The Hindu and the Muslim make similar claims. "Inshallah" cries the Muslim.....you would say they are wrong, or confused, or misled, or deluded.
How do you know it's them and not you.....or both of you?
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
How does one distinguish a 'belief' from a delusion?
- Thread starter SteveB28
- Start date
The Hindu and the Muslim make similar claims. "Inshallah" cries the Muslim.....you would say they are wrong, or confused, or misled, or deluded.
How do you know it's them and not you.....or both of you?
I didn't describe these as mere emotions or perceptions of experience. I believe the concept I used was a state of mind.
<Staff Edit>
If you are going to use a different definition than a dictionary one, then you need to clearly define each of these terms, and tell exactly what you are measuring.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
There's no huge debate in science as to whether what you are talking about takes place in our brains.
Upvote
0
You said you'd been told on this thread that, 'the scientific method is not reliable for determining what is truth and what is delusion'. I was just asking to see the post that told you this, or a direct quote of it. Without seeing the original wording, I say for sure whether I'm saying exactly the same thing, or something subtly different. That's all. Call me fussy, but I like to see the original source before I comment on what it says.
Upvote
0
Can you point to a post number or present a formal definition, and not an impasse mention?
So, your definition of joy is...
Upvote
0
razzelflabben
Contributor
Not wasting any more time...it went like this I presented the scientific method as per what I was saying. Another poster twisted what I was saying, misrepresented it, changed what I said then told me that my method was wrong. which is why I'm not wasting any more time here until or unless certain posters are willing to discuss what I really am saying
See, what is happening by their own admission is that they run into people all the time that claim to know truth because of faith. I claim that I believe I know truth because I have tested everything I could so far and have found nothing at all that would tell me to doubt. Even above where I am accused of two different claims, that isn't even close to what I said, thus, not addressing me at all. I am not your average run of the mill "christian" and people have problems with that on threads like this, instead of accepting that I am not your average run of the mill christian, they inflate what I am saying into something I am not so they can have an argument because I do away with all their arguments.
Upvote
0
It's difficult to answer accordingly when you redefine things and when you jump around all over the place and don't focus. Thus I choose to respond to parts I see relevant in this discussion, especially when I'm attempting to zero in on the core fallacy that you keep repeating:
1) You take the concept of God to be 100% correct IF the claim about God is true (again your assumption hangs on if it's true)
2) You wrap it into the claim that God says X
3) You test X, and then you say if X is correct, therefor #1 is correct.
This whole time I've been trying to explain to you why it's not a correct way of testing anything. It doesn't matter what you have for X, be it joy, or whatever. The premise simply fails at its core.
Upvote
0
razzelflabben
Contributor
was already done, again not wasting my time until someone is ready to address what I am saying.
Upvote
0
razzelflabben
Contributor
see, that isn't what I said at all, in fact, I have repeatedly spoken against that method and told you why and how that isn't what I am saying....
waiting for you to respond to me
Upvote
0
Here, I'll simplify it for you further:
1. look at the claims given in the source claimed as authority (in this case, the bible) The only assumption I make is that if God is true, He will be 100% right 100% of the time without fail. If He isn't true, there will be at least one place where our testing is falsified. That is the ONLY ASSUMPTION being made
2) take those claims that provide something we can measure and test and test it thoroughly.
3) Once you have significant conclusions to base a conclusion on, draw a conclusion and hold to it until you are able to find even one thing that falsifies the claims [i.e. you seem to imply that both #1 and #2 are correct in such case]
Upvote
0
You specifically said:
"If every claim Joe makes is true, then it is a pretty good bet that Joe exists."
Which, as I've pointed out, isn't true at all. You can't use the veracity of the claims in the Bible to infer that the Christian god exists.
Upvote
0
razzelflabben
Contributor
No, I don't take the concept of God as 100% as accused, instead, as I said, I assume that if God is, then every claim He makes is 100% right 100% of the time...now sure how to be more clear or how you all don't understand the difference between saying "I believe 100% that God exists" and what I really did say, that "IF God exists I would expect His claims to be 100% right 100% of the time"
Do you really not understand the difference between the two? Do you really not see the giant IF in my statement and the difference between an expectation and an assertion of claim? That you all don't see the difference is incredibly disturbing....
Upvote
0
Not sure what that has to do with what we were talking about, but my impression is that no one doubts that you believe you know the truth, and that you believe you have tested everything you could and found nothing to cause you doubt; but they doubt that what you believe is true really is true; presumably because they doubt that your tests and assessments were complete and/or valid. For example, statistically, not finding anything to doubt in a large number of tests that have some dependence on interpretation, in an area that many others have found plenty of reason for doubt, suggests that either the tests weren't comprehensive or there was some consistent bias in interpretation or assessment. But I'm guessing here, I wasn't paying a great deal of attention
Upvote
0
razzelflabben
Contributor
if the likelihood that he exists is high if every claim made is true, and every claim made is true, it is kind of delusional to assume he doesn't exist.
Look at it another way. I tell you my husband is a real person. You can't see him and you don't know if I am pulling your leg or not that I even have a husband. So, you start testing and every single test you do comes back that I do have a husband and he is a real live human being. Do you then say...nope, sorry I still don't believe your husband is real because I can't test for him since he is there and I am here? Of course not...one way to know is to test from a distance and if every test comes back positive, it is delusional to say he doesn't exist, not the other way around.
Upvote
0
razzelflabben
Contributor
that is totally cool with me as long as their responses are to me and not some preconceived notion they have made up in their heads of who I am and what I am saying as they are doing repeatedly and are called out on it. I am seriously one of the most relaxed people you will ever meet about disagreeing with someone...I simply don't care if you agree or disagree with me...just how it is. That being said, if you misrepresent me to make a point and continue to do so without any sign of trying to be civil and fair, I will take you to the mat every single time one way or another. You don't lie about what someone says just so you can sound wise in your own eyes and your own perceptions, cause that is just rude and disturbing.
That is a fair argument to which I would ask for evidence to back up the claim...keeping in mind the things we agreed could be tested...iow's as long as we are testing the same kinds of things this would be a very exciting experiment and challenge for me and I am dead serious about that, but if all your going to do is insist on changing the claims as many do or test something that is not testable, then it isn't a fair and challenging discussion at all but rather another exercise in delusion.presumably because they doubt that your tests and assessments were complete and/or valid. For example, statistically, not finding anything to doubt in a large number of tests that have some dependence on interpretation, in an area that many others have found plenty of reason for doubt, suggests that either the tests weren't comprehensive or there was some consistent bias in interpretation or assessment. But I'm guessing here, I wasn't paying a great deal of attention
Upvote
0
Again... I did frame with IF. Did you not see it?
1) You take the concept of God to be 100% correct IF the claim about God is true (again your assumption hangs on if it's true)
2) You wrap it into the claim that God says X
3) You test X, and then you say if X is correct, therefor #1 is correct.
Essentially what you are trying to do is to say "God exists if what he says is correct and a 100% true", but it's not a justifiable pressupposition, because you have two claims in one.
1) God exists IF
2) What God says is correct
Second claim injects God into the content of whatever it is that you are talking about
. Again, I've pointed out that what God says is also a claim. Thus you assume both that:1) God exists if what he says is a 100% correct
2) That whatever God said... God actually said that thing and not someone else pretending to be God and understanding how human psychology works.
Thus, you don't see any reason to validate #2 assertion. You simply run to #3
3) Hey, whatever God said seems to work, therefore it is God who said it, and therefore God exists because it works a 100%, because only God could be a 100% correct on this issue.
Again... IT'S FALSE LOGIC. Do you understand why it's false?
Upvote
0
But the likelihood isn't higher. I've already said that I could write a completely factual book and attribute it to a fictitious person.
If the only tests involve verifying things in a book that you attribute to your husband, then it's not delusional at all to question whether your husband is real. Especially if we visit your house and see no physical proof that anyone lives there but you...
Upvote
0
razzelflabben
Contributor
how do you NOT see that is not what I said? SEriously, how do you NOT see that is assuming things about my claim that I didn't say. I said nothing at all about If the claim about God is true I believe my concept of God is 100% correct nor did I say I would 100% believe in God....rather I said that if God tests out to be 100% true 100% of the time, a logical conclusion would be that He is. Geesh...
no, I said that the claims are something we could test...in fact, the claims come as I previously said from whatever authority is claimed to be for that deity. It works the same for every deity. For example, If Allah claims X in the Quaran to be true about Allah, we could test that claim. If all the claims made test positive we can accept that Allah is and that the Quaran is his word of claims. Notice nothing at all about 100% about anything dealing with the deities existence or acceptance of that deity. All that is inflated, which is what I keep telling you. Over time, we would assume that we would believe, but that isn't necessary for testing the claims...
no, that is not what I said at all...I said nothing even like that...I said that if all the tests are 100% right 100% of the time, it would be logical and not delusional to accept that God is....the rest of this is inflated ideas of what you want me to say.
but you are changing what I said and I have corrected you many times over and you still refuse to accept that you are wrong about what I am saying.
not what I said.
I said that it would be logical to assume He exists if His claims are 100% right 100% of the time. That is very different than what you claim here that I said.Second claim injects God into the content of whatever it is that you are talking about
1) God exists if what he says is a 100% correct
that is why it is measuring and testing only what the supernatural would be able to do...and yes, have told you that as well.
nope, your reinvention of what I said...
let me ask you this, if I make a claim about something about me, who should you attribute the claim to? Joe?
it's your logic, not mine that is the problem
Upvote
0
Please present evidence whete God said himself that he wrote all of the Bible. Until then... stop making this unsubstantiated claim.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
