguing from effect to cause, which is called abductive reasoning. You're simply saying, because belief in God causes certain behaviours, then God must be a real cause. But the counter-argument is simply that 'belief in God' is a social convention which causes such behaviours; the belief doesn't have an objective referent. So the fact that many people pray isn't able to prove that God exists, as the sceptic can always say it's just mass psychology.
Quoting TheMadFool
Obviously science can't exist without measurement, but there's more to science than measurement. It also makes predictions. Here's a very succinct summary of scientific method:
Now I think there are many things science can't predict, or inform us about, including questions about the reality of otherwise of God. I'm very sympathetic to the arguments of natural theology, but your argument is not one of them!
Quoting TheMadFool
So, not really. I think the 'argument from belief' is never really going to work.
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.
So, either science is wrong or god exists.
There are centuries of medical trial data, about the effectiveness of medicine, which have measurable consequences in terms of healing illnesses.
Data on miracle cures, homeopathy or 'faith healing', by contrast, is extremely hard to come by.
Please read my reply to Chany
In response I quote you below
Quoting Wayfarer
Clearly you don't understand what you're quoting, so unless you care to try explain it further, I think the discussion is finished.
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'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 god there is evidence in the form of temples, prayers, rituals, behaviors, etc.
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.
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.
How do you distinguish a stone and belief in a stone then?
BY PICKING UP A STONE AND THROWING IT AT YOUR FACE.
Similarly I can take you to attend a temple worship
I would throw a shiva lingam at youX-)
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.
Quoting 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.
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.
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.
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.
That's what I said:
Quoting Bitter Crank
Quoting Wayfarer
I guess we could count the Bible as a rather large calling card.
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 [I]want[/I] 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.
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.
I do beg your pardon.
X-)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Quoting 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
But why do you want to say something that has already been refuted in this discussion?
Quoting TheMadFool
No you haven't.
Do you realise that repeating a bad argument doesn't make it any better?
But [I]how[/i] 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 ?
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.
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.
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)
What about those who kill in the name of religion? Do you think that means God encourages murder?
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 don't assume that I haven't already done so, or that that reply is at all helpful or productive.
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.
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.
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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
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.
Quoting 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.
As for particles, they don't appear to exist. What does exist, is a wave and what we measure as particles are wave perburtations. De Brogle was apparently correct all along. The Bohm quantum potential field offers the best explanation I have read that addresses this unnecessary ambiguity of how a wave spontaneously turns into a particle, by simply doing away with the concept of a distinct particle. And while there is a body of support for my interpretation, some scientists continue to utilize the concept of particles to simplify discussion even though it is grossly misleading. Some ideas are hard to bury. I provided one scholarly article which suits my position that scientific texts should stop referring to. particles
As a scientist, Bohmian mechanics is inadequate and needs to be refined or remodeled to be accepted. There is a good reason why. Contrary to your statement, Bohmian mechanics is only consistent in non-relativistic level. It cannot be extended to the relativistic level for many-particle case, either (some attempts are there, but they are scientifically yet to be accepted). The spin is screwed up in this theory. It also unnecessarily complicates Schrodinger's equation by adding extra equation, and yet the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle still applies. That means it doesn't really give us any new information at all. This is the consensus among most physicists today, but that is subject to change if Bohmian mechanics are refined in a way that is scientifically sound and surpasses current theory of Quantum Mechanics. Until then, scientists using QM should stick with current QM.
Either way, what I strongly disagree and discourage is to assume that one type of interpretation (that is not even widely accepted) is true and base argument on it. One should always base an argument on premises that are neutral. Like I have done, my claims are neutral and agnostic about interpretations. Elementary particles are elementary particles by definition, a priori knowledge. There is no assumption here. The target of the term "particle", may be a wave like you mention (actually, de Broglie–Bohm theory does not consider particles the way you do so you are wrong here too), a quantum of a field, or a classical particle, it doesn't matter. That is a posteriori knowledge. That does not deny the existence of the target in which the term "particle" is referring to.
As I described the De Broglie-Bohm wave theory is the latest updated version. This is how De Broglie described it hits essay. It is used to describe the Bohm-Abrohomov effect. This illustration appears in Bohm's book:
Also, stop trying to convince somebody of something you don't really understand. You cannot win against me in science especially physics and chemistry. I know more than you do, and I know them more accurately than you do. I know that because your knowledge of physics is simply wrong in some places. I know that because you thought atoms can be directly observed using photon (they can, with sophisticated instrument, but by the way you write it, you probably didn't know). That can actually be intuitively understood if you are educated in science without being in a Lab that works on these area. You have several wrong understanding of De Broglie-Bohm theory. You also think I was talking specifically about Einstein's general and special relativity, when the term "relativistic" does not necessarily (in fact usually don't) refer to that.
I know, in general, the paradox and incompleteness of Einstein's theory of general and special relativity. I don't need you to tell me that. But did you say, Einstein's relativistic theory provide little practical usefulness? Wow, apologize to Einstein right now. Contrary to what you claim, general and special relativity is still quite useful as good approximation in several fields, especially special relativity since they can provide fairly practical explanation or prediction without having to have to go through tremendous sophisticated calculations. Dare tell me if satellites are pointless bunch of crap that we don't need.
Perhaps you've never really understood the significance of Dirac's equation and Quantum Field Theory (actually there are several approaches to QFT but I am being general here), and how they are important in explaining relativistic scale phenomenons. As so, you also probably don't understand the problems arising from Bohmian mechanics. No wonder why you blindly believe them.
So that your time isn't wasted, this scientist will teach you something new. Enjoy it! The are no particles. There are field perturbations.
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/quantum_theory_waves/index.html
First of all, this "there are no particle" thing and "symbolic" crap you keep on saying has already been addressed hundreds of time before, that you kept ignoring. READ FOR GOD'S SAKE. It's fine if you don't understand. You can just tell me what part of it you didn't understand. But ignoring it is a whole different story, especially when that was where it all started. This is getting really annoying.
Second, I don't give a crap about Einstein's relativity for now. I wasn't even meaning to talk about that. You misinterpreted it because you were clueless and I ended up explaining it. I was talking about relativistic quantum mechanics. As I suspected, you didn't even know the highly successful Dirac's equation, QED, and QFT, and how Bohmian mechanics fails to account for these area (as of now). QFT is so far, and by far, the most successful and advanced quantum mechanical theory today. If you don't know this, you can't even hope to discuss anything with me.
Third, you can see atoms. Period. End of discussion. I don't even wanna talk about this again. You can actually search online for this. Searching for why a specific type of instrument is used, what the images actually means, and how we determine what we see is what we meant to see a good starting point for someone like you who is totally clueless. It's better if you actually get at least physics/chemistry (both of these intervene a lot) undergrad level of knowledge before you talk about something like this. Don't tell me you don't know the difference between atoms and elementary particles.
Most importantly, fourth, stop shifting the discussion into something else. Every time you talk about something on science, I have to fix it for you because you are wrong here and there. This is tiresome. How about we get back into what we were originally discussing? You haven't replied once to my concern despite telling you several times.
And the link you send me? This must be a joke, right? First of all, he is not a scientist. He is a philosopher working on philosophy of science. Also, I learned nothing new. This is philosophy, not science. It does not add anything to my knowledge of science, not to mention it says "Einstein for Everyone" which is ironic considering your criticism of his Theory of relativity. Thanks for wasting my time.
Enjoy yourself. Your just another scientist overstepping boundaries and using some age old tactics to justify yourself. You are in no position to make the statements you are making from a scientific evidence perspective. If you want to put on your metaphysical hat, then go right ahead.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/45572/how-do-we-know-particles-exist-arent-they-just-waves
Quoting FLUX23
Quoting FLUX23
Quoting FLUX23
Quoting FLUX23
You are the metaphysicist here. You are the wrong one here. You are the one using old tactics to justify yourself. You are the one unable to correctly understand anything because you are clueless. You are the one misinterpreting other people's argument because you are ignoring them.
Using freaking offensive words to me without any grounds to back it up is just lame.
I didn't even talk single thing about metaphysics in my post. I already said I have agnostic view of any interpretation of quantum mechanics because it's unscientific to attempt interpreting it.
Also, the link provides arguments that is against your views. What are you doing?
No one had seen an atom or particle. It is impossible with the Uncertainty Principle. You can only see an aspect as defined by the instruments used and the experimental set up.
Scientists are working on all aspects of Bohmian Mechanics but all solutions require a change in view and perspective, especially in regards to Relativity and the paradoxical notions that emanate from it. There is a ton of scholarly papers on Google scholar on this subject.
If you want to be metaphysical then just say so.
I know a priori is not a scientific term. I'm not trying to say anything scientific by saying:
Quoting FLUX23
This is pure logic. There is nothing scientific about it. Why do you think I was talking scientific here?
It seems like you don't understand what uncertainty principle is...Even worse, you also don't seem to understand what atom is...If you don't know these, why did you even think of arguing using these?
I know there are scientist working on theoretical aspect of Bohmian mechanics. I never denied that. In fact, I've already mentioned that. Like I said, I know more than you do. What you have presented so far, I already know.
So you are admitting that Bohmian mechanics is still faulty at the current stage, and that this is the reason most scientists are reluctant to use it. Thank you. Finally. This argument is done.
Also, please don't accuse others of something before they accuse you in order to make the other person look like they are doing the wrong thing when in fact it is you. You are the metaphysicist here bro.
EDIT: I hope this was the Physics Forum. You would have had to deal with hundreds of post that disagrees with you. Are there any physicist here?
1) Present all of the evidence
2) Admit to the ongoing discussions and disagreements among scientists (there are always opposing points of views),
3) Refrain from presenting your metaphysical ideas and desires as scientific facts (there is no such thing)
4) And clearly mark boundaries when you cross them, e.g. calling upon a priori knowledge to support a metaphysical definition as a settled scientific issue.
Most scientists would be better off if they refrained from pushing their own metaphysics as settled science.
1) Picture of pentacene taken by AFM (published in Nature Methods)
http://www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/v6/n11/images/nmeth1109-792-I1.jpg
These are clearly atoms arranged to form pentacene. Considering how AFM (Atomic Force Microscopy) is based on atomic force that barely affects the sample itself in terms of electronic structure, it accurately and truly shows the real molecule and how the atoms are arranged. If you think this not the actual image of atom because of "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle", then you are uneducated and stupid. (in fact it is this uncertainty principle that allows us to see these atoms.)
2) Ongoing discussion: Bohmian mechanics is an incomplete theory that is yet to be accepted throughout the scientific community. Poll (https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.1069) shows that out of 33 participants in one of the quantum physics conference shows that 0% believed in Bohmian mechanics. This may be a total coincidence since college physics classes barely teach Bohmian mechanics, but that only further shows that it is not widely utilized. This poll is actually pretty fair since they ask the participants several questions and categorizes them based on the answer instead of just asking for the name of the interpretation they believe in. I highly suggest you read the article.
3) I have shown no metaphysical ideas. Refer to this post:
Quoting FLUX23
I don't care if what we call a particle is actually a classical particle (classical mechanics), quantum particle (quantum mechanics), or a quantum of a field (quantum field theory). They are merely interpretations that are subject to change when better theories are provided in the future. What matters to me is if it can reproduce experiments well. But I can still call a particle a "particle" because that is the term used to refer to these things.
4) I did not use a priori knowledge to support a metaphysical definition as a settled scientific issue. It seems like you don't know what a priori knowledge means.
Statement: Particle is particle.
This statement is obviously true. This type of knowledge is called "a priori knowledge".
Statement: Particle is a quantum of a field.
This statement requires prior experiment or theoretical investigation to know. This type of knowledge is called "a posteriori knowledge".
I argued that what you are presenting is only a posteriori knowledge. That is irrelevant to what Chany or I said about atoms and particles because the argument holds independent of what atom actually is. When we talk about "atom" in general, the target of the word "atom" refers to an atom or whatever they actually may be. So "atom" is an "atom" and this is independent of what they actually look like. The target of the word atom remains existent. This is a problem of logic. Not science at all. If you cannot accept this logic, then you don't even belong on this forum.
Typically this type of question is something I should be doing to you. You are an offensive, ignorant, brat that knows nothing about science but pretends to know, base everything on personal preferences and unscientific speculations and personal metaphysical view, say a bunch of irrelevant crap, refuses to read what other people have written, fabricate facts, fabricate what other people says, and accuse them of wrongdoings that they have not committed. You are a very twisted person. I am so glad you are not a scientist.
Your turn.
1) Present all of the evidence. (Don't be biased)
2) Admit to the ongoing discussions and disagreements among scientists. (Don't be biased)
3) Refrain from presenting your metaphysical ideas and desires as scientific facts. (Believing in Bohmian mechanics and basing every argument under this assumption is nothing more than just metaphysics.)
4) And clearly mark boundaries when you cross them. (You are the one doing it, not me.)
http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-physics-what-is-really-real-1.17585
I enjoy well written and will presented ideas that present the true current state of disagreement and discussion.
"In 2005, de Broglie–Bohmian mechanics received an experimental boost from an unexpected source. Physicists Emmanuel Fort, now at the Langevin Institute in Paris, and Yves Couder at the University of Paris Diderot gave the students in an undergraduate laboratory class what they thought would be a fairly straightforward task: build an experiment to see how oil droplets falling into a tray filled with oil would coalesce as the tray was vibrated. Much to everyone's surprise, ripples began to form around the droplets when the tray hit a certain vibration frequency. “The drops were self-propelled — surfing or walking on their own waves,” says Fort. “This was a dual object we were seeing — a particle driven by a wave.”
You failed to address my point, once again. If you don't plan to read, then don't respond in the first place. This is obviously unfair. Why is it me that I will always address your concern and you don't. And even if you do, you can't even properly provide one single legitimate argument.
For the third time, I freaking said I have an agnostic view of particles because it is subject to change in light of better theory. What the fuck are you reading? To conclude something as something is metaphysical as it can get. What you are doing is exactly metaphysics. I am wondering why you are blaming other people for doing something you are doing. Your links are always in contradicting with what you say. You insist on believing that particles are waves (which is not even a correct interpretation of De Broglie-Bohm theory), but this article provides that there is a disagreement with some other forms of interpretations. So then you are admitting that you are biased and metaphysical when you insist that particles are waves. Thank you, that is all I need to know. You are biased and a believer, far from a scientist. You are another one of those pop-culture science lovers that claims they know science and completely blow it.
Non-scientist trying to act smart with a scientist is not a smart thing to do. Calling someone a failure as a scientist when you don't even understand a crap and contradicts yourself makes it even worse. I would've asked for more humble and modest approach if you don't understand something. Don't ever do that again, and I encourage you to never do that again with anyone.
This is it. I am done. You are done. There is nothing to be discussed anymore. All I understood from you is that you understand nothing, and arguing with you is pointless because you refuse to address my points. This discussion was off-topic anyway (you made it that way). Thank you for wasting my time.
EDIT: Oh, wait. I forgot that you can't even tell the difference between a philosopher of science and a scientist. Then forget about what I've just said. You don't even know the right person to refer to.
How do you know this?
As per scientific principles the only way to confirm the existence of something is by detecting its effects on instruments and our senses. God does have physical effects on us - imnthe way we eat, we dress, we think, we speak, etc. Am I wrong then in concludig god exists?
Yes, for the umpteenth time, you are wrong. If analogies like the one quoted below don't cause you to realise that your reasoning is fallacious, then perhaps nothing will.
The sensible thing to do would be to concede. It would have been [i]more[/I] sensible if you had done so much earlier on in the discussion. The more persistent you are, the more unreasonable you are being.
Quoting Qu3stion
Can you prove to me that god does not exist?
That's a red herring.
That's a red herring.
I do not need to disprove God to disprove your argument. The merits of an argument stand alone; showing a poor argument for a position does not require one to provide an argument for an opposing position. I can say that God exists and that your argument is bad.
My argument is god exists. You contradict that. So, I'm asking you to prove to me that god doesn't exist.
Your argument's conclusion is that God exists. Your argument, detailed in the first post and supported throughout the thread, is faulty because I can substitute God for anything, even fictional beings, and your argument proves their existence. Again, I do not have to argue against the existence of God or prove that God does not exist to show that your argument is faulty.
So what then is your position? The following three options are what you have:
1. God exists
2. God does not exist
3. You don't know
That's a red herring.
My beliefs are irrelevant to the validity and soundness of your argument. Do you admit your argument is faulty?
Exactly.
How can that be? You believe I'm wrong in my belief that god can be proven scientifically. Your beliefs are very relevant to my argument.
For a moment forget I asked you about your beliefs on god.
Now let me ask you how can we distinguish between fictional beings and real beings?
:-}
This is irrelevant. I know Harry Potter is a fictional being because the author made up the character and openly admits to that by putting the book in the fiction setting. Your argument proves Harry Potter is real. Therefore, it is faulty.
If you want an explanation as to how to distinguish between fact and fiction, please reread the many posts explaining just that.
I've read all the posts and in none of them do I find a convincing argument how to distinguish fact from fiction. They already assume that god is fiction.
Let us review our positions to really get to the crux of the matter.
Science relies on effects of hypothesized entity to prove that said entity exists. There is no other way to do it. Now people have and are still hypothesizing the existence of god. So, I make observations of my own. I see people behaving in manners that indicare god exists. God's effects are everywhere - temples, food, rituals, etc. Therefore, I say, god exists.
Then you reply that these effects that I see are caused by ''belief'' in god and not god.
I ask you to help me distinguish between ''belief'' in something and the ''real'' thing but you don't have an answer.
I have summarized our debate until now. Please focus on the 2nd last paragraph (above) and we can continue our discussion will make progress.
Let's say I believe that my car works. That is the hypothesis: my car works. In order to verify this hypothesis, I must be able to do a set of actions (an experiment) that produce observations that might falsify the hypothesis; if I cannot, science cannot work and science cannot make any claims on the truth of the hypothesis. In this case, I can by putting my key in the ignition and turning it. I turn the key and the car starts working. My belief is verified because I did an experiment whose outcome could have been the car did not start and did not work. Note that the fact of the car working is independent of my belief that the car will work. If the car had mechanical problems and actually would not work, then when I went to turn on the car, the car would not start and I could not drive. My belief in the car working does not influence the actual outcome or the observation of the car starting. If the car does not start, my belief that car works is false.
Let's say I believe that God is the cause of human religious beliefs. That is the hypothesis: the explanation for human religious beliefs is that God exists and is the religious are just responding to God's existence. In order to verify this hypothesis, I must be able to do a set of actions (an experiment) that produce observations that might falsify the hypothesis; if I cannot, science cannot work and science cannot make any claims on the truth of the hypothesis. We run into a problem here; what experiment can we set up or what set of observations can we discover that would a) falsify the hypothesis, and b) falsify the alternative hypothesis (the explanation for religious beliefs is that the religious believe in a nonexistent being and act according to their false beliefs)? We already know that, at most, all but one view on God is false, so we already know people can be motivated by false beliefs in a false God.
A fictional being runs into this situation quite often. We cannot find any observations that would indicate that being is anything more than fiction. All the observations of the supposed being can be explained away. The existence of the supposed being may even contradict known facts about the world. For example, the Loch Ness Monster: we know the original photographs are faked. We know that there is nothing in the lake because we scanned the entire thing and found nothing. We know that an animal population could not survive for such a period of time without being discovered. There is absolutely no reason to believe the Loch Ness Monster exists and every reason to believe it to be nothing but fiction. Therefore, based on science, the Loch Ness Monster is effectively falsified and is a fictional being. The fact that I have to explain this is sad.
Also, you ignored the first part of the post. Your argument is refuted because I can prove things I know are fiction to be true using your argument, like the Loch Ness Monster. People believe in the Loch Ness Monster and go on tours, have sightings, and commission documentaries, despite all the evidence against it existing. But, according to your argument, the Loch Ness Monster exists, because people believe in it and behave as if it were real.
P.S. Quoting TheMadFool
This sentence indicates that you do not understand the modern scientific method or how it works. It does not prove directly, it falsifies competing hypotheses and deduces that to the only hypothesis left. If you do not get that, you do not understand science.
As far as this universe is concerned can you tell me what are the competing hypotheses to god?
Shifting goalposts from observable religious practices to the general teleological argument for the existence of god. Take it one step at a time.
Regarding your initial argument, the observation of religious practices as proof of God's existence, do you admit the argument is faulty and that we cannot use religious practices as good evidence of God's existence?
I'm not shifting goal posts. I want to know the truth. You've taken the trouble to explain what the scientific method is. Thanks I'm grateful. I'll go along with your line of reasoning.
According to you we should have competing hypotheses to explain a phenomenon. Then we rule them out one by one until we're left with the one that explains matters adequately.
I want to do that with god. So, will you help me or not? What are the competing hypotheses?
Quoting Chany
Suppose I'm wrong. How would you explain temples, prayer, rituals, ceremonies, festivals, etc.?
Each observation would have to be taken per case by case, ultimately, though we may be able to group some into categories if we are lucky. What observation do you want to use God to explain?
Quoting TheMadFool
Here a potential explanation: people do not like the unknown. We look for patterns and tend to find them in places they do not exist. We also like to apply agency to things; we like to believe things are like us, and have minds like us. Simply put, we made something like a god up as an explanation for something we saw. The concept of god became refined as time went on and eventually reached to where we are at now. Again, as I said earlier, notice how a lot of the pagan gods are effectively really powerful people with magical powers over a specific domain who demand sacrifices that a human would have.
You're beating around the bush. Please give me the list of hypotheses we have for the existence of this universe.
Quoting Chany
Question begging. This is the key issue here and you're already assuming god is ''made up''.
The part in bold is begging the question. You're just assuming your conclusion in one or more of the premises. This is another logical fallacy, like the red herring fallacy where you change the subject. You need to actually back those premises up.
Your next step is to erroneously claim that you're just applying the scientific method, although it has been explained to you that you're not.
You then manage to circle back to the starting point again, and that's basically how this discussion has continued over 12 pages.
Quoting TheMadFool
He isn't obliged to do so. The burden is on you. This is just another diversion. And I don't believe for a second that you're unable to differentiate between the two.
You don't ask for much, do you? Why is he doing all of the work? Aren't you capable of answering these questions yourself? You have the internet at your disposal. Why not look them up yourself?
Quoting TheMadFool
That's not charitable at all. You've taken his quote out of context - another informal fallacy. He clearly stated at the start of that paragraph that he was giving a potential explanation.
How do we distinguish a belief in something from the real thing?
As an example:
How do we distinguish a belief in a stone from the real stone itself?
Not sure. Probably a reason not too dissimilar to yours. Boredom? An impulse? An urge to correct? Naïvety? Masochism?
Let me repeat my question:
How do we distinguish a ''belief in something'' from the ''real thing''?
I used to go on a site with people like this all the time, so it does not bother me. And, I actually learned a lot about science and stuff over the course of the thread. To be honest, philosophy of religion is one of the few areas I like discussing and feel I can actually attribute to, though I am done with this thread at this point. I thought I finally made progress, but I realized that was not true.
But if you can't answer that question yourself, then I'd rather not pursue it. To me, it is like the questions I asked you in my last reply.
But I'm simply following your train of thought. Do you mean your thoughts and ideas are unworthy of discussion?
You're not so much following it, as questioning it to the point of ridiculousness. Like if I responded to the above as follows:
But what does "mean" mean? And what's a thought? How does a thought differ from a xylophone? And besides, what's a question?
I think you have to draw the line somewhere.
It was once ridiculous to say the earth is a sphere.
Quoting Sapientia
Strawman. You draw the line where it suits your needs.
Yes, it suits my needs not to waste my time with someone who asks stupid questions that they should already know the answer to. Sorry. You'll have to find someone else.
Kindly shine the light of your knowledge and wisdom on me. I'd be grateful.
What you're asking us here is to explain the very argument you've been trying to make!
If you don't know yourself the argument you've made, then I see no point in trying to find it for you!
But how do you feel when you know that somewhere some poor child is starving to death? Do you still think of God?
Other than that, when you are talking about effect of God on ourselves, you should be meaning effect of religion, cause your thesis is on the way we eat, wear, etc, which effect daily life of people. Let's try to answer his question for further development of this thesis; Do people believe in God from second they are born or they learn it ?
It's learned of course. You need a certain level of mental maturity before you can consider the thought.
What you're saying is belief in god is coded in our DNA.
I haven't found any evidence that it is or it isn't. How would you explain atheism then? Shouldn't it, DNA-coded presumably, have gone out of circulation from the genetic pool by now?
Also, I don't think DNA codes thoughts rather, it codes the instrument of thinking - our brain.
If you look at what's happening now (with humans) is we're slowly discarding instinctual behavior and replacing it with reasoned thoughts. I think that's how human progress is defined. It's my opinion that god is not grounded in instinct, as you suggest, because if it was then we should see matching behavior in animals who presumably live at an instinctual level. God is a reasoned proposition e.g. explains the order that is evident in the universe.
Yes. It's jumping to a conclusion without sufficient evidence.
No, that isn't going to be difficult at all. You're just interpreting things fantastically. Happens all the time. You could try to learn to restrain your imagination and improve your critical thinking skills so that you don't jump to those kind of unwarranted and frankly embarrassing conclusions. Or maybe see a doctor.
Well, one way to go for theism is to latch onto what appears as design in our universe. There may be other routes that lead to god but I find none as convincing.
Well, I guess it comes down to what you want to believe. If i said, "i saw a fox at he golf course yesterday", you probably wouldn't demand evidence or get annoyed that I have made such a claim. But when I say, "I had a vision that showed me the future" or "a myterious voice saved me from a fatal snake bite", suddenly you're demanding evidence, etc. The difference is, seeing a fox doesn't have implications of God's existence, but having visions of the future and hearing a lifee-saving voice does.
On the one hand it's a good idea to approach claims of miracles with a healthy degree of skepticism, but on the other hand, to deny outright that miracles occur is to deny a certain aspect of reality - simply because you find the possible theistic implications of that reality intolerable.
Hallucinations also have an effect on my behavior. The thing is, the only way for it to affect others with my hallucinations is to tell them about it. They don't experience them with me. This is because my hallucinations aren't part of this shared world that can be experienced without telling anyone about them. If we were standing on the beach and watching the sunset, I wouldn't need to say to you, "hey, there's a sunset over there." It would be redundant. However, if I was only imagining the sunset, and I said the same thing, you'd think I was nuts. These are two different reactions to the same thing. How can that be if they both have the same "existence"?
So, if the OP is conflating the existence of things in my mind with things outside of it, when some of the things in my mind don't have an equivalent outside of it (like leprechauns and unicorns) and some do, (like my mother and this internet forum), then we need to redefine the word, "existence".
Why do we need more evidence when someone tells us something they experienced as opposed to experiencing it ourselves? Isn't it because we know that human beings make a lot of assumptions and are often mistaken about their own experiences so human beings are usually used as a source of preliminary information until more evidence comes about?
I don't know how you define "miracles" but it seems to me that there can be a better explanation to it than explaining it as an act of some divine being that you don't even know if it really exists. For example, the two examples of "miracle" you mentioned can simply be a hallucination.
How many people out there had a fatal snake bite and died, against people that survived? This is a probabilistic thing. Statistically, some do survive. This is a fact. We can't call these miracles. Combined with hallucinations, this can be well explained. I know that was just an example, but most of the "miracles" out there are simply a statistically or probabilistically possible result.
Respectfully, try to imagine it from the other side. We dream every night. Our brains are well known to create rich and memorable scenarios that most of us do not take for something that actually happened. A skeptic like myself has been told from time to time of ghosts, visions, etc.. But in my experience the folks with the stories were those who had never taken any pride in being skeptical. Instead they were already interested in magic or religious in the way that is basically a belief in holy magic and holy ghosts. These ghosts and visions "fed in" to their world view and tended to make them the center of attention. God visited me, bitches! I saw dead mother's ghost. I'm not saying that they were lying. I think the experience is real first-person. But the interpretation is going to happen in terms of the personality, and perhaps not just in terms of the conscious personality. Some experiences may be the eruption of dammed-up potentialities in the individual. I guess you'd call me an atheist, but I don't claim to have checked the hole where god would have to live and to have found it empty. My objections to theism are more related to an analysis of the concepts themselves. As I see it, we would never trust a salesman with half so complicated a pitch as religion's if the object didn't appeal to us greatly and perhaps exactly mirror our own buried, confused potential.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
1. For God to exist, God must have an effect on other things that unequivocally exist.
2. God has an effect on people.
3. Therefore, God exists.
The argument doesn’t follow a rule of implication, which creates space for counterarguments. The ambiguity of the initial premise poses a threat to the entire argument. How would someone know that a thing unequivocally existed? Beyond individual consciousness, there is nothing that undoubtedly exists. If you parked your car in the garage, walked into your home, and I asked you where your car was you’d likely say, “Oh, I just parked it in the garage.” Then, if I asked you if you were certain that your car was in the garage, you couldn’t reasonably say yes because maybe someone stole it after you parked it or maybe you forgot that you actually parked it on the street. This lack of certainty disables our ability to determine effects, so according to your argument, there is no way to determine whether something exists or not. Even if we assume that the second premise is true, we have no way to measure it because we cannot identify the things that undoubtedly exist.
But let’s assume that the first premise is true and that humanity is affected by some entity. You suggest that this entity is God, but it could very well be an invisible alien or and evil demon. The effects may even be simulations and we’re all just brains in vats. You also said that God has an effect on the ways people conduct themselves, but that can simply be explained by sociology. Humans react to the expectations of their social context, so a child may behave well in the presence of their teacher and behave badly around their parents. In both social settings, a human presence affects certain behavior and there is no reason that this catalyst must be divine. Even if we agree with the initial premise, we cannot arrive at the conclusion because we cannot be sure that God is the entity causing these effects on people.
Interesting idea. Looking at your argument and your example of throwing a rock into a window, I believe that you are trying to formulate the following argument.
1. If something has an effect on other objects, people, or ideas, then it exists
2. God has had an effect on other objects, people, or ideas
3. Therefore, God exists (1 & 2 MP)
Please let me know if this is along the lines of what you are trying to say. One aspect of your argument that may need to be narrowed down is what you mean by “effect”. Looking at your statement about God, it seems like people have had some sort of change of action, belief, idea, or lifestyle as a result of God. According to your statement about God, it is these changes or differences (effect) on reality that proves the existence of God.
I would first like to comment on Premise 1. I do not think that anything which has an effect on humans or the world necessarily exists. Let’s say you used this argument on a mythical creature such as a unicorn. Unicorns affect human lives as they are in movies, used as costumes, created by people into sculptures, etc. In this way, unicorns have changed how we act, dress, paint etc and have affected our lives. However, unicorns do not exist. Although a costume or a sculpture or even the idea of unicorns exist, unicorns in and of themselves do not exist. Simply having an effect on someone or something does not bring it into existence nor is it enough to count as proof of existence. This first premise could also allow the existence of practically any god, entity, or being that you wanted to create. All one would have to do is change their lifestyle as a result of this new being and their lives would then be affected and would prove the being’s existence. This idea of people being able to bring into existence any being on a whim seems very unsound.
In addition, the conclusion of your argument has many contradictory implications. For one, under this logic, most all gods would then also exist as many religions have gods that change the way that people act and live. However, this could not be possible as many of these gods could not exist together due to their characteristics, nature, or doctrine. For example, the traditional Abrahamic God seen in the Bible clearly states that no other gods exist accept Him. Being singular without the existence of other gods is part of the Abrahamic God’s characteristic. Overall, it seems that simply having an effect on someone or something does not serve as proof that something exists.
I agree with premise 1. The problem with "a unicorn," "God," etc. here is that we can't conflate ideas with other sorts of things. Unicorns and gods are fictions. They exist as fictions. That's it.
Allow me to give a little analogy to give context to my question,
My question is,
Yes, as something with meaning, etc., it exists in persons' minds (as sets of brain states).
Anything you can put into words or thought exists, the question is in what way it exists. Harry Potter exists, as a fictional character. Before the actual writing if that fiction Harry Potter also existed, as an idea that the writer had.
Does the narrative of the book exist? Yes, as you can reference the narrative, it clearly exists in some way. It exists as a narrative of the specific book.
Without delving into the theology of a purported God, e.g. His possible physicality / relation to the universe or time, etc., your argument - if it is in fact sound (which I am not debating, whether I take issue with its entailments), it [the argument] seems to only pertain to mind-dependent "things", or ideologies that have some type of sway on a person(s) conduct. I believe the "effects" you mentioned, between the rock and a supposed God are of wholly different natures; if a rock is thrown at something breakable, the thing will break - this seems to be an immutable conditional sate of affairs; yet if God exists and has an effect - specific rites, diets, clothing - then via this analogy, the effect of God on a population should be equally uniform, but this is very obviously not the case. Christians revere the sanctifying aspect of water via baptism, while Zoroastrians revere fire for the same sanctification reasons - if God were able to be proven via means of effects He has on people (which seems like a variant of a First Cause argument), then the effects employed by the people who believe in God should be consistent with one another - yet they aren't.
While I find the design argument compelling, fine tuning arguments have a proclivity to be tenuous and prone to objections - especially by skeptics who are generally apt to note the overwhelmingly chaotic nature of our universe specifically, and how the genesis of the human species is nothing more than a statistical anomaly bound to happen due to the sheer size of the universe and the varying natures present throughout every solar system / galaxy, and so on - Bertrand Russel expanded on this in his unpublished Is There a God specifically. Unequivocal evidence for or against the existence of God are, on the whole, not compelling in my opinion - rather I believe the burden of proof to be on the non-Theist to affirm non-Theism, as opposed to giving into the proclivities of weighing facts of natural science against ecclesiastical traditions.
To respond to an experiential testimony to the experience of the divine is not well thought out and churlish - I try to refrain from using such harsh language in a philosophical setting, but to undermine the veracity of someone's claim such as that is highly uncharitable; though the specific name of the scientific journal is escaping me right now, there was a study done (then subsequently covered in the New York Times) showing that Evangelical Christians, when (what is known as) speaking in tongues, utilized a part of the brain which is otherwise inoperative - they [the Christians] call the feeling of taking part in such an act as a religious experience. This is not unlike the Calvinist idea of Sensus Divinitatus, whereby he [Calvin] posited that humans have an engrained psychological faculty whereby they are able to "experience" God. So please - do not dismiss an experience such as this as a mere hallucination or the ramblings of some madman when there are a number of fascinating arguments for the truth value of these claims.
I think there's less of the mental-dependency/independency factor and more of the kind of influence at play. A stone by itself cannot affect any breakable object though it has the potential to. I think the same applies to the God religion's project to us. As far as I can tell, God's influence is specifically tailored to affect our mental circumstances the same as a narrative. However, if we are not acquainted with God through any narrative, I suspect there would be little influence, if any.
I think it's the same for the stone, once its physicality is projected towards a breakable object, the inevitable effect takes place. And just as, not all breakable objects break the same, so also, not all people are influenced the same by the influence of a God narrative.
Therefore, I think that God exists. However, that existence is, as far as we can manifest it, limited to our mental circumstances and its consequent effects upon them.
I would just call gods existence a fiction of the bible, or religion. That is the way god exists. That seems like more direct phrasing to me.
Isn't that basically what I said?
If you want to believe the claims of the religious, then which religious claim do you believe? There are many, and many contradict each other. They all can't be right. What method do you use to determine the validity of any claim that another human being makes? It seems to me that you accept all claims made by other human beings simply because of how they feel when they make the claim (their emotional attachment to the claim) .
“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.”
-Albert Einstein
The Science of Awe
https://ggsc.berkeley.edu/images/uploads/GGSC-JTF_White_Paper-Awe_FINAL.pdf
Also, God as a concept is not like a stone. God is like every stone, the idea of stone, and every idea ever, and everything in existence ever. It would be probably more defendable to say God is existence itself, and everything in existence is an expression of God. This is a similar assumption to science's universe, basiqually equating God to it, just with a different expression. This way God does not conflict science, nor does science conflict with God.