(November 19, 2013 at 5:59 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Salesman, by your own definition traditional religious beliefs cannot be delusions since they cannot be shown to be indisputably false.

I started thinking a bit more about this, and it something occurred to me to bring up. I'm curious to see how you respond.

Doesn't it depend on what sort of religious beliefs we're discussing?

To believe a God exists is not a belief that can be shown to be false by indisupitable evidence. This much, by definition, is not a delusion. But believing in such a God, with nothing tied to it, isn't a religion. Religions add claims. Of those claims, a delusion could be formed, right?

Are you saying that it's not delusional to think that a virgin woman can give birth? Is this much different than claiming to know a married bachelor?

There's no evidence to disprove that Mary wasn't the only exception to the rule, but it is incompatible with every bit of evidence that supports our understanding of child conception. Is this not delusional?

There's no evidence that Jesus, a mortal man, could die and then be resurrected, but all evidence tells us that this is not possible. To be dead, and lying in a tomb, and then magically get up. Is it not a delusion to believe this?

Is there not indisputable evidence that tells us that these things are not physically possible? On what grounds, except as a delusion, does one believe these things?

The definition of a delusion suggested that one believes something even in the face of indisputable evidence to the contrary.

Is it not a delusion because we can't test the specific instance in question, or does this sound like someone grasping at straws as a means of clinging to a belief that is truely irrational?

I was just wondering what you thought about that Chad.

(November 20, 2013 at 6:58 pm)The Reality Salesman Wrote: Are you saying that it's not delusional to think that a virgin woman can give birth? ... To be dead, and lying in a tomb, and then magically get up. Is it not a delusion to believe this?... Is there not indisputable evidence that tells us that these things are not physically possible?

Only if you think it is delusion to believe that miracles are possible. I do not believe the universe is causally closed and known physical laws may not be unequivocally binding. The only difference between a miracle and a physical law is that physical laws happen regularly and miracles are one-shot deals.
(Personally, I do not like applying legal concepts to scientific ones. The term ‘physical law’ implies governance by an entity actively enforcing the law. In reality, what we call laws are really, from a scientific perspective empirically strong propensities.)

(November 20, 2013 at 7:52 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Only if you think it is delusion to believe that miracles are possible. I do not believe the universe is causally closed and known physical laws may not be unequivocally binding. The only difference between a miracle and a physical law is that physical laws happen regularly and miracles are one-shot deals.
(Personally, I do not like applying legal concepts to scientific ones. The term ‘physical law’ implies governance by an entity actively enforcing the law. In reality, what we call laws are really, from a scientific perspective empirically strong propensities.)

Bingo! Scientific laws are descriptive not normative. They do not determine what actually happens in reality any more than a paper map determines the shape of the shoreline. I’d be very interested in hearing how a materialist accounts for the existence of such laws, but that may be a topic for a different time.

(November 20, 2013 at 8:50 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(November 20, 2013 at 7:52 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Only if you think it is delusion to believe that miracles are possible. I do not believe the universe is causally closed and known physical laws may not be unequivocally binding. The only difference between a miracle and a physical law is that physical laws happen regularly and miracles are one-shot deals.
(Personally, I do not like applying legal concepts to scientific ones. The term ‘physical law’ implies governance by an entity actively enforcing the law. In reality, what we call laws are really, from a scientific perspective empirically strong propensities.)

Bingo! Scientific laws are descriptive not normative. They do not determine what actually happens in reality any more than a paper map determines the shape of the shoreline. I’d be very interested in hearing how a materialist accounts for the existence of such laws, but that may be a topic for a different time.

I feel a game of TAG coming on...no?

(November 20, 2013 at 9:12 pm)The Reality Salesman Wrote: I feel a game of TAG coming on...no?

Only if you cannot account for the existence of such laws consistently with your materialism; they make sense in the light of my Christian theism.

(November 20, 2013 at 7:52 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(November 20, 2013 at 6:58 pm)The Reality Salesman Wrote: Are you saying that it's not delusional to think that a virgin woman can give birth? ... To be dead, and lying in a tomb, and then magically get up. Is it not a delusion to believe this?... Is there not indisputable evidence that tells us that these things are not physically possible?

Only if you think it is delusion to believe that miracles are possible. I do not believe the universe is causally closed and known physical laws may not be unequivocally binding. The only difference between a miracle and a physical law is that physical laws happen regularly and miracles are one-shot deals.
(Personally, I do not like applying legal concepts to scientific ones. The term ‘physical law’ implies governance by an entity actively enforcing the law. In reality, what we call laws are really, from a scientific perspective empirically strong propensities.)

So these claims exist, we coin a word for them "miracles". This words grants special exception for what would otherwise be delusional? Is this right?

Are you saying that God temporarily suspends these physical laws that accurately describe the universe as we know it, and that coincidentally, the instances during which these laws are suspended, is where the claims of miracles occur, and they always occur in such a way that we cannot know it until we're hearing it second hand?

You don't seem to just be saying that it happens, it's verifiable and we just can't explain it, but rather, it's said to have happened, it's not witnessed or verifiable, but it must be the exception to where these otherwise accurate laws that would otherwise be perfectly descriptive simply fail? And these claims are not delusions so long as you believe them, and if you do, you can peacefully dub them as "miracles", the aforementioned term coined for these special claims?

Is this what you're saying?

(November 20, 2013 at 9:16 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: they make sense in the light of my Christian theism.

False. Your theism makes claims without being able to back them up with any verifiable evidence.

The science hasn't figured it out so god did it claim is based on nothing more than a clear lack of knowledge.

(November 20, 2013 at 9:16 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(November 20, 2013 at 9:12 pm)The Reality Salesman Wrote: I feel a game of TAG coming on...no?

Only if you cannot account for the existence of such laws consistently with your materialism; they make sense in the light of my Christian theism.

I'll waste no time and concede that there's something I don't know in the interest of displaying intellectual honesty.

Now, will you admit that within the Theist worldview, you cannot account for the existence of God without special pleading?

If you are honest, your worldview is no more complete than mine, but I don't pretend to have answers that I don't have.

(November 20, 2013 at 9:16 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Only if you cannot account for the existence of such laws consistently with your materialism; they make sense in the light of my Christian theism.

Okay, let's play.

Did you know I created the universe? I did! I went back in time, in my (one use, destroyed upon return trip) time machine, and I created the universe, formatting the laws of it based upon my experiences of them while I was inside the universe. It's a stable time loop, dependent upon my existence, and since I used materials from the world to accomplish this, it's entirely consistent with materialism.

Bam. Laws accounted for, and much more convincingly than christianity, since I actually, demonstrably exist!

(November 18, 2013 at 5:22 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: How does someone with a broken "God antenna" know that their minority world view isn't the deluded state?

Reality is not a democracy. Something doesn't get more or less true depending on how many people believe it. To insist otherwise is to claim that a few hundred years ago the earth actually WAS flat.