Theists, are you immune to being decieved?

[The Reality Salesman01]

Dammit Esquilax! I was gonna get there, I was giving him a chance to be honest.

[Esquilax]

Dammit Esquilax! I was gonna get there, I was giving him a chance to be honest.

Hesitation is weakness.

[The Reality Salesman01]

This is chess, not checkers. It was more creative than my effort was going to allow. Plus, I enjoy reading your input.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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?

Not exactly. The word ‘miracle’ distinguishes between two types of events: those that a rare and, yes, exceptional, and those that are common and regular.

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.

Pretty much. Though I would put it this way. Through His intervention, God reveals to us that the laws we have formulated to describe the natural world do not fully encompass the spiritual reality of which we are a part.

...and they always occur in such a way that we cannot know it until we're hearing it second hand?

Unless of course they happen to you. And doesn’t everything we know about things far away and in the past come to us second hand?

...(you are not) saying that it happens, it's verifiable and we just can't explain it.

The lack of explanation alone does not make something qualify as a miracle. I’m not an expert in miracles, but inexplicability seems to be a necessary aspect of miracles.

...it's said to have happened, it's not witnessed or verifiable,...

Not so. Proported miracles have been witnessed. That’s why they have been said to have happened, i.e. someone witnessed it. If the witness is credible and there is more than one such witness, that may qualify as verification. But the old adage applies, for the atheist no evidence is sufficient while for the believer any will do.

[The Reality Salesman01]

I'm curious where one would draw the line then. Keeping in line with our conversation about delusions. Where does reality end and fantasy begin? How does one with the standard you've described rationally distinguish the two?

Or are you saying that it's irrelevant to you?

[Lion IRC]

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....

Actually, reality is very much a matter of consensus.
...and peer review and probability and corroboration of shared experiences.

---

Epistemology -
Defined narrowly, epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief.

[Esquilax]

Actually, reality is very much a matter of consensus.
...and peer review and probability and corroboration of shared experiences.

Let's test that: if I have a rock, and a billion people say there isn't a rock there, does the rock cease to exist?

[Neo-Scholastic]

If a majority of scientists say that climate change is human caused, does that make it true?

Where does reality end and fantasy begin? I think that question is too broad because you must first start with a definition of reality and then establish categories of being then...yikes! Excuse me, but I have a video I want to watch.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Reality is not a democracy. Something doesn't get more or less true depending on how many people believe it....

Actually, reality is very much a matter of consensus.
...and peer review and probability and corroboration of shared experiences.

---

Epistemology -
Defined narrowly, epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief.

Google has failed you in your narrow interpretation of epistemology and it's definition within the context at hand. "Faith" is your epistemology. Defend it against evidence driven epistemology to continue in this exchange of thoughts.

---

If a majority of scientists say that climate change is human caused, does that make it true?

Where does reality end and fantasy begin? I think that question is too broad because you must first start with a definition of reality and then establish categories of being then...yikes! Excuse me, but I have a video I want to watch.

Enjoy!

[Esquilax]

If a majority of scientists say that climate change is human caused, does that make it true?

Yes, assuming their research is verifiably correct, replicable, and peer reviewed. That's the thing: this isn't just a matter of opinion, but one of demonstrability. Reality isn't one way because it's the opinion of a number of people: a number of people have that opinion because it's reality, and demonstrably so.