How does one distinguish a 'belief' from a delusion?

[bhsmte]

I have a feeling that people do that to you a lot At least it seems like it from merely gleaning from your responses to various people in this thread. It eventually boils down to you being wronged somehow.

Again, this type of perceived hostility takes the fun out of conversations like these. I'd rather avoid it all-together if it invokes such frustration in you.

Nailed it!

 

[ToddNotTodd]

no, not really, in fact, most people tell me that my communication skills are in the gifted category which is evidenced in most of the discussions I get into even with people who totally don't agree with me and have problems with disagreements. Which makes the accusations here even more curious doesn't it

Especially since the non theists seem to all agree with their assessment of your communication skills.

Perhaps pointing us to another online discussion that you've had where someone has praised your skills will help.

 

[razzelflabben]

Nailed it!

???? so now the opposite of truth is nailing it? How exactly does that work for effective communication?

 

[devolved]

But how about we get back to topic and you answer the question of the OP, how do you know that your belief is truth and not delusion?

You can never know with a 100% certainty outside of internally-defined variables. Hence, I think the question maybe a bit malformed in a scope of philosophical definition of knowledge and belief. We generally "know" things with variable levels of certainty. Some beliefs are more likely to be a delusion than others.

I can answer as to how I can know that any given belief that I hold isn't likely a delusion by pointing to a methodology that would evaluate the claims of such belief... and specifically the methodology that has proven to be most reliable when it comes to testing claims in general:

1) Eliminate unnecessary presupposition and assumptions during the testing of any claim or belief.

For example, the reason we have a methodological naturalism as a framework is because it's necessary assumption that matter exists, and matter interacts with matter in a cause-effect manner. Without such assumption it would be difficult to explain or describe reality in any consistent manner.

Hence, if I've had a belief that I was raped by an ET or a demon, then I have to leave the assumption like "ETs exist" out of the door pending verification and ask myself as to why I believe that.

2) See if these unnecessary assumptions pass the independent inquiry tests, especially when it comes to plausibility. For example, do we have a good and consistent evidence that ETs exist? How many of ET rape is there, etc.

3) Ask a question like - Are there other plausible explanations that wouldn't necessitate larger assumptions about lesser known things. For example, could it be possible that the shock of rape could re-constitute as something else when it comes to the memory of the event? Ect. Are there examples in history that would support that?

If it can, then ask which explanation is more likely in the scope of known variables.



Again, I don't think that in science we are testing certainty, as much as we are testing likelihood of any given claim using a specifically-described methodology. Methodologies may differ depending on the claim.

 

[razzelflabben]

Especially since the non theists seem to all agree with their assessment of your communication skills.

Perhaps pointing us to another online discussion that you've had where someone has praised your skills will help.

how so? You all are ignoring the truth and trying to mock me anyway, which is apparently okay but trying to improve communication isn't...not sure how or what you don't understand about let's get back to the OP topic, but it is my skill that is lacking obviously.

So, let's try this again and see how my communication skills are.

Version 1....I think we should stop with this off topic discussion and get back to dealing with the OP question.
Version 2...let's get back to topic and discuss the OP question.
Version 3...let's get back to the OP question and you all answer the question how do you know your belief is truth and not delusion
Version 4...since this discussion is now off topic, we need to get back to the topic at hand.
Version 5...since this discussion is now off topic, we need to get back to the topic at hand and you all need to explain to us how you know that your beliefs are truth and not delusion.
Version 6...the OP topic is how we know that our beliefs are truth and not delusion, how about we get back to that discussion.
Version 7...since no one is willing to show me a better way to say the simple things that I say, we need to stop this discussion and go back to discussing the OP question.
Version 8...since the OP questions is asking how we know our belief is truth and not delusion, we need to get back to discussing that rather than you all continuing to mock me for the simple truths I spoke.
Version 9...Philosophers like that which are suppose to be here discussing the topic have gotten off topic trying to make me out to be a villain and a fool and we need to prevent that from happening by getting back on topic according to the OP question.
Version 10...In order to follow forum rules we need to stay on topic, the OP question is how do we know that our beliefs are truth and not delusion. I am of the personal opinion that following forum rules is important thus we need to dismiss of this back and forth and return to a discussion of the question the OPer asked in the first place.

Now, I have said this simple to understand thing 10 different ways, if I was not yet clear, I can think of a few more ways to say it, that way we know that it isn't my communication errors that are standing in the way of you all addressing what I am really saying without first reinventing it into something I am opposed to.

 

[razzelflabben]

You can never know with a 100% certainty outside of internally-defined variables. Hence, I think the question maybe a bit malformed in a scope of philosophical definition of knowledge and belief. We generally "know" things with variable levels of certainty. Some beliefs are more likely to be a delusion than others.

hum....sound like exactly what I said about a zillion times in this thread already. I'm curious, what exactly about what I said about a zillion times was not clear? Exactly please...so I can improve myself since we all know that I am delusional in thinking that since everything I say is twisted into something new by certain posters and others have the same problem with the same posters, it's all my issue and not the issue of the posters we all are having problems with. [/quote]

I can answer as to how I can know that any given belief that I hold isn't likely a delusion by pointing to a methodology that would evaluate the claims of such belief... and specifically the methodology that has proven to be most reliable when it comes to testing claims in general:[/quote] cool, took you long enough to answer, but cool none the less.

1) Eliminate unnecessary presupposition and assumptions during the testing of any claim or belief.

yep, talked about doing that, so far, all that disagreement you feigned was just non sense apparently, and instead of disagreeing with what I said, you just were trying to disagree with the conclusion you assumed I was making when I said I wouldn't talk about my personal belief because it was off topic...interesting how communication improves dramatically when you all stop trying to push your agendas or what is perceived as an agenda in every single one of your all's posts and instead just address the post as per forum rules, isn't it?

For example, the reason we have a methodological naturalism as a framework is because it's necessary assumption that matter exists, and matter interacts with matter in a cause-effect manner. Without such assumption it would be difficult to explain or describe reality in any consistent manner.

Hence, if I've had a belief that I was raped by an ET or a demon, then I have to leave the assumption like "ETs exist" out of the door pending verification and ask myself as to why I believe that.

yep, exactly what I said...I wonder why you have been insisting that we disagree when we agree on every point so far that you presented? ISn't that contradictory? isn't that a lie somewhere along the line of communication? Since I know what I believe and was very clear in communicating that, I wonder what part is the lie? Be careful not to accuse me falsely when you try to answer the question in your next post.

2) See if these unnecessary assumptions pass the independent inquiry tests, especially when it comes to plausibility. For example, do we have a good and consistent evidence that ETs exist? How many of ET rape is there, etc.

yep

3) Ask a question like - Are there other plausible explanations that wouldn't necessitate larger assumptions about lesser known things. For example, could it be possible that the shock of rape could re-constitute as something else when it comes to the memory of the event? Ect. Are there examples in history that would support that?

yep, in this discussion we had a long discussion about this very thing and I pointed it out to you all but you all disagreed with me. Which makes me wonder if you were lying before, or now....oh wait, I forgot that it is my communication that is lacking because you have done some testing to prove that it is your belief that is true and not delusion when it comes to what has happened on this thread, right? I wonder if you could show some of the tests you have done that show your belief that I am the problem is truth and not delusion. That way we can see your plan in action. That would be incredibly awesome since I have willingly and readily done that when asked about specific claims that are made. Turn about is fair play after all.

If it can, then ask which explanation is more likely in the scope of known variables.

yep...again, old news.

Again, I don't think that in science we are testing certainty, as much as we are testing likelihood of any given claim using a specifically-described methodology. Methodologies may differ depending on the claim.

and....your point and disagreement of what I said is where exactly, I don't see it...point me specifically to the disagreements you all have thought was strong enough to act poorly.

 

[devolved]

and....your point and disagreement of what I said is where exactly, I don't see it...point me specifically to the disagreements you all have thought was strong enough to act poorly.

Certainly, I think I can point a couple of things about your claims, and I'll just address the first two posts I can find... in order to avoid the long re-iteration of the discussion. I can go on, but I think the first two should suffice.

...when I first came to Christ, I prayed that if there was truth to be had, people would notice a difference without me even saying anything. Low and behold, without me saying a single word, people started noticing a difference. This is one of many measurable ways to know truth from delusion when it comes to what one believes.

The above is quite problematic in a scope of the methodology that I've described. I hope we can agree that simply because you've prayed that someone would notice a difference, and someone did notice a difference ... is not any measure or the test of the veracity of beliefs that you hold.

Let's look at the first of the fruit of the Spirit, Love...Love is something that is measurable and has specific criteria as laid out in I Cor. 13. Anything that does NOT hold all the characteristics of I Cor. 13 is NOT Love. That makes it measurable and you don't need belief to measure of know if it is there or not.

I don't necessarily disagree with conditions above, except for how you proceed to apply the measurement below:

You do need the HS for it to be there and you need belief to have the HS but that is where the testimony of others comes into the picture.

You seem to assume in the above that you need the HS to have these qualities, and again... it's not a necessary assumption in this case. That's something that we are looking to find out and test, right? Hence we have to separately test whether you indeed need HS for these to be there or not. It's an additional assumption to what we generally observe if we remove presuppositions.

Their living out Love gives us reason to believe, but not enough reason, because we have to add all the other fruit and test it before we can draw a conclusion...so let's say we test 1. Love and the test comes back that give the criteria, it is truth...cool, so we go to 2. Joy...now joy here is that joy which defies the understanding of the world. IOW's this is a supernatural joy that does not rely on circumstances.

Again, you presuppose that the joy you are talking about is indeed supernatural, and that's again what I'm talking about. You have to first demonstrate that such joy is indeed supernatural, before you move on to apply your tests.

You presuppose a lot of unnecessary concepts when we are talking about of taking some claim and moving it through the methodology I've described above.

 

[razzelflabben]

Certainly, I think I can point a couple of things about your claims, and I'll just address the first two posts I can find... in order to avoid the long re-iteration of the discussion. I can go on, but I think the first two should suffice.



The above is quite problematic in a scope of the methodology that I've described. I hope we can agree that simply because you've prayed that someone would notice a difference, and someone did notice a difference ... is not any measure or the test of the veracity of beliefs that you hold.

yep..in fact, in context I was responding to something totally different which I am sure you are aware of given the vast number of times we have talked. In fact, in the post in question I was referring to a claim that there is no difference between a true believer and the religious, it had NOTHING at all to do with testing. Testing is a vastly different thing as I have repeatedly demonstrated in my posts.

Now, since I am talking with someone who has demonstrated in your posts the difficulty you have with my communication skills let me say this another way. In the post where you are trying to claim that I am saying that praying there would be a difference is somehow the opposite of what I am saying and thus some unknown claim about testing a difference, I am not sure what you want me to say other than you are misrepresenting the points of the post.

Version 3....since the post in question is NOT addressing how we would test for X but only demonstrating that Y does exist, it is a misrepresentation of what I said for you to claim that I said it was a test for X.

Version 4...If I had been showing in that post a test for X then you would be justified in your claim here, however, the post in question is not talking about a test for X at all but rather and example of Y. Thus your inflating what was said so that you can make an argument against something I didn't claim.

Version 5...If you notice what I said in context, I did NOT say that this was a test to know if something was true or delusion, rather I said that here is an example of something we can test for. See, context is important to understanding any communication. Taking it out of context creates communication problems and since you took it out of context and did not read for meaning, and attempts to correct were not successful, it is apparently me who can't communicate. That is why I offer you here in this single post 5 different ways of saying the exact same thing, because at least that way, I have shortened this non sense by 5 posts of me correcting your "misunderstanding" of what was corrected multiple times. What I am saying in that quote as per the context and wording is that this is evidence that there is something we can test for, not that this is some test for something or whatever it is you want to pretend it says.

I don't necessarily disagree with conditions above, except for how you proceed to apply the measurement below:



You seem to assume in the above that you need the HS to have these qualities, and again... it's not a necessary assumption in this case. That's something that we are looking to find out and test, right? Hence we have to separately test whether you indeed need HS for these to be there or not. It's an additional assumption to what we generally observe if we remove presuppositions.

Now, how many times over did I correct you on this one as well? So let me see if I can again shorten this by at least 5 posts and repeat myself over and over in a variety of different wordings.

Version 1...according to the context and wording what I am saying is that the claim from the Bible is what we are testing for, the claim the Bible makes is that it is the HS that is the source of Love.

Version 2...the claim we are talking about testing at this time is the claim that the HS is the source of Love. Thus it is the "assumption" that the claim we are testing is making.

Version 3...I have repeatedly told you that each claim hold a different set of tests. In the claim we are talking about above, the claim is that the Love we measure and find to fit the criteria is by the HS.

Version 4...it's all about what claim we are testing for. the claim we are talking about testing for in this discussion is the claim that the HS is responsible for the Love we are measuring and discovering. If we want to test a different claim then we need to know what that claim is and what would be a test for it. In fact, we had a whole discussion about that on this thread and how the claim determines the tests not the other way around.

Version 5...Previously we discussed how a specific claim required a specific set of tests. In the claim above, scripture claims that the HS is the source of Love (I Cor. 13 love) if we want to test that claim, there are some specific tests we can do. If the claim changes, the tests much change to reflect that new claim. It is all about the claim we are choosing to test at the moment.

Is that clear enough given this was a huge long part of the thread discussion? I don't know, my communication skills are apparently so low that I couldn't possibly be able to express my ideas accurately, right? In fact, it appears that my communication skills are so lacking that you and other posters have to reinvent what I say just so you can make sense out of my words, right? You all still haven't shown me other more effective ways to communicate my actual thoughts and opinions of the matter. It would be most helpful to my learning to communicate for you to take the time to do so.

Again, you presuppose that the joy you are talking about is indeed supernatural, and that's again what I'm talking about. You have to first demonstrate that such joy is indeed supernatural, before you move on to apply your tests.

well since what we are talking about is whether or not the claim that these things come from the HS is able to be tested or not, I'm not sure what would compel us to test for something totally irrelevant to the claim being made? I mean I talked about the claim that these things were from the HS and tests we could do to test the claim to which I was badgered and mocked because we can't test for some other claim using these tests....now, I know I am pretty dumb and even incredible slow as my skill in communication testifies, right? But last time I checked, it was not logical or rational thought to say....the tests we can use to determine claim X can also be used to claim the unrelated claims of Y, Z, A, and B. Which is what you all tried to claim I was saying. Claim X is tested by objective criteria for claim X and nothing more or less. That is my position.

Version 2...I claim that if we want to know if claim X is valid, we test for X. Then, if we want to know if claim Y is valid we must change the tests to test for Y.

Version 3...(boy this is getting old, but if it shortens the posts and helps with communication I guess I have no choice) I believe that there are specific test for each claim we want to test for. Therefore if the claim is that the HS causes X then we would need specific tests for show if the HS can or does cause X or if that claim is falsified.

Version 4....When I give an example of a biblical claim that we can test and an example of tests we could do and measure for that claim, I am NOT suggesting that those tests would be used for every claim that we could make about God.

Version 5...What I am saying as per context of the discussion and corrections made previously and now is that the tests we do for any claim depend on the claim that is being made and tested and not some whim that would glean a favorable conclusion to our previously held beliefs. See, I am saying the exact opposite of what you claim I am saying as per the context and corrections that could possibly happen with poor communication skills.

You presuppose a lot of unnecessary concepts when we are talking about of taking some claim and moving it through the methodology I've described above.

Then it is your burden of proof to show that without all the misrepresentations you have provided in this post. See, and I hope it is not necessary for me to repeat this 5 times in order for me to be able to communicate what I am saying. It is NOT evidence to take what someone says, claim they said the opposite then say, see, I have just shown you evidence that you are wrong.

Shall I reword that for you? Taking what someone says, twisting it into the opposite then claiming you have evidence that the poster in question is wrong in their beliefs, is misleading, rude, and in all other ways not only dishonest but inflammatory.

Now, that being said, miscommunication happens to the best communicators, that is why corrections and clarifications are so important. However, when those clarifications and corrections are ignored in order for certain posters to assert their new version it falls to the above misleading, rude and otherwise dishonest inflammatory responses. But since it is all my fault and the corrections and clarifications that are throughout this thread never happened, then I need you to show me how to reword my opinions and ideas for communication purposes or is that why you haven't helped me learn how to communicate yet, because all the above rewording isn't even enough to help you understand what I believe about the topic and what I am saying about the topic at hand? Is that why you won't show me an effective way to say what I am trying to communicate with you all?

 

[devolved]

yep..in fact, in context I was responding to something totally different which I am sure you are aware of given the vast number of times we have talked. In fact, in the post in question I was referring to a claim that there is no difference between a true believer and the religious, it had NOTHING at all to do with testing. Testing is a vastly different thing as I have repeatedly demonstrated in my posts.

I don't think that it matters in context of the claim that you are making when it comes to the question that's asked... and the question was exceptionally clear, and you've answered DIRECTLY to that question.

The question you've answered was:

Again, this sounds like very introspective, personal analysis. How would you know that it reflects reality and is not simply a concoction of the mind?

Your answer was...

Because other people see it too...when I first came to Christ, I prayed that if there was truth to be had, people would notice a difference without me even saying anything. Low and behold, without me saying a single word, people started noticing a difference. This is one of many measurable ways to know truth from delusion when it comes to what one believes.

You gave an answer to the above question right? So, it's a claim and a reason that you give as to how you know that it reflects a reality and not merely a personal opinion. It is an evidence that you presented as an answer to the question.

So, saying that it's "out of context" is dishonest IMO. In fact, no matter which context you put that answer in, it would still be wrong when we are talking about methodology I've described.

Version 3....since the post in question is NOT addressing how we would test for X but only demonstrating that Y does exist, it is a misrepresentation of what I said for you to claim that I said it was a test for X.

The post in question actually addressed the question of "How" directly. It asks "How would you know that it reflects reality and not simply a concoction of your mind". You have answered a How question, and you presented a certain scenario of:

1) I prayed for people noticing
2) People did notice
3) I didn't say a single word
4) This is one of the measurable ways to know the truth from delusion

You actually said that it was one of the measurable ways. So, how else should I take it? You've asked me to present anything that I disagree with. I find a stand alone claim, and you now say that it's out of context

Version 4...If I had been showing in that post a test for X then you would be justified in your claim here, however, the post in question is not talking about a test for X at all but rather and example of Y. Thus your inflating what was said so that you can make an argument against something I didn't claim.

Please re-read the above

Version 5...If you notice what I said in context, I did NOT say that this was a test to know if something was true or delusion, rather I said that here is an example of something we can test for. See, context is important to understanding any communication. Taking it out of context creates communication problems and since you took it out of context and did not read for meaning, and attempts to correct were not successful, it is apparently me who can't communicate. That is why I offer you here in this single post 5 different ways of saying the exact same thing, because at least that way, I have shortened this non sense by 5 posts of me correcting your "misunderstanding" of what was corrected multiple times. What I am saying in that quote as per the context and wording is that this is evidence that there is something we can test for, not that this is some test for something or whatever it is you want to pretend it says.

The word "example" doesn't show in that reply, and that's the problem .

But you seem to miss the point entirely.

It doesn't matter which context we plop this reply. Even in context of the example, it still would be false. That's not how we know, and it's not something we measure, because it's actually an example of false correlation in the way you framed that example.

So, either attempt to defend what you've said in any context as a statemt, or agree that it doesn't conclusively provides any support for anything other than you did pray, and that people did notice difference. Putting these in the same sentence in a reply to "how can you tell that it's not a concoction of your mind", is an attempt to link these two as a correlation. If you can't recognize at least that, how can we hold an honest discussion?

 

[devolved]

Version 1...according to the context and wording what I am saying is that the claim from the Bible is what we are testing for, the claim the Bible makes is that it is the HS that is the source of Love.

But, before you conclusively test it and demonstrate it to be so... you can't proceed with that assumption. It would not be a justified assumption to make.

Do you agree or disagree?

Version 2...the claim we are talking about testing at this time is the claim that the HS is the source of Love. Thus it is the "assumption" that the claim we are testing is making.

I thought you've agreed with a methodology that I proposed? You shouldn't put assumption in quotes there, because it is an unwarranted assumption.

All claims should be tested independently. In the example I gave you, we can't proceed to testing whether a demon is responsible for rape before we conclude the fact that there is evidence for existence of the demons. It would be unwarranted assumption. Thus it has a greater potential for false correlation and confirmation bias.

Again, you seem to misunderstand the basic methodology of research when it comes to making excessive and unjustified assumptions.

Version 3...I have repeatedly told you that each claim hold a different set of tests. In the claim we are talking about above, the claim is that the Love we measure and find to fit the criteria is by the HS.

And I have repeatedly told you that reliable methodology doesn't allow assumptions like these prior to independent demonstration of plausibility passes for making such assumptions necessary.

Whether it fits certain criteria is irrelevant when it comes to the nature of how confirmation bias works when it comes to falsely correlating causes and effects.

Version 4...it's all about what claim we are testing for. the claim we are talking about testing for in this discussion is the claim that the HS is responsible for the Love we are measuring and discovering. If we want to test a different claim then we need to know what that claim is and what would be a test for it. In fact, we had a whole discussion about that on this thread and how the claim determines the tests not the other way around.

Again. I'm all for progressive testing, once the certain assumptions have been justified.

I can't say the same about the alien example. I wouldn't say "Well, it's all about the claim that we testing, and that Alien rape fits certain description of the claims". It wouldn't matter. First we need to justify the primary assumption that Aliens exist before testing of Alien rape concept can be plausible in any way.

Is that clear enough given this was a huge long part of the thread discussion? I don't know, my communication skills are apparently so low that I couldn't possibly be able to express my ideas accurately, right? In fact, it appears that my communication skills are so lacking that you and other posters have to reinvent what I say just so you can make sense out of my words, right? You all still haven't shown me other more effective ways to communicate my actual thoughts and opinions of the matter. It would be most helpful to my learning to communicate for you to take the time to do so.

Yes, it is clear. Do you understand my objections.

If you are going to include assumptions in tests that you claim, these assumptions have to be justified.

 

[devolved]

Claim X is tested by objective criteria for claim X and nothing more or less. That is my position.

That's true. But if you are going to use the results from the test of claim X on testing claim Y, then you first need to demonstrate that the claim X is valid.

That's all I've been trying to point to all along. Prior to demonstrating that it's plausible that aliens exist, we can't move on to testing the claim of alien rape with any sort outcome of certainty. If we merely go by claims of other people and then matching these with our case, then we merely correlate the claims and not necessarily correlate the reality of these claims.

 

[razzelflabben]

I don't think that it matters in context of the claim that you are making when it comes to the question that's asked... and the question was exceptionally clear, and you've answered DIRECTLY to that question.

The question you've answered was:

Again, this sounds like very introspective, personal analysis. How would you know that it reflects reality and is not simply a concoction of the mind?

Your answer was...

Because other people see it too...when I first came to Christ, I prayed that if there was truth to be had, people would notice a difference without me even saying anything. Low and behold, without me saying a single word, people started noticing a difference. This is one of many measurable ways to know truth from delusion when it comes to what one believes.

You gave an answer to the above question right? So, it's a claim and a reason that you give as to how you know that it reflects a reality and not merely a personal opinion. It is an evidence that you presented as an answer to the question.

So, saying that it's "out of context" is dishonest IMO. In fact, no matter which context you put that answer in, it would still be wrong when we are talking about methodology I've described.

so now, your refusal to look at context and accept correction of your misrepresentation are my communication errors....interesting. From my experience that would mean that what you are believing is a delusion because context and clarification are both important to knowing truth and since you are discarding both you apparently don't think they are important to distinguishing truth from delusion and I disagree. I think both are vital to both good communication and to knowing truth from delusion. At least we cleared up both claims in one simple little confession in this post. Thanks for finally answering the question, that you dismiss both context and clarification and find that to reveal truth not delusion. I respectfully disagree as I think most people would. Especially when they are the ones being misrepresented and ignored. I would say that this admission ends our discussion. Oh, and as I pointed out, the comment was not about methodology, but I repeated that 5 different ways and you still didn't get it. I'm saying that is pretty good evidence it isn't my communication that is the problem

The post in question actually addressed the question of "How" directly. It asks "How would you know that it reflects reality and not simply a concoction of your mind". You have answered a How question, and you presented a certain scenario of:

1) I prayed for people noticing
2) People did notice
3) I didn't say a single word
4) This is one of the measurable ways to know the truth from delusion

You actually said that it was one of the measurable ways. So, how else should I take it? You've asked me to present anything that I disagree with. I find a stand alone claim, and you now say that it's out of context



Please re-read the above

see above...You confess to leaving out context and refuse to accept correction of what I said/intended and that means there is nothing to talk about because you are just posting imaginary conversations with yourself and claiming you are responding to me. Which seems to me to be a delusion on your part, but the OP is not asking us to remove other peoples delusions only discuss how one would know delusion from truth. Your post here shows a perfect example of how one would allow themselves to become delusional about what others are saying. It is rude and disrespectful to do this to others and even inflammatory, but since no one else seems to care, I will be ignoring you unless or until you show some signs in your posts of dismissing what seems obvious is a delusion about what I said and start addressing the truths of what I said and am saying.

The word "example" doesn't show in that reply, and that's the problem .

it does in context, but you think you can know truth without context apparently as you state above, so we disagree, I think context is vital to knowing truth. As well, I think that if you can't accept correction or clarification from the person in question, you are pretty sure to believe delusion rather than truth. Just my personal opinion.

But you seem to miss the point entirely.

It doesn't matter which context we plop this reply. Even in context of the example, it still would be false. That's not how we know, and it's not something we measure, because it's actually an example of false correlation in the way you framed that example.

since I did NOT say we know by this example, it would seem obvious you are believing a delusion about what I said.

So, either attempt to defend what you've said in any context as a statemt, or agree that it doesn't conclusively provides any support for anything other than you did pray, and that people did notice difference. Putting these in the same sentence in a reply to "how can you tell that it's not a concoction of your mind", is an attempt to link these two as a correlation. If you can't recognize at least that, how can we hold an honest discussion?

see above....I think we are done if all you can show in your posts is a determination to believe the delusions you have created of what I said and who I am. There is no way of actually communicating effectively with someone who shows delusion for what another person says, that is why we are done. Have a great day.

 

[devolved]

Version 2...I claim that if we want to know if claim X is valid, we test for X. Then, if we want to know if claim Y is valid we must change the tests to test for Y.

Yes but your assumptions are progressively dependent. If the first level of your test fails, so the entire pyramid of your assumptions that progressively make it into every other claim... and that's the point.

What is the very first thing that you have to test for to make sure that the subsequent conclusions are valid?

Version 3...(boy this is getting old, but if it shortens the posts and helps with communication I guess I have no choice) I believe that there are specific test for each claim we want to test for. Therefore if the claim is that the HS causes X then we would need specific tests for show if the HS can or does cause X or if that claim is falsified.

See the above

Version 4....When I give an example of a biblical claim that we can test and an example of tests we could do and measure for that claim, I am NOT suggesting that those tests would be used for every claim that we could make about God.

I understand. See the above. You have to understand the methodological progression of justifying certain assumptions.

If there is not way to conclusively test the very first assumption that the rest of the claims are based on, then nothing subsequent will make sense.

What is your core assumption or claim that you are going to test that?

 

[devolved]

so now, your refusal to look at context and accept correction of your misrepresentation are my communication errors....interesting. From my experience that would mean that what you are believing is a delusion because context and clarification are both important to knowing truth and since you are discarding both you apparently don't think they are important to distinguishing truth from delusion and I disagree. I think both are vital to both good communication and to knowing truth from delusion. At least we cleared up both claims in one simple little confession in this post. Thanks for finally answering the question, that you dismiss both context and clarification and find that to reveal truth not delusion. I respectfully disagree as I think most people would. Especially when they are the ones being misrepresented and ignored. I would say that this admission ends our discussion. Oh, and as I pointed out, the comment was not about methodology, but I repeated that 5 different ways and you still didn't get it. I'm saying that is pretty good evidence it isn't my communication that is the problem see above...You confess to leaving out context and refuse to accept correction of what I said/intended and that means there is nothing to talk about because you are just posting imaginary conversations with yourself and claiming you are responding to me. Which seems to me to be a delusion on your part, but the OP is not asking us to remove other peoples delusions only discuss how one would know delusion from truth. Your post here shows a perfect example of how one would allow themselves to become delusional about what others are saying. It is rude and disrespectful to do this to others and even inflammatory, but since no one else seems to care, I will be ignoring you unless or until you show some signs in your posts of dismissing what seems obvious is a delusion about what I said and start addressing the truths of what I said and am saying. it does in context, but you think you can know truth without context apparently as you state above, so we disagree, I think context is vital to knowing truth. As well, I think that if you can't accept correction or clarification from the person in question, you are pretty sure to believe delusion rather than truth. Just my personal opinion. since I did NOT say we know by this example, it would seem obvious you are believing a delusion about what I said. see above....I think we are done if all you can show in your posts is a determination to believe the delusions you have created of what I said and who I am. There is no way of actually communicating effectively with someone who shows delusion for what another person says, that is why we are done. Have a great day.

I didn't refuse to look at the context.

I've actually said that it doesn't matter which context you put that claim in... it still would not fit the the methodology that I presented.

I didn't admit missing the context. I've actually presented the context of the question that you are replying to. You've answered the question of "How do you know that it's not a figment of your imagination". That's the only context I'm framing it in, and ever need to frame it in.

It doesn't matter if it was an example. It followed the false methodology.

You've asked me to present an example of where my methodology would disagree, and I did. The methodology doesn't proceed to tests until we eliminate assumptions, and I've demonstrated that you are assuming too much... hence that's the only thing I did. I didn't address anything in the scope of testing. I merely pointed out that you make claims that assume without justification.... in any context of that example.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

how so? You all are ignoring the truth and trying to mock me anyway, which is apparently okay but trying to improve communication isn't...not sure how or what you don't understand about let's get back to the OP topic, but it is my skill that is lacking obviously.

So, let's try this again and see how my communication skills are.

Version 1....I think we should stop with this off topic discussion and get back to dealing with the OP question.
Version 2...let's get back to topic and discuss the OP question.
Version 3...let's get back to the OP question and you all answer the question how do you know your belief is truth and not delusion
Version 4...since this discussion is now off topic, we need to get back to the topic at hand.
Version 5...since this discussion is now off topic, we need to get back to the topic at hand and you all need to explain to us how you know that your beliefs are truth and not delusion.
Version 6...the OP topic is how we know that our beliefs are truth and not delusion, how about we get back to that discussion.
Version 7...since no one is willing to show me a better way to say the simple things that I say, we need to stop this discussion and go back to discussing the OP question.
Version 8...since the OP questions is asking how we know our belief is truth and not delusion, we need to get back to discussing that rather than you all continuing to mock me for the simple truths I spoke.
Version 9...Philosophers like that which are suppose to be here discussing the topic have gotten off topic trying to make me out to be a villain and a fool and we need to prevent that from happening by getting back on topic according to the OP question.
Version 10...In order to follow forum rules we need to stay on topic, the OP question is how do we know that our beliefs are truth and not delusion. I am of the personal opinion that following forum rules is important thus we need to dismiss of this back and forth and return to a discussion of the question the OPer asked in the first place.

Now, I have said this simple to understand thing 10 different ways, if I was not yet clear, I can think of a few more ways to say it, that way we know that it isn't my communication errors that are standing in the way of you all addressing what I am really saying without first reinventing it into something I am opposed to.

I think the most prudent thing for me to do is cease this conversation and converse with posters who are less... vitriolic.

 

[razzelflabben]

I think the most prudent thing for me to do is cease this conversation and converse with posters who are less... vitriolic.

interesting, I show that the issue isn't me and I am called vitriolic and that isn't inflammatory....it's it interesting that any time a someone who identifies with christianity in some respect that doesn't just give canned answers is somehow vitriolic? Seems to me the evidence shows that some posters here got very agitated when I didn't fit their stereotype and that hurt feelings so they insisted on poor behavior so they could make false accusations and call me names....which is exactly what my son said would happen because from every single atheist he has met, that is the way things go. No matter who presents an argument that doesn't fit their template, they get upset and start twisting arguments into their template instead of just civil discussion. Personally, I have only met one that didn't fit this disturbing behavior. None the less, it is unfortunate that some here refuse to just have a discussion based on ideas and opinions without resorting to reinventions and otherwise bad behavior and when called on it, called to a standard consistent with the rules, you all run away and call me names and insult my character. I get pride is a very difficult thing to control, but that is no reason to violate rational behavior just because you were not given a canned answer you know how to mock. At least, that is the logical, rational, tested conclusion to all these many posts on this thread. Have a great day.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

interesting, I show that the issue isn't me and I am called vitriolic and that isn't inflammatory....it's it interesting that any time a someone who identifies with christianity in some respect that doesn't just give canned answers is somehow vitriolic? Seems to me the evidence shows that some posters here got very agitated when I didn't fit their stereotype and that hurt feelings so they insisted on poor behavior so they could make false accusations and call me names....which is exactly what my son said would happen because from every single atheist he has met, that is the way things go. No matter who presents an argument that doesn't fit their template, they get upset and start twisting arguments into their template instead of just civil discussion. Personally, I have only met one that didn't fit this disturbing behavior. None the less, it is unfortunate that some here refuse to just have a discussion based on ideas and opinions without resorting to reinventions and otherwise bad behavior and when called on it, called to a standard consistent with the rules, you all run away and call me names and insult my character. I get pride is a very difficult thing to control, but that is no reason to violate rational behavior just because you were not given a canned answer you know how to mock. At least, that is the logical, rational, tested conclusion to all these many posts on this thread. Have a great day.

Odd, I think if you took a poll of the non-theists here, there would be a different view of things than what you believe to be true.

Just remember that I'm not one that calls people's arguments "stupid" and "insane".

 

[razzelflabben]

Odd, I think if you took a poll of the non-theists here, there would be a different view of things than what you believe to be true.

Just remember that I'm not one that calls people's arguments "stupid" and "insane".

exactly, I'm not your typical theist, which is what I just pointed out to you and why people get upset instead of just discussing and learning from each other....duh. So, you try to mock me by supporting the point I made and that at least one poster on this thread confessed was the problem, I am not your typical theist which get's people upset because they only know how to respond to canned arguments they have been taught. IOW's when I come to the philosophy thread looking for people who think things through and find only people willing to regurgitate what they have been taught to respond it is a problem, but the problem does not lie with me, but with those who try to pain themselves as thinkers when they aren't.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

exactly, I'm not your typical theist, which is what I just pointed out to you and why people get upset instead of just discussing and learning from each other....duh. So, you try to mock me by supporting the point I made and that at least one poster on this thread confessed was the problem, I am not your typical theist which get's people upset because they only know how to respond to canned arguments they have been taught. IOW's when I come to the philosophy thread looking for people who think things through and find only people willing to regurgitate what they have been taught to respond it is a problem, but the problem does not lie with me, but with those who try to pain themselves as thinkers when they aren't.

So do you believe that being as rude as you are is a good Christian thing to do? I mean, even in this post, the "duh" is rude and something you could be reported for. Is this really how you want to portray yourself to others?

 

[razzelflabben]

So do you believe that being as rude as you are is a good Christian thing to do? I mean, even in this post, the "duh" is rude and something you could be reported for. Is this really how you want to portray yourself to others?

hum....so now, saying that you just repeated what I said is rude...interesting, I think we must have a definition problem on this thread.