What is Faith?

[Ella S.]

Sorry, I know this is not addressed to me but I'd like to answer.

a) sometimes dreams can be very realistic so that during the dream it is indistinguishable from everyday life.
b) If you cannot distinguish being awake from dreaming then it is possible you are dreaming now.
c) If you cannot eliminate the possibility that you are dreaming now, then you don’t know for certain that you are not dreaming now.

It doesn't matter until it matters.
We might as well accept the universe as it appears to be until we know that it is not.
As long as everything remains consistent in the universe according to how we would expect the universe to be, there is no reason to think it is not real.

IOW, I don't need faith in this but I can trust that things will continue to work as if the universe is real until I have reason to think otherwise.

Yes, thank you. There's a reason there's a division between "a posteriori" knowledge and "a priori" knowledge. When we say we know the external world exists, we're talking about a justified belief in accordance with the evidence.

Logic itself is self-correcting, so in the face of new information and argumentation our beliefs should shift. Inductive conclusions are not absolute, but they are the best explanations we have given a certain data set. Just asking, "what if you're wrong, though?" doesn't change that at all. The only way to change conclusions based on evidence is with more evidence.

Speculation becomes useless at this point unless you can turn it into a hypothesis or a model. If the universe isn't real, what would that necessarily entail? What observations would that predict and how do those predictions differ from naturalism?

Of course, the whole point of this speculation is to throw out all evidence entirely and, with it, reason and justification. It's a complete misunderstanding of Descartes's point about the superiority of deductive verification to inductive justification, at best. It's a dangerously anti-intellectual pseudo-philosophy at worst.

ETA: I also don't pride myself on being a "serious student of philosophy," like the previous poster implies. I simply try to live in accordance with logic. Part of that includes Rationalism and analytical philosophy, in my opinion, but I am not an academic philosopher.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Sorry, I know this is not addressed to me but I'd like to answer.

a) sometimes dreams can be very realistic so that during the dream it is indistinguishable from everyday life.
b) If you cannot distinguish being awake from dreaming then it is possible you are dreaming now.
c) If you cannot eliminate the possibility that you are dreaming now, then you don’t know for certain that you are not dreaming now.

It doesn't matter until it matters.
We might as well accept the universe as it appears to be until we know that it is not.
As long as everything remains consistent in the universe according to how we would expect the universe to be, there is no reason to think it is not real.

IOW, I don't need faith in this but I can trust that things will continue to work as if the universe is real until I have reason to think otherwise.

So you take a utilitarian approach to external reality and your relationship with it, which is perfectly valid, and certainly practical. But there are other ways of understanding the world, and of being in it; and those alternative paradigms, which serve others even if they don't work for you, may be equally valid and practical.

In the end, we all have to compromise with reality in some way. We each make an accommodation with the world as best we can, in order to live to good purpose. Many people of a philosophical persuasion take the view that objective reality is illusory and unknowable, but that it is nevertheless insistent.

To question reality is not necessarily to deny it, but rather to try to come to terms with it. How can we possibly improve our understanding of objective reality, if we take everything at face value and never ask ourselves difficult questions? As for the question, What is real?, we find this being asked every bit as often by scientists, as we do by philosophers and theologians.

It was astronomers and mathematicians, notably Copernicus, Kepler etc., who conclusively showed that our reality is most certainly not what it seems. The sun does not rise in the east, nor does it set in the wast. Science has shown that this perception of reality, confirmed though it seemed to be by all our observations, is an illusion.

 

[blü 2]

That's one real I agree with. However I have a category for abstract phenomena such as character qualities, mathematical truths discovered, and the capacity to live according to meaning. Things internal to self are real; such as inner experience.

Yes, but it seems clear to me that Self + External World = all there is.

That's to say, if eg God can't be found in the external world then the only manner in which [he] can exist is as a concept or thing imagined by a particular brain.

Thus for example, I'm not aware of any objective test that can distinguish the supernatural ─ including God ─ from the conceptual / imaginary.

 

[osgart]

Yes, but it seems clear to me that Self + External World = all there is.

That's to say, if eg God can't be found in the external world then the only manner in which [he] can exist is as a concept or thing imagined by a particular brain.

Thus for example, I'm not aware of any objective test that can distinguish the supernatural ─ including God ─ from the conceptual / imaginary.

I don't consider all concepts to be imaginary. The capacity to care is an example of that. Nor have I seen a model or demonstration that all concepts originate in the brain. The brain could be a manifestation of a deeper reality that includes inner experience. As for God and the supernatural that to me is beyond the scope of reality I can know. I've never experienced a supernatural event so it seems extremely unlikely.

 

[blü 2]

I don't consider all concepts to be imaginary. The capacity to care is an example of that. Nor have I seen a model or demonstration that all concepts originate in the brain. The brain could be a manifestation of a deeper reality that includes inner experience. As for God and the supernatural that to me is beyond the scope of reality I can know. I've never experienced a supernatural event so it seems extremely unlikely.

The capacity to care is an evolved human tendency, and very useful if not essential for survival and breeding. Child nurture and protection are instinctive in many (though not all) kinds of creatures. It's not unrelated to the evolved moral tendencies that humans have ─ dislike of the one who harms, like of fairness and reciprocity, respect for authority, loyalty to the group, and a sense of self-worth through self-denial. Also evolved are the conscience, and a capacity for empathy. These have the evolutionary payoff of allowing humans to survive and breed better in groups and to possess the substantial benefits of cooperation.

A concept is defined as a brain-state of a particular kind, so no brain, no concept.

So it seems to me that the only way God is known to exist is as a concept or thing imagined in an individual brain. There is no definition of God that's appropriate to a real entity, one found in nature, such that if we found a real suspect we could determine whether it was God (or a god) or not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, thank you. There's a reason there's a division between "a posteriori" knowledge and "a priori" knowledge. When we say we know the external world exists, we're talking about a justified belief in accordance with the evidence.

Logic itself is self-correcting, so in the face of new information and argumentation our beliefs should shift. Inductive conclusions are not absolute, but they are the best explanations we have given a certain data set. Just asking, "what if you're wrong, though?" doesn't change that at all. The only way to change conclusions based on evidence is with more evidence.

Speculation becomes useless at this point unless you can turn it into a hypothesis or a model. If the universe isn't real, what would that necessarily entail? What observations would that predict and how do those predictions differ from naturalism?

Of course, the whole point of this speculation is to throw out all evidence entirely and, with it, reason and justification. It's a complete misunderstanding of Descartes's point about the superiority of deductive verification to inductive justification, at best. It's a dangerously anti-intellectual pseudo-philosophy at worst.

ETA: I also don't pride myself on being a "serious student of philosophy," like the previous poster implies. I simply try to live in accordance with logic. Part of that includes Rationalism and analytical philosophy, in my opinion, but I am not an academic philosopher.

Objective evidence as per real and true for the bold one.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So you take a utilitarian approach to external reality and your relationship with it, which is perfectly valid, and certainly practical. But there are other ways of understanding the world, and of being in it; and those alternative paradigms, which serve others even if they don't work for you, may be equally valid and practical.

In the end, we all have to compromise with reality in some way. We each make an accommodation with the world as best we can, in order to live to good purpose. Many people of a philosophical persuasion take the view that objective reality is illusory and unknowable, but that it is nevertheless insistent.

To question reality is not necessarily to deny it, but rather to try to come to terms with it. How can we possibly improve our understanding of objective reality, if we take everything at face value and never ask ourselves difficult questions? As for the question, What is real?, we find this being asked every bit as often by scientists, as we do by philosophers and theologians.

It was astronomers and mathematicians, notably Copernicus, Kepler etc., who conclusively showed that our reality is most certainly not what it seems. The sun does not rise in the east, nor does it set in the wast. Science has shown that this perception of reality, confirmed though it seemed to be by all our observations, is an illusion.

Here is something I learned by a Danish scientist.
It goes to the concepts of positive and negative.
They are abstract first person cognitive experiences and not empirical as per the 5 senses and all that.

So what some people treat as true and real, for which that it is not objective.

How I think with reason and logic as relevant(a positive cognitive claim happening in the given brain) decide what objective reality is independent of how I think and feel.

They think that their thinking and feeling decide (cause the objective reality to be as existing in a certain way, because it makes sense to them), what reality is.
What they do, is magical thinking. Their individual thinking, reasoning and how they use logic decide and than in effect means, that it causes objective reality to be what they think and feel it is. That is the effect of decide in practice. They decide what the world is as such, based on how they think and feel.

And how does that relate to positives and negatives? Because real, true, evidence, proof and all of those rely on positives and negatives.
And that is the joke of all of these debates. It is not really about what the world is. It is about how to cope with being in the world and navigating that even reason and logic are limited human behaviors related to, how to make positive sense of being in the world.

In other words in effect these debate are not really about what the world is as such, but how we cope with being in the world as it must make sense to all humans, based on how it makes sense to me.
You can spot that it doesn't depend on how I think and fell. They can spot how it doesn't depend on how I think and fell. But they can't spot when they do it individually.

So in general terms it has nothing to go with God. It has to do with how we individually treat how we think and feel.
That is what happens in all these threads. It is about how the world must be, as to how I think and feel. I know the limit of that not just for them, but me too. They do it differently.

 

[PureX]

So I guess what you are saying is that you don't have to believe in those because you can already experience them and see them in people.

So you have faith in what you hope for but don't know will happen.

I do not think that belief is pretending we know, but that all depends upon how you define belief.
According to the definitions below, belief can mean the same thing as faith.

The dictionary does not establish honesty or logic in regards to our word usage. It simply records how we both use and abuse words.

Faith:

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

What is the word "complete" doing here? Since when does faith have to be "complete" to be faithful? And in fact, logically, "compete" faith isn't faith at all, it's certainty. And certitude doesn't require trust because it lacks any doubt. See what I mean about how illogical and nonsensical the common usage of these terms are? It's why I never use the dictionary to establish a position. Their definitions are notoriously illogical and misleading. As are many of the ways those terms are commonly used in discussion and debate.

2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

Why are we using the term "faith" here when we mean "strong belief" and we already have the term "belief" available to use? When I see this kind of foolish implied redundancy, I immediately suspect a desire to confuse, as oppose to clarify. And again, why the addition of the term "strong", here? Isn't belief strong by virtue of it not being "doubtful"? Aren't doubt and belief mutually exclusive conditions on the scale of our surety?

Belief:

1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"

If belief were mere acceptance, then why not simply say "I accept the value of hard work" as opposed to saying "I believe in it"? The answer is that these words do not mean the same things, as this definition is trying to imply. The term "I believe" implies that it is a universal truth that one need not doubt. Not that it is merely an experienced outcome that may or may not hold true in the future.

2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in democratic politics"
https://www.google.com/search

When I say I believe something, I mean I have trust, faith, and confidence in what I believe.

Trust, faith, and confidence are all different logical intellectual positions. That's why we have different words to refer to these different positions. When we just throw them all together as if they all mean the same thing we are deliberately sowing confusion even as we are making it appear as though we are using more than one term for the sake of additional clarity. Keep in mind that we humans use language to obscure our positions at least as often as we use it to clarify them. Mostly because we don't want our positions clarified.

I also accept (for myself) that what I believe is true and that what I believe in exists.

Which is what I said all along: that "belief" is simply the believer presuming that what he thinks is true, IS true, without doubt.

I accept (for myself) that what I believe is true because I have trust, faith, and confidence in what I believe.

But trust, faith, and confidence are not belief. They are all different terms that refer to different intellectual positions. You are lumping them all together to justify your position of belief: the presumption that what you think is true, IS true, without doubt.

I do not think that belief in the face of our unknowing is dishonest.

But you presume "X" to be so even though you don't know it to be so. And then to tell others that they should believe it's so, too. How is that not being dishonest?

What would be dishonest is if I said I do not believe what I do believe.
I do not pretend to know. I admit I don't know, I only believe. If I knew it would not be a belief, it would be knowledge.

... Right. So what you have is the pretense of knowledge, as opposed to actual knowledge, and yet you "believe" it to be accurate, anyway.

You need to re-read these last couple of sentences a few times until you begin to see just how irrational and nonsensical what you're saying actually is. Then you will begin to understand why some of the atheists around here spend so much time arguing with you.

I do not think believers should do that. Rather, they should admit that they believe but they don't know.

I.E., 'trust in' instead of "believe in".

But the "true believers" can't admit that they don't know, because they have forfeited the burden of their skepticism and doubt. That's why they are now "true believers".

However, I think it is okay for them to say they believe that can know something about God through their scriptures.

They can say anything they want, and think anything they want. But when what they say is this confused and illogical, they shouldn't be expecting anyone else to buy into it.

Belief is not a presumption.

Of course it is.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Here is something I learned by a Danish scientist.
It goes to the concepts of positive and negative.
They are abstract first person cognitive experiences and not empirical as per the 5 senses and all that.

So what some people treat as true and real, for which that it is not objective.

How I think with reason and logic as relevant(a positive cognitive claim happening in the given brain) decide what objective reality is independent of how I think and feel.

They think that their thinking and feeling decide (cause the objective reality to be as existing in a certain way, because it makes sense to them), what reality is.
What they do, is magical thinking. Their individual thinking, reasoning and how they use logic decide and than in effect means, that it causes objective reality to be what they think and feel it is. That is the effect of decide in practice. They decide what the world is as such, based on how they think and feel.

And how does that relate to positives and negatives? Because real, true, evidence, proof and all of those rely on positives and negatives.
And that is the joke of all of these debates. It is not really about what the world is. It is about how to cope with being in the world and navigating that even reason and logic are limited human behaviors related to, how to make positive sense of being in the world.

In other words in effect these debate are not really about what the world is as such, but how we cope with being in the world as it must make sense to all humans, based on how it makes sense to me.
You can spot that it doesn't depend on how I think and fell. They can spot how it doesn't depend on how I think and fell. But they can't spot when they do it individually.

So in general terms it has nothing to go with God. It has to do with how we individually treat how we think and feel.
That is what happens in all these threads. It is about how the world must be, as to how I think and feel. I know the limit of that not just for them, but me too. They do it differently.

You might find this paper by Christopher Fuchs on Participatory Realism interesting. Fuchs, a proponent of an interpretation of QM known as quantum Bayesianism, has argued among other things, that any description of reality must give an account of the consciousness of the observer(s).

Here he is responding to accusations of anti-realism which he feels are unjustified, and which misunderstand his position. It’s a long read but worth the effort imo., and written in accessible language.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1601.04360.pdf

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You might find this paper by Christopher Fuchs on Participatory Realism interesting. Fuchs, a proponent of an interpretation of QM known as quantum Bayesianism, has argued among other things, that any description of reality must give an account of the consciousness of the observer(s).

Here he is responding to accusations of anti-realism which he feels are unjustified, and which misunderstand his position. It’s a long read but worth the effort imo., and written in accessible language.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1601.04360.pdf

Well to be honest. To me physics is a lot of things and in regards to science as science, I leave that to those with more training in that than me.
I got to page 5 and Einstein's part about solipsism and I suspect he was using it in the metaphysical sense. Well, the problem is that there is more than one version of solipsism and it is in fact possible to refute metaphysical solipsism.

My take on Participatory Realism based on only reading the first 5 page is that I hold the same position. It is just called epistemological solipsism.
To talk about the world requires a human and requires that you acknowledge the human as a part of the world. And the all our models are in the world as a part of the world, but not all the world.
To me realism is how we understand that and not that objective reality is the only real as independent of the mind.

Regards

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I commit fallacy after fallacy yet you cannot even name one fallacy and tell me why I committed it.

I've done it a dozen times, and no doubt will a dozen more. The inability to see that is called a faith-based confirmation bias. It defends one's faith-based beliefs from contradictory evidence using filters and motivated reasoning to prevent one from seeing what he has a stake in not seeing.

By contrast, you commit fallacy after fallacy and I name the fallacies and explain why you committed them.

You have never correctly identified a fallacy from me, nor anybody else to my knowledge.

I have said several times that I am making no logical argument for God's existence since there is no logical argument that would ever prove God's existence, and as such, I cannot be making a sound or an unsound argument.

You have made your argument for God's existence, but that is irrelevant, since it doesn't rebut, "If one can't tell a sound argument from a fallacious one, he lacks critical thinking skills."

That is no fallacy, it was only my personal opinion.

It was both. Your personal opinion contained a fallacy.

I hold my God belief on faith and evidence.

Pick one - justified or unjustified. We don't distinguish between half-way justified and the rest faith. You might as well say that since you could only figure out half a math problem and had to guess on the rest, that it's not a guess.

Correction: "There is no reason for you to believe that if something is undetectable that it exists."

You, neither.

Because you made the allegation so you are responsible to back it up with evidence.

There is no burden of proof with a person unprepared to evaluate an argument. You've already seen the arguments and successfully rebutted none of them.

rejecting all religious claims in favor of non-belief is biased.

Rejecting unjustified claims is a very useful bias.

I am not biased in favor of belief

Others judge us based upon our deeds rather than our words about them when they contradict one another.

You do not look at any other viewpoints, you just keep repeating the same mantra

Like me, he's not interested in anything generated

We know the attributes of God by what the messengers reveal in scripture

No, you don't. There's more fallacy. Scripture is not evidence that its claims are correct.

Do you follow strict rules or can you think outside the box?

Both. They have different applications. Thinking outside the box is creativity. It a good source for ideas to explore, but not a method for deciding whatis true about the world. For that, one wants to remain within sharply proscribed parameters and thus in the box.

 

[F1fan]

I will be looking at the account, but I was also thinking that things really got fractured when people started speaking tongues and they couldn't understand what the others were saying, also it really all started with Adam and Eve. I'll go into it later.

Are you saying you believe humans began with Adam and Eve, or just that the Hebrew stories about humans start with them? The diversity of languages came from humans migrating and devloping independent settlments all over the world over many tens of thousands of years.

 

[F1fan]

I have a more descriptive definition of God.

God in the Baháʼí Faith

So what, it's literature that isn't factual. I understand this.

We know the attributes of God by what the messengers reveal in scripture, and the messengers also reflect the attributes of God.

You know what a guy wrote. You don;t know that he was telling the truth. That's why you use an unreliable option called faith.

The Manifestations of God reflect divine attributes, which are creations of God made for the purpose of spiritual enlightenment, onto the physical plane of existence.[6] All physical beings reflect at least one of these attributes, and the human soul can potentially reflect all of them.[7] Shoghi Effendi, the head of the Baháʼí Faith in the first half of the 20th century, described God as inaccessible, omniscient, almighty, personal, and rational, and rejected pantheistic, anthropomorphic and incarnationist beliefs.[2]"

God in the Baháʼí Faith

So what? Other relgions claim other things, and no religion offers facts.

How else would I know except by reading what the messenger of God says about God?

You know, you decide he's correct despite you using flawed thinking.

There are no facts about God, only revelation from God through messengers.

And no facts to demonstrate any messengers are genuine, thus faith. That means guessing.

No, there is no verifiable evidence of God existing since that would constitute proof.

Thus no basis to believe.

They can believe God exists but they should not claim that God exists, since they cannot prove that God exists.

Stating beliefs in a forum is a claim. Fact.

I guess you'd have to look at something besides the texts. There is other evidence.

None that you or others have presented, so we default to remaining unconvinced.

 

[F1fan]

I was being facetious when I said that the evidence for God is easily recognized by those who are skilled as a retort to what you said, that critical thinking is demonstrable and recognized by those who are skilled. The evidence is not that easily recognized but it is not impossible to recognize either.

Yeah, another reflex reply that isn't based on fact or reason.

Do you follow strict rules or can you think outside the box? Rejecting all religious claims in favor of non-belief is not logical.

The rules mean that any arbitrary claim is be ddefault untrue until evidence can demonstrate it is true, or at least likely true. religious concepts have a fatal flaw of being supernatural, and there is no evidence of any suvernatuiral phenomenon existing outside human imagination. So it is the religious who make religious claims that have the problem, not critical thinkers. If the religious want to debate they need more than their faith, claims, and emotional ramblings.

And yes I can think outside the box, that is how I can read a religious claim and not feel it has some truth just because it is popular in society. I suggest it is the atheist who is thinking outside the box, not any of the 85% of theists globally.

Sometimes I do mimic, so what? I don't care what people think, I am just trying to get my point across.

Becuae it shows you have no rational response or rebuttal, and are making bad faith emotional remarks. It illustrates you aren't self-aware.

Fine, if it serves you well use it.

Why don't you?

And I predict a reflex response of you claiming you do. But you already have made this an issue of contention, so you can't reverse course and claim you do all of a sudden.

The answers to my questions are not evident to me, or I would not be asking the questions.

Because you lack the skills and ability of clear comprehension and awareness

Deflection is when you change the subject to create a distraction instead of answering a question I asked or responding to what I said in my post.
Maybe you are doing it subconsciously so you don't realize it.

And you do this often with irrelevant questions. Look at your question asking if I can think outside the box. It was meant as a trap, and as I retorted that backfired. It's because you are so boxed in to your belief that you lack the clarity you think you have, and others lack.

Here is something for your critical thinking. I have posted 41,821 messages on this forum and there are only two posters on this entire forum who I have any problems communicating with or don't get along with, you and your sidekick. Logically speaking, that means I cannot be the one with the problem.

Look at your attempt at a disparaging comment.

And you aren't using logic. I see @blü 2, @Ella S., @It Aint Necessarily So, @Subduction Zone, @ChristineM, and numerous other members who have debated your comments. There is a small number of us who are consistent, and you seem to assume this means others agree with you? Or what? You can't seem to consider the problem is yours in dealing with all these critical thinkers. Maybe think outside your box.

Please note that I certainly do not agree with everyone I post to but we can agree to disagree so it doesn't have to be contentious whenever we disagree. Moreover, we can learn from each other when we disagree. Most people can compromise and see other viewpoints, they don't always have to be right about everything. It is only contentious with you and your sidekick as it is your style of communication. I get along with everyone else because they don't criticize me constantly saying I lack critical thinking skills.

We are debating in good faith and you have a problem with this, likely because you can't rebut comments and criticisms. It's not a matter of getting along, this isn't personal.

 

[F1fan]

Yeah, you just use words like valid.
You don't even understand how come there is a version of science based on not true, unproveable axiomatic assumptions.

All I notice is you being vague as if there's something to hide. Not my problem to figure out what you mean. It could be asomething you're still working on, and that has nothing to do with me. I like debate when others are clear in what they mean, because I can engage. I am indiffeent to being dragged into someone elses mental universe and having to fill in the blanks.

 

[F1fan]

So you take a utilitarian approach to external reality and your relationship with it, which is perfectly valid, and certainly practical. But there are other ways of understanding the world, and of being in it; and those alternative paradigms, which serve others even if they don't work for you, may be equally valid and practical.

Equally valid and practical? Such as what? How are alternatives of a utilitarian approach serving others since an alternative would NOT be utility?

In the end, we all have to compromise with reality in some way. We each make an accommodation with the world as best we can, in order to live to good purpose. Many people of a philosophical persuasion take the view that objective reality is illusory and unknowable, but that it is nevertheless insistent.

Compromise is part of life but you gloss over the degree to wwhich there is a broad range of people who compromise. The creationist compromises vastly more than the rationalist.

To question reality is not necessarily to deny it, but rather to try to come to terms with it. How can we possibly improve our understanding of objective reality, if we take everything at face value and never ask ourselves difficult questions? As for the question, What is real?, we find this being asked every bit as often by scientists, as we do by philosophers and theologians.

This is more an issue for meaning than for material existence. Any of us csan look around and observe how well humanity has done to understand how nature works and how we can build things to make more fun and safer, but also more polluted and dangerous. Those can be described factually. But meaning in life? That's where the questions are. And even though there is millennia of thinkers coming up with answers and beliefs, many humans are unsatisfied and still looking. In my experience many are looking for final answers and not realizing it is the journey where the meaning is. Wisdom comes slowly, and realizations hit when they do.

It was astronomers and mathematicians, notably Copernicus, Kepler etc., who conclusively showed that our reality is most certainly not what it seems.

Well, they revealed that religious answers are flawed and incorrect. Reality as false belief is what we need to avoid, and science offers the best method of determining this. Faith? Religion? All it does is perpetuate obsolete ideas that have no basis in fact. To assume meaning resides in these ideas traps a believe in an illusory world that prevents an experience beyond what they believe is true.

The sun does not rise in the east, nor does it set in the wast. Science has shown that this perception of reality, confirmed though it seemed to be by all our observations, is an illusion.

This is why we adjust what is believed true to what we can be demonstrated true.

 

[osgart]

The capacity to care is an evolved human tendency, and very useful if not essential for survival and breeding. Child nurture and protection are instinctive in many (though not all) kinds of creatures. It's not unrelated to the evolved moral tendencies that humans have ─ dislike of the one who harms, like of fairness and reciprocity, respect for authority, loyalty to the group, and a sense of self-worth through self-denial. Also evolved are the conscience, and a capacity for empathy. These have the evolutionary payoff of allowing humans to survive and breed better in groups and to possess the substantial benefits of cooperation.

A concept is defined as a brain-state of a particular kind, so no brain, no concept.

So it seems to me that the only way God is known to exist is as a concept or thing imagined in an individual brain. There is no definition of God that's appropriate to a real entity, one found in nature, such that if we found a real suspect we could determine whether it was God (or a god) or not.

All good and fine til you hone in on the abstract phenomenon itself. No one has ever observed a concept, nor a care. They can't be fully explained with physical terminology.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We are debating in good faith and you have a problem with this, likely because you can't rebut comments and criticisms. It's not a matter of getting along, this isn't personal.

I do like @Trailblazer as a person, but she cannot handle corrections when she is shown to be wrong when debating. She will repeat the same logical errors and I could see it is hopeless so I quit trying to help her to see the flaws in her reasoning. Such attempts were viewed as a personal attack.

 

[F1fan]

All good and fine til you hone in on the abstract phenomenon itself. No one has ever observed a concept, nor a care. They can't be fully explained with physical terminology.

Concepts are real in the sense of being mental objects. That means they are material due to living brains processing ideas with electrochemical phenomenon.

There are mice that exist in reality. The word "mouse" is the English symbol for this critter. I can say "mouse" and others will undestand this concept, and they know it represents a real thing. Then I can say "Mickey Mouse" and know this isn't a natural thing, but an idea that Walt Disney invented as inspired from actual mice. It can be represented in drawings, cartoons, and people in costumes. So to describe what is real in all this is dependent on the detail, and understanding of language and contexts. It's semiotics.

 

[F1fan]

I do like @Trailblazer as a person, but she cannot handle corrections when she is shown to be wrong when debating. She will repeat the same logical errors and I could see it is hopeless so I quit trying to help her to see the flaws in her reasoning. Such attempts were viewed as a personal attack.

Right. I've considered limiting my responses as there is no breaking through. I've used the experience to explore various techniques to "getting through to someone" but nothing works.