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

[razzelflabben]

It's a matter of interpretation. Events that seem unexpected, such as a compassionate response to meeting your burglar in person, or an amazing coincidence, can be interpreted differently.

yep and if the root of each is consistently the same, at the very least we should be suspicious that the roots that are the same might have something to do with it.

Someone familiar with the psychology of the former example might interpret it as a reaffirming example of human interpersonal response, someone else might see it as exemplifying 'Love in the HS'; someone familiar with probability and statistics might interpret the latter as an interesting example of a low probability event that would be expected to occur rarely, while someone else might interpret it as a miracle.

which is why it must be tested, but you all seem to not get that for some strange reason.

Let me tell you another story. I have mentioned I have an agnostic son. He has seen the things I am telling you time and time again and still doesn't believe in God. Yet, he is very good about being objective and he himself will point out to you on various occasions that so and so was not living in the HS (a HS he doesn't believe in mind you) in a specific instance. IOW's your sitting here trying to argue that the things that you know exist are not from God because your only tests remove God from the equation. What I am telling you is that God is one of the variables we have to test for in our discussion and removing that variable doesn't make your case. In fact, when you all try so hard to remove that variable, you are in reality making my case for me.

It seems to me that once we have a rational explanation and understanding of the nature of the event and its context, attribution of supernatural agency is redundant ('God of the gaps' comes to mind). YMMV

Not at all, God is just one of the variables we need to look at and see if there is a consistency to the claim. The God of the gaps theory applies God no matter what the evidence claims, that is the exact opposite of what I am telling you...but, you have to know that by now

 

[amariselle]

When I see human beings being loving and compassionate toward one another, I don't see the workings of a god. Rather, I see human beings being loving and compassionate toward one another, which is something they are capable of doing without any supernatural intervention.

Fair enough.

 

[razzelflabben]

When I see human beings being loving and compassionate toward one another, I don't see the workings of a god. Rather, I see human beings being loving and compassionate toward one another, which is something they are capable of doing without any supernatural intervention.

but remember, in this discussion we are talking about testing these things not just observing them. In testing we need to look at as many of the variables we can think of to look at, including but not limited to God. If there is a consistency, that would at the very least suggest that we have found something to consider truth not delusion. If no consistency, then it can be discarded as delusion. You all keep showing examples that remove God as a variable then try to claim the test is flawed or at least the conclusion is flawed. This line of reasoning that removes the variable we are testing for is delusional from the standpoint of looking for truth vs. knowing what is delusion.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

but remember, in this discussion we are talking about testing these things not just observing them. In testing we need to look at as many of the variables we can think of to look at, including but not limited to God. If there is a consistency, that would at the very least suggest that we have found something to consider truth not delusion. If no consistency, then it can be discarded as delusion. You all keep showing examples that remove God as a variable then try to claim the test is flawed or at least the conclusion is flawed. This line of reasoning that removes the variable we are testing for is delusional from the standpoint of looking for truth vs. knowing what is delusion.

What "test" are you referring to here? I see a particular claim, namely that a god is responsible for certain human activities. How shall we test that claim? It seems unfalsifiable to me. Even we had a good explanation for those activities, in terms of psychology and neuroscience, the theist could still insist that we haven't shown that a god is not somehow involved.

 

[razzelflabben]

What "test" are you referring to here? I see a particular claim, namely that a god is responsible for certain human activities. How shall we test that claim? It seems unfalsifiable to me. Even we had a good explanation for those activities, in terms of psychology and neuroscience, the theist could still insist that we haven't shown that a god is not somehow involved.

Wow, at this point in the conversation I don't know whether to cry or scream....so, let's summarize as best as I know how and see if that clears things up for you.

1. the question we are exploring is how to know whether what one believes is truth or delusion.
2. as discussed, it is impossible to know for sure but we can reduce the chances of believing a delusion by testing the claims that are related to our belief.
3. in order to test the claims of what it believed, one first much know the claims they want to test. In the case of our discussion, those claims come from the Bible which claims to be the trustworthy word of God.
4. of the claims that are made, we discard those that cannot be measured and keep those that can be measured as per a long discussion that was full of examples I was asked to give only to be told that when asking for examples of what things we could test for, what was really being asked for is examples of the tests...it's a whole long discussion, you can review it yourself.
5. Now, we take those claims and see if they are consistent with what we can measure. If in all of the tests we conduct, the evidence says yes this is consistent, you know 100% right 100% of the time, not testing everyone all the time as some tried to twist the claim then is it logical to say, this source is truth where as a source that does not test positive all the time is not truth, thus most likely a delusion.
6. as previously talked about, this is not absolute in that we are talking about beliefs but it is logical as per the example of Joe who has always been truthful in what he said, one day he tells his kids, I'll take you to the park at 2...the kids would have no logical reason to doubt the claim that hasn't yet been evidenced because all the times previously that were a kind of test were positive, thus no logical reason to think that Joe taking the kids to the park at 2 is a delusion, lots of reason to think it is truth....the same applies to this discussion.
which brings us the to specific questions you are asking 7. the tests we are talking about involve the claims being made in this case by God through the Bible. They are measurable things, now where it is true that something else could be at work and even true that we can find an alternate explanation which all must be taken into consideration thus tested... we also can look for consistency...so, let's say that we are (to make this manageable nothing more or less, don't confuse the number of tests or something with what point is being made) let's say we have 100 people who all test positive for the thing that we are currently testing. Of those 100, there is evidence that God is being claimed as the source and evidence of that is present....remember we are testing so this is an oversimplification for making a point...we conclude that where we can explain person 1,3,6 as having X source, and 2,10, and 11 as Y source, the one thing they all have in common is God is evidence of the claim that God is the source.

Now, let's take another 100 people and this time all claim God as the source and only 90 of them test positive for the thing we are testing for. So, we look at see, hum, of the 10 that didn't test positive, all of them base their beliefs on what man tells them about God not on what God tells them about Himself through the bible. Thus we would conclude that 1. there is a difference between claims God makes of Himself in the Bible and claims men make of Him or 2. there is no consistency at all and we must look deeper at the variable. Notice that testing is not just saying, I see X therefore my worldview concludes Y as is being argued, but rather it is actually testing and looking for all the possibles not just the ones that fit our own personal world view.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Wow, at this point in the conversation I don't know whether to cry or scream....so, let's summarize as best as I know how and see if that clears things up for you.

1. the question we are exploring is how to know whether what one believes is truth or delusion.
2. as discussed, it is impossible to know for sure but we can reduce the chances of believing a delusion by testing the claims that are related to our belief.
3. in order to test the claims of what it believed, one first much know the claims they want to test. In the case of our discussion, those claims come from the Bible which claims to be the trustworthy word of God.
4. of the claims that are made, we discard those that cannot be measured and keep those that can be measured as per a long discussion that was full of examples I was asked to give only to be told that when asking for examples of what things we could test for, what was really being asked for is examples of the tests...it's a whole long discussion, you can review it yourself.
5. Now, we take those claims and see if they are consistent with what we can measure. If in all of the tests we conduct, the evidence says yes this is consistent, you know 100% right 100% of the time, not testing everyone all the time as some tried to twist the claim then is it logical to say, this source is truth where as a source that does not test positive all the time is not truth, thus most likely a delusion.
6. as previously talked about, this is not absolute in that we are talking about beliefs but it is logical as per the example of Joe who has always been truthful in what he said, one day he tells his kids, I'll take you to the park at 2...the kids would have no logical reason to doubt the claim that hasn't yet been evidenced because all the times previously that were a kind of test were positive, thus no logical reason to think that Joe taking the kids to the park at 2 is a delusion, lots of reason to think it is truth....the same applies to this discussion.
which brings us the to specific questions you are asking 7. the tests we are talking about involve the claims being made in this case by God through the Bible.

Stop right there. How do you know that these claims are made by a god? That would seem to be assuming your conclusion, wouldn't it?

They are measurable things, now where it is true that something else could be at work and even true that we can find an alternate explanation which all must be taken into consideration thus tested... we also can look for consistency...so, let's say that we are (to make this manageable nothing more or less, don't confuse the number of tests or something with what point is being made) let's say we have 100 people who all test positive for the thing that we are currently testing. Of those 100, there is evidence that God is being claimed as the source and evidence of that is present....remember we are testing so this is an oversimplification for making a point...we conclude that where we can explain person 1,3,6 as having X source, and 2,10, and 11 as Y source, the one thing they all have in common is God is evidence of the claim that God is the source.

Now, let's take another 100 people and this time all claim God as the source and only 90 of them test positive for the thing we are testing for. So, we look at see, hum, of the 10 that didn't test positive, all of them base their beliefs on what man tells them about God not on what God tells them about Himself through the bible.

Again, what indicates that "God tells them about himself through the bible"? You seem to be begging the question in favour of Christianity.

Thus we would conclude that 1. there is a difference between claims God makes of Himself in the Bible and claims men make of Him or 2. there is no consistency at all and we must look deeper at the variable. Notice that testing is not just saying, I see X therefore my worldview concludes Y as is being argued, but rather it is actually testing and looking for all the possibles not just the ones that fit our own personal world view.

Okay, but that doesn't actually answer my question, which was about testing that particular claim:

What "test" are you referring to here? I see a particular claim, namely that a god is responsible for certain human activities. How shall we test that claim? It seems unfalsifiable to me. Even we had a good explanation for those activities, in terms of psychology and neuroscience, the theist could still insist that we haven't shown that a god is not somehow involved.

 

[razzelflabben]

Stop right there. How do you know that these claims are made by a god? That would seem to be assuming your conclusion, wouldn't it?

where have you been? We talked all this out already...the scriptures claim that God is the author of the Bible, all 66 books thereof, this then is one of the things that we can logically accept if the other claims prove to be right 100% of the time. Remember Joe, we don't have to test everything he says for his entire life to trust that what he says he will do is what he will do, rather we have to have a logical conclusion or in scientific terms, a viable conclusion that we can trust what he is saying. When it comes to a belief of a deity, we want to test that which is claiming to be the authority for that deity. In this case the Bible. Now, if the claims that we are testing are falsified, then we should conclude that 1. either the Bible is not the authority on God that is claimed or 2. that the God of the Bible is not true. If on the other hand, everything we test is evidenced, we should conclude that 1. either the Bible is the word of God or 2. we don't care what our tests evidence we like our delusion. Again, we are NOT talking about absolute certainty and again we are NOT talking about everything in the Bible that is another discussion.....in this discussion we are only talking about the things that would evidence God not the bible, that is a different discussion as I previously pointed out.

BTW, you don't seem to be answering the question I asked and bolded so you didn't miss it...why not?

Again, what indicates that "God tells them about himself through the bible"? You seem to be begging the question in favour of Christianity.

not at all. Any deity we want to test starts the same place...if you want to claim that is weighting it in favor of that given deity, then cool, that only makes it harder to evidence the claims or falsify them. IOW's for every single belief we want to test (in this case religious belief) we go to the source that claims authority, any other source is to test that sources claims of deity and not the source the deity claims....let me see if I can think of an analogy, you all are really making this very simple concept way harder than it should be.

Let's take an example from our world today, we had Al Gore claimed to create the internet. If we want to test Al's claims, we can start by testing the claims he makes on the internet, right? He made the claim and most of us viewed the claim through the internet. So he claims to be the internets creator through use of the internet. Where would we start to disprove the claim? By looking into the creation of the internet, right? Where are we likely to find claims we can test? In the internet....

You see how easy this really is and how horribly hard you are trying to make it?

Okay, but that doesn't actually answer my question, which was about testing that particular claim:

refresh my memory, I thought I explained it very well many times over...I mean seriously, this concept is so freaking easy that I no longer have a clue what you don't understand. I'm not saying that as a belittlement in any way shape or form only a bewilderment as to what it is that you aren't understanding. You know, putting myself as the problem not you....just for clarity so what I am saying can't be twisted to suggest some kind of flaming.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

where have you been? We talked all this out already...the scriptures claim that God is the author of the Bible,

And how have you tested that claim?

BTW, you don't seem to be answering the question I asked and bolded so you didn't miss it...why not?

I think I did address it, noting that your "test" seems to beg the question.

all 66 books thereof, this then is one of the things that we can logically accept if the other claims prove to be right 100% of the time.

How does that follow? In fact, I'm not all sure where you are going with this...

Let's take an example from our world today, we had Al Gore claimed to create the internet. If we want to test Al's claims, we can start by testing the claims he makes on the internet, right? He made the claim and most of us viewed the claim through the internet. So he claims to be the internets creator through use of the internet. Where would we start to disprove the claim? By looking into the creation of the internet, right? Where are we likely to find claims we can test? In the internet....

You see how easy this really is and how horribly hard you are trying to make it?

No, I don't see the analogy at all. In fact, I have no clue what you're getting at here.

 

[razzelflabben]

And how have you tested that claim?

hum....where have I tested the claim that the Bible claims to be the word of God....ah, scripture...duh...II Timothy 3:16 to start with....I really don't get what your having problems with....seriously I don't.

I think I did address it, noting that your "test" seems to beg the question.

so, let's repeat the question...you disagree based on your posts that the best way to minimize the chance of a belief being delusion and maximize that it is truth is by testing our personal beliefs....so what then do you think is a superior way to testing when we want to know if our beliefs are truth or delusion?

How does that follow? In fact, I'm not all sure where you are going with this...

what don't you understand? If Joe is truthful about everything, then the things that haven't yet happened but he claims he will do can logically be trusted to happen, right? We had a whole few posts about this....remember? It's the same concept here which is what I don't get that you aren't getting. We take something we see happening every day in our world and apply that same technique to our belief of God and suddenly when we attach "God" to it you loss all understanding of the concept we just talked about? How is that even possible? Seriously, you have to be more specific about what you aren't following in this very simple claim in order for me to know how to help you understand.

No, I don't see the analogy at all. In fact, I have no clue what you're getting at here.

I'm out of clues how to help you understand at this point, until or unless you make some clear questions about what you don't get....It is just too simple of a concept for me to figure out what you aren't getting simply with vague things like "I have no clue what you're getting at here" or "I'm not all sure where you are going with this" and the like...You have to be more specific about what you can't understand about taking what someone claims to be true and testing it to see if it is true and if they always test to be saying the truth, eventually assuming they are speaking truth because there is no logical reason to doubt....you know, removing any logical reason to doubt through a thorough testing of claims that are testable from the authority attributed to that source....not hard, no clue what part of that you aren't getting. Please specify so I can help you understand what I am saying.

 

[bhsmte]

Now you are confusing what happens in the world with evidence that a relationship with God can be evidenced in an individual.

Where I would dearly love to get into this discussion about the world and the evils in it, it is way off topic, would be a lively discussion for another thread. But short version goes something like this 1. you are confusing the topics as stated above. 2. God is not the current ruler of this world, Satan is, which is why evil happens 3. God will reconcile all these things in time, but the time isn't now. For more on this important topic, start a thread where this is the topic and invite me to join the discussion, suffering according to the Bible is another deep study I have done and is a very fascinating study to do.

Why does a person need a god, to exibit certain behaviors?

 

[bhsmte]

We are sinful and broken and sin has consequences. God is not to blame for what we do or don't do with our free will.

And as for humans requiring a God to be loving to each other? Well, we wouldn't be here to begin with if it wasn't for God.

Kind of sounds like; god gets gets credit for all the good and the bad gets chalked up to sin.

 

[amariselle]

Kind of sounds like; god gets gets credit for all the good and the bad gets chalked up to sin.

Well, all goodness DOES come from God. He is, after all, a holy and righteous God. There is no darkness or evil in Him.

And yes, the "bad", the brokenness and the corruption are entirely the result of sin and turning away from God.

Why is this a problem?

 

[bhsmte]

Well, all goodness DOES come from God. He is, after all, a holy and righteous God. There is no darkness or evil in Him.

And yes, the "bad", the brokenness and the corruption are entirely the result of sin and turning away from God.

Why is this a problem?

I have no problem with you believing that, but i cant reconcile it with reality.

 

[amariselle]

I have no problem with you believing that, but i cant reconcile it with reality.

Why not?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

hum....where have I tested the claim that the Bible claims to be the word of God....ah, scripture...duh...II Timothy 3:16 to start with....I really don't get what your having problems with....seriously I don't.

Hang on, you tested the Bible by reading what the Bible says about itself? Hmmm...

so, let's repeat the question...you disagree based on your posts that the best way to minimize the chance of a belief being delusion and maximize that it is truth is by testing our personal beliefs....so what then do you think is a superior way to testing when we want to know if our beliefs are truth or delusion?

I didn't say that I disagree with the notion of testing our beliefs. I was talking specifically about the "tests" you proposed in relation to the Bible. From what I gather, your "tests" seem question-begging.

what don't you understand? If Joe is truthful about everything, then the things that haven't yet happened but he claims he will do can logically be trusted to happen, right? We had a whole few posts about this....remember? It's the same concept here which is what I don't get that you aren't getting. We take something we see happening every day in our world and apply that same technique to our belief of God and suddenly when we attach "God" to it you loss all understanding of the concept we just talked about? How is that even possible? Seriously, you have to be more specific about what you aren't following in this very simple claim in order for me to know how to help you understand.

I wasn't following the example with Joe so I have no idea what you're talking about.

You have to be more specific about what you can't understand about taking what someone claims to be true and testing it to see if it is true and if they always test to be saying the truth, eventually assuming they are speaking truth because there is no logical reason to doubt....you know, removing any logical reason to doubt through a thorough testing of claims that are testable from the authority attributed to that source....not hard, no clue what part of that you aren't getting. Please specify so I can help you understand what I am saying.

This seems to be begging the question. Could you formalise your argument, so that we can examine the premises one by one? Is the first premise, "God says..."?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well, all goodness DOES come from God. He is, after all, a holy and righteous God. There is no darkness or evil in Him.

And yes, the "bad", the brokenness and the corruption are entirely the result of sin and turning away from God.

Why is this a problem?

Well, considering that you declined to answer the question about God watching rape and not intervening... there's still a huge question mark around the claim that he is "holy and righteous."

 

[razzelflabben]

Why does a person need a god, to exibit certain behaviors?

well, if the claim is true...notice this discussion is not about whether or not the claim is true but the concept of IF it is true....so...IF the claim is true, these behaviors come from an indwelling God not from something that is of the flesh. Thus, IF the claim is true, these things will only be seen in people who have an indwelling God that claims to give these things. It's really that simple.

 

[bhsmte]

Why not?

I have no logical reason to accept, all good comes from a god and all bad comes from sin.

 

[razzelflabben]

I have no problem with you believing that, but i cant reconcile it with reality.

what testing have you done to reduce the chance that you are believing a delusion?

 

[bhsmte]

what testing have you done to reduce the chance that you are believing a delusion?

Acknowledging well evidenced reality.