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

[devolved]

disagreement is totally cool with me, slander of me or my ideas is not.

It's not my goal in life to misrepresent what you are saying. It's not my goal in life to disprove the existence of God.

In fact, if God exists... I and other people who've yet made up their mind would like to know that.

I think you should stop acting like I'm here to fight you in some proverbial debate ring. That's not my purpose here.

So, all the times I told you that the only common denominator, you know, the only consistent variable is God isn't addressing why I say that a viable conclusion to the evidence is God

Again, if I misinterpreted what you are saying... my sincere apologies. My purpose here is to see if you do have a point, and at the same time see where you may be mistaken. I'm not here to insult your character.

Now, let's look at your claim as per my claim 1. I did not say anything at all about only God could be responsible, what I said is that God is the only common variable.

Why do you think that God is the only common variable? What method did you use to come to that conclusion?

IOW"s I spoke out openly about how we couldn't test for God specifically but we could depending on the evidence and conclusions be confident in His existence if the tests are all positive. Nothing about absolute anythings and the claim we are testing for God is your 5th false accusation of what I have said in one tiny little paragraph and some of those are offensive to me and my beliefs and you wonder why I am calling you out on it....geesh. two sentences 5 misrepresentations and all were corrected at least once.

But, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you?

You are agreeing that other causes (other than God) could be equally responsible for what you observe? If you do, please confirm that?

You are being accused of flaming for continually misrepresenting what I have said, what I believe and in fact, trying to convince others here that I believe the opposite of what I actually do believe and have said and those ideas that you attribute to me that are in opposition to what I believe are distasteful to me because they are in opposition to my beliefs. That is what is inflammatory.

Well, now you seem to be misrepresenting what my purpose is, so I'm not sure how useful it is to this discussion.

Again, I'm not merely repeating what you are saying, but demonstrating the implication of what you are saying.

For example, the implication of a claim that "God is the only common variable" in a scope of your claim would derive certain necessary conclusions, right? If it doesn't, then you wouldn't be making such a claim.

If you think that there are other causes that could be equally responsible in your view... then you should indicate that. If you don't think that there are other causes that could be equally responsible, then why would you be saying that it's an attack on your character or views?

see above, this is ridiculous that I would even continue to submit myself to your slander of my character and ideas.

Sorry, but you have not demonstrated how you rule out any other common factors as not potentially responsible. That's my entire point.

You are saying that God is the ONLY common denominator... and many people in this thread showed you that that's simply not the case. If you think that it's the ONLY denominator, then you need to show how you came to that conclusion without appealing to subjective concepts... wouldn't you?

 

[bhsmte]

But why is human nature/psychology the way it is? Surely evolution could/would have produced better results than what constitutes "evil?" Why would we, as the most advanced species, also not be the kindest and least likely to do destructive and harmful things? (In fact, it is quite the opposite)

Not to mention, there is much that is "evil" and destructive that doesn't come from human nature/psychology at all. Things like disease and natural disasters that kill many.

Human nature/psychology is not a sufficient explanation, in my opinion.

We know each persons personal psychology, are influenced by both genetics and environment.

No evidence demonstrates humans need a god for good and or sin to perform bad acts. All they need, is the right psychology.

 

[devolved]

Where do you think it all comes from then? (Good v.s. Evil)

I think we first have to look at the mechanics as to how you evaluate what is good and what is evil when you answer that question.

For example, let's look at what would humans be without any external cultural memetic information and conditioning that we get. We know of examples of children that grew up detached from society. In that instance, their moral behavior would be consistent with that of an animal. They are generally driven by primal instincts and their concepts of right and wrong seem to be rather pragmatically-driven through cultural experience, and then passed on to the next generation.

Thus, when it comes to assessing as to how you know what's evil and what's good... it all boils down to cultural conditioning, which is where you personally get it from.

Where did your culture get it from? Well, it seems like it got it from a loooong history of trial and error, which is in fact an evolution of a sort.

So, naturally, the cultures with destructive moral standards will self-harm themselves into extinction. Those that have moral standards that allow for survival would flourish and continue on.

Judeo-Christian morality, while in some aspects was progressive when compared to the surrounding areas, proved to be harmful in many other aspects (think what it has done to homosexuals, heretics and "witches"), hence we progressed into a more secularized version of morality.

If we evaluate the morality of Christians/Jews in 1st century, and our moral system today... it's night and day.

 

[razzelflabben]

It's not my goal in life to misrepresent what you are saying. It's not my goal in life to disprove that God doesn't exist.

In fact, if God exists... I and other people who've yet made up their mind would like to know that.

I think you should stop acting like I'm here to fight you in some proverbial debate ring. That's not my purpose here.

then stop continually misrepresenting me and my position. End of story....you have a choice, you can stop misrepresenting me and my position or you can continue to do so and allow people to judge you accordingly, your choice.

Again, if I misinterpreted what you are saying... my sincere apologies. My purpose here is to see if you do have a point, and at the same time see where you may be mistaken. I'm not here to insult your character.

then stop misrepresenting me...it's a simple thing really, you have a rational and fair discussion based on a posters posts not on some random claims you want to make about that poster....

Why do you think that God is the only common variable? What method did you use to come to that conclusion?

again, previously discussed. So why aren't you following along? We check to see if they 1. claim Christ, 2. have a religious belief or 3. show evidence of a relationship with Christ. This led into a whole long thing about how one would know the difference between someone who claims to have a relationship vs. having a relationship. We used examples of Obama as one of the analogies in which I was told that didn't apply because God speaks through the bible. to which we talked about all the different ways God communicates with His people and compared that to various modes of communication today. Eventually, the only objection came down to what questions we would ask that couldn't be "falsified" I gave the first one I ask most people when I am testing and encouraged people here to answer and see if they could pass the first question on the test (remembering it was one of many) no one would try, instead they started changing my claims again...so you see, this changing my claims is old new here which is why I have no tolerance for it at the moment.

If you want to try, and again just the first of many questions to determine if the subject is religious or in relationship....(oh and don't forget we had a long discussion about what a relationship with God would look like) is How did you come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ? Based on your answer I will show you some of the clues that will lead to subsequent questions or dismissal if that is what is necessary

But, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you?

You are agreeing that other causes (other than God) could be equally responsible for what you observe? If you do, please confirm that?

Okay, let's clarify on the off chance that all these things are just unfortunate misunderstandings....what I clearly said is that there could be other explanations for any single observation we are making, however, if every one has the same variable as God but lacks the same variable of alternate explanation we can conclude with some form of confidence that God is the only constant variable.

Let me tell you a story about a discussion I had on a board similar to this that had many atheists on it. I don't even remember the OP question but the discussion had something to do with evidences for God. In that discussion I came to an incident that happened to me. (I won't tell the story since it would be off topic nor how the miracle isn't what people think of as miracles, that is for another point) Anyway, I welcomed challenge of what happened. Time after time the atheists on the board tried to find an alternate explanation and time and time again they failed. Eventual the conclusion to the matter was that some mystical force that couldn't have been God mind you, crushed a car after it had stopped moving or having other force applied to it. You see, even in looking for alternate explanations those atheists (not saying anyone here) couldn't even bring themselves to the point of say, maybe God...This is a problem! If we want to know truth, we have to include all variables even God into the equation. If the only consistent explanation is God, then God is the viable conclusion. It is really that simple. So, if there was another explanation for all of the tests we are talking about, we couldn't claim God to be the viable conclusion, we might be able to claim one of a couple or few viable conclusions. If on the other hand, God is the only constant, the only variable that does not change in explaining what happened, then we must by reason of logic at least include that as a viable conclusion. Which is what I have repeatedly told you all.

Well, now you seem to be misrepresenting what my purpose is, so I'm not sure how useful it is to this discussion.

Again, I'm not merely repeating what you are saying, but demonstrating the implication of what you are saying.

For example, the implication of a claim that "God is the only common variable" in a scope of your claim would derive certain necessary conclusions, right? If it doesn't, then you wouldn't be making such a claim.

but since I did NOT make the claim, it's all invalid, right? Right! I have said IF God is the only common denominator, but that is a very different claim now isn't it?

If you think that there are other causes that could be equally responsible in your view... then you should indicate that. If you don't think that there are other causes that could be equally responsible, then why would you be saying that it's an attack on your character or views?

My personal beliefs are not the topic of the thread and yet even though I am very careful to keep my personal beliefs out of the topic you all seem to think you know what I believe about every single aspect of God...how is that? How is it that when I say, IF X then Y you feel justified to assume to know my beliefs? there are tons of different "christian" beliefs we could explore, how would you be able to make an assumption based on a word like IF? Isn't that a dishonest representation of what I believe? You know, when I don't say what I believe but you assume to know and falsely represent my beliefs in the process?

Sorry, but you have not demonstrated how you rule out any other common factors as not potentially responsible.

I didn't claim to do so, so why should I demonstrate something I didn't claim could be done nor that I believe in? HuH??????? you make a false claim about my beliefs and claims then say, "sorry but you have not demonstrated how you rule out any other common factors as not potentially responsible." how is it that you don't see a problem with that? Should I insult your intelligence by making false claims about your belief then when you don't defend those false claims try to mock you for not proving the point you did not make? Isn't that inflammatory?

See, my claim is not that there are no other common denominators, my claim is that if there are not, the logical conclusion is a viable conclusion....oh well...I'm sure you won't understand this from past experience.

 

[devolved]

then stop continually misrepresenting me and my position. End of story....you have a choice, you can stop misrepresenting me and my position or you can continue to do so and allow people to judge you accordingly, your choice.

It's hard for me to read minds . I'm doing my best to try to follow your reasoning. For example, even in this instance:

Now, let's look at your claim as per my claim 1. I did not say anything at all about only God could be responsible, what I said is that God is the only common variable.

Just because there is another explanation doesn't mean it fits every single test. 3. What we are talking about is that the only consistent variable in all the examples is God.

Rather what I said is that there is only one constant, you know, one variable, that is one explanation that is consistent with all the tests. That is how we know when we have a right to a viable conclusion.

But, then you go on and shift the position and make a different claim:

but since I did NOT make the claim, it's all invalid, right? Right! I have said IF God is the only common denominator, but that is a very different claim now isn't it?

But that's not the claim you've made. You actually said that God is the only consistent common denominator, or the only common variable.

So, as you see, it's hard to not misrepresent you, when you say one thing in one post, and then say something that seems different in other.

IF X then Y you feel justified to assume to know my beliefs?

I wasn't addressing the "if" statement you were making. I've asked for you to justify a claim you were making, which you use to form a conclusion. See the bolded portions in the above quotes.

See, my claim is not that there are no other common denominators, my claim is that if there are not, the logical conclusion is a viable conclusion....oh well...I'm sure you won't understand this from past experience.

But, that's not what you've said.

Now, let's look at your claim as per my claim 1. I did not say anything at all about only God could be responsible, what I said is that God is the only common variable.

Just because there is another explanation doesn't mean it fits every single test. 3. What we are talking about is that the only consistent variable in all the examples is God.

Rather what I said is that there is only one constant, you know, one variable, that is one explanation that is consistent with all the tests. That is how we know when we have a right to a viable conclusion.

 

[Ronald]

How and why would these point to God?

For instance, talents we say are a gift from God. The prodigy is talented in one or several areas, he/she could be genius, something not inherited from parents or taught. So how do explain this, punctuated equilibrium?
How do explain Beethoven or Mozart at very young ages writing and playing masterpieces?
Let's examine someone else you haven't heard of, Akianne Krimarik. This little girl at an early age of 3 and 4 started to have visions of heaven, angels and Jesus. Her parents were both atheists and she had never heard nor was taught of such a place, nor did they tell her of Jesus. She started drawing and then painting these visions / dreams that she continued to see. By the age of eight, she painted a portrait of Jesus that she had seen. This portrait was verified by a young boy who claimed when he was in a coma, went to heaven. He said he saw Jesus and so his father searched far and wide to find all the portraits of Jesus that he could find and would show them to his son and his son would say nope, nope, no, that's not him over and over again. Finally, he heard about Akianne Krimarik and her story and showed him this portrait that she painted at eight years old. He looked at and said, that's Him.

https://www.akiane.com/store/

Jesus is God in the flesh. He is a tangible person and the exact expression and fullness of God. God emptied himself into a baby and He grew and dwelt among us. If you are in doubt that Jesus has not changed the world in any way, then I can't help you much. Without Him, we would be a bunch of barbaric, selfish, beings. The influence that Jesus had on people is evident. Many people have been healed from illnesses, drugs, alcohol; many people have come out of dark depressive and destructive states and this they attribute to their new relationship with Jesus. Jesus reflects the light and the light shines in darkness - we can see the enlightening influence and transforming power of God in the world. Our nation alone is an example of God directing and guiding men like George Washington, John Adams, and Abe Lincoln. Most of the presidents claimed a relationship with Jesus and give Him the credit to the success of this great nation -- though it has fallen off the path and has become corrupt with greed and power.

Essentially what you are doing is saying "because there's order, therefore God", but you are not showing as to why you rule out any other causes.

Based on a natural universe without God, that would be true. If nothing existed, then nothing can cause anything to happen. The OP ruled this out, under the section causality.

Evidence works in conjunction with explanation as to how that evidence fits into mechanics of reality.

The mechanics of the universe is evidence. Life is evidence. Life did not spontaneous generate from the simple combination of water + energy + chemicals over time and then puff. Information was involved as in the DNA. WHERE DID THAT INFORMATION COME FROM? The smallest amoeba is very complex. There is an irreducible complexity in the microscopic one-celled animals. Life comes from life.

For example, how does the fact that we see beauty in this world necessitate the explanation that God exist? That goes for any of the lines of evidence that you claim is indeed evidence for God.

Beauty is esthetically pleasing to us. There is so much beauty in the world and to each person, beauty is seen sometimes differently. God designed beauty into nature and our own appearance so that we could enjoy life, so that it would please us. People look up at the stars and say that it is beautiful. Beauty is a reliable guide to truth. The colors, images, patterns, the ways of the eco-system, how animals live within all has God's imprint on it. It's intelligent design, pleasing and awesome. A peacock was always a peacock. A rose was always a rose. And man was made finished. Eve was gorgeous, when God made her, Adam said W O W ... M A N!

Secondly, chance isn't an active force in natural universe. What we call "chance" is merely an observed consequence among many other possible outcomes. It's a retrospective evaluation, and it's not the "driving force of the universe". Matter has properties and it does work that follows these properties, and that's how our universe operates.

OK

 

[devolved]

See, my claim is not that there are no other common denominators, my claim is that if there are not, the logical conclusion is a viable conclusion...

But, fair enough. Let's say we've cleared up this misunderstanding. Let's say that if there are no other common denominators, then your logical conclusion is a viable conclusion.

What other common denominators have you considered that could potentially explain such behavioral changes?

 

[razzelflabben]

It's hard for me to read minds . I'm doing my best to try to follow your reasoning. For example, even in this instance:

But, then you go on and shift the position and make a different claim:

no shift and clarified many times over, but I'm big enough to give you a brownie point of the IF that you don't seem to be able to accept or understand....doesn't explain why you can't understand the correction or why you misrepresent so many other things, but hey, moving on...

But that's not the claim you've made. You actually said that God is the only consistent common denominator, or the only common variable.

so why did I waste my time clarifying what you didn't seem to understand from my post? IOW's when someone says to you...that isn't what I am saying I am saying X...why do you think it is okay to ignore the clarification to continue to assert what communication was lacking no matter who was responsible? You know, I accepted that you might not have understood clarified many times over and you ignore the clarification so you can continue to assert something I don't believe......ah well....

So, as you see, it's hard to not misrepresent you, when you say one thing in one post, and then say something that seems different in other.

that is why clarification is part of communication...you know, multiple communications attempts that you dismissed as irrelevant because ?????

I wasn't addressing the "if" statement you were making. I've asked for you to justify a claim you were making, which you use to form a conclusion. See the bolded portions in the above quotes.

The IF is important to my claim....and you dismiss it because it doesn't result in the conclusion you want...how dishonest that is...

But, that's not what you've said.

see above...I have repeatedly said it.

 

[razzelflabben]

But, fair enough. Let's say we've cleared up this misunderstanding. Let's say that if there are no other common denominators, then your logical conclusion is a viable conclusion.

What other common denominators have you considered that could potentially explain such behavioral changes?

that would depend on the claims being tested, now wouldn't it?

 

[devolved]

that would depend on the claims being tested, now wouldn't it?

Pick one, and let's give it a try.

 

[devolved]

The IF is important to my claim....and you dismiss it because it doesn't result in the conclusion you want...how dishonest that is...

I've shown you that it's not the case, so I'm not sure why you keep re-iterating it. I've actually quoted several statements in the same post that didn't have if in them.

But, again, that's no important at this point of time. I'm more interested in the actual case study, and to follow your actual method of picking a claim and testing it in actual person (or group of people), and then determining whether:

1) If the God is the only common denominator in this instance
2) If it's the best explanation in a scope of various possible explanations we may have

 

[razzelflabben]

Pick one, and let's give it a try.

pick one what? It could be delusion, self control, community pressure, psychotic breaks, lies, I don't know, tons of different variables we would look at depending on what belief we want to test for....how is this hard for you to understand? Seriously, I don't get how this is a hard concept for you to grasp

 

[devolved]

pick one what? It could be delusion, self control, community pressure, psychotic breaks, lies, I don't know, tons of different variables we would look at depending on what belief we want to test for....how is this hard for you to understand? Seriously, I don't get how this is a hard concept for you to grasp

You are the one that don't understand what I'm asking for.

I've asked you to pick a claim that we'd test to see that the only common denominator would be God, and that the only inevitably logical conclusion would be that God is responsible.

It's hard for me to understand perhaps, because I don't really see how you apply such method in practical reality.

Perhaps it will help if you show a step by step of a single claim.

 

[razzelflabben]

I've shown you that it's not the case, so I'm not sure why you keep re-iterating it. I've actually quoted several statements in the same post that didn't have if in them.

But, again, that's no important at this point of time. I'm more interested in the actual case study, and to follow your actual method of picking a claim and testing it in actual person (or group of people), and then determining whether:

1) If the God is the only common denominator in this instance
2) If it's the best explanation in a scope of various possible explanations we may have

Now, 1. I have said I could see where you misunderstood the above but that does not explain all the others nor how you can't accept the clarifications that you were given 2. You were told this would be off topic and asked to stop goading me into getting off topic and finally, 3. I repeatedly told you that this was by the very nature of the test something that can only be done by an individual because of the very nature of the confidentiality and lack of being present that is necessary....another clarification you refuse to accept

 

[devolved]

You see, even in looking for alternate explanations those atheists (not saying anyone here) couldn't even bring themselves to the point of say, maybe God...This is a problem! If we want to know truth, we have to include all variables even God into the equation. If the only consistent explanation is God, then God is the viable conclusion. It is really that simple. So, if there was another explanation for all of the tests we are talking about, we couldn't claim God to be the viable conclusion, we might be able to claim one of a couple or few viable conclusions. If on the other hand, God is the only constant, the only variable that does not change in explaining what happened, then we must by reason of logic at least include that as a viable conclusion. Which is what I have repeatedly told you all.

That's actually not true. I very much consider certain possibility of that. My standards of evidence may be different, because I take into account a broader scope of information and possibilities, but I don't claim that God doesn't exist or isn't responsible for certain behavior. I merely would like to see evidence of that in order to believe that it's the best explanation.

 

[razzelflabben]

You are the one that don't understand what I'm asking for.

I've asked you to pick a claim that we'd test to see that the only common denominator would be God, and that the only inevitably logical conclusion would be that God is responsible.

It's hard for me to understand perhaps, because I don't really see how you apply such method in practical reality.

Perhaps it will help if you show a step by step of a single claim.

wow,, so once again...that is off topic 2. a common denominator requires multiple tests not just one 3. you have repeatedly been told how one needs to do the tests for themselves, iow's you are asking me to walk away from the scientific method to evidence that I don't know how the scientific method so that you can prove I don't know how the scientific method works....geesh

 

[amariselle]

I think we first have to look at the mechanics as to how you evaluate what is good and what is evil when you answer that question.

For example, let's look at what would humans be without any external cultural memetic information and conditioning that we get. We know of examples of children that grew up detached from society. In that instance, their moral behavior would be consistent with that of an animal. They are generally driven by primal instincts and their concepts of right and wrong seem to be rather pragmatically-driven through cultural experience, and then passed on to the next generation.

Thus, when it comes to assessing as to how you know what's evil and what's good... it all boils down to cultural conditioning, which is where you personally get it from.

Where did your culture get it from? Well, it seems like it got it from a loooong history of trial and error, which is in fact an evolution of a sort.

So, naturally, the cultures with destructive moral standards will self-harm themselves into extinction. Those that have moral standards that allow for survival would flourish and continue on.

Judeo-Christian morality, while in some aspects was progressive when compared to the surrounding areas, proved to be harmful in many other aspects (think what it has done to homosexuals, heretics and "witches"), hence we progressed into a more secularized version of morality.

If we evaluate the morality of Christians/Jews in 1st century, and our moral system today... it's night and day.

Really? You think our "moral system" is better today?

Personally, I think saying that "good" and "evil" are social constructs (the result of "social conditioning") is truly an oversimplification.

 

[amariselle]

We know each persons personal psychology, are influenced by both genetics and environment.

No evidence demonstrates humans need a god for good and or sin to perform bad acts. All they need, is the right psychology.

Oversimplification. Psychology (or nature v.s. nurture) does not explain the amount or extent of evil we see in the world.

 

[devolved]

Now, 1. I have said I could see where you misunderstood the above but that does not explain all the others nor how you can't accept the clarifications that you were given 2. You were told this would be off topic and asked to stop goading me into getting off topic and finally, 3. I repeatedly told you that this was by the very nature of the test something that can only be done by an individual because of the very nature of the confidentiality and lack of being present that is necessary....another clarification you refuse to accept

a common denominator requires multiple tests not just one

Again, you seem to misunderstand what I'm asking.

Any experiment has a set up premise that dives into specific description. I'm not asking you to name names. I merely asking to see your thought process when you test these things in the real world as to what it actually translates into.

For example, you gave examples about people suffering loss and then experiencing certain peace of mind. How do you determine that God is the only common denominator that's viable as an explanation.

Another-words, I'm asking about the reality of such tests and the method you would use to rule out other possibilities.

 

[razzelflabben]

That's actually not true. I very much consider certain possibility of that. My standards of evidence may be different, because I take into account a broader scope of information and possibilities, but I don't claim that God doesn't exist or isn't responsible for certain behavior. I merely would like to see evidence of that in order to believe that it's the best explanation.

so you were on that thread? Interesting, do you remember the story? you see, I made it clear in my post I was not referring to you, so again a misrepresentation unless you were part of that discussion, would have been years ago now...do you remember the story?