I do not need to disprove God to disprove your argument. The merits of an argument stand alone; showing a poor argument for a position does not require one to provide an argument for an opposing position. I can say that God exists and that your argument is bad. — Chany

Exactly.

My beliefs are irrelevant to the validity and soundness of your argument. Do you admit your argument is faulty? — Chany

How can that be? You believe I'm wrong in my belief that god can be proven scientifically. Your beliefs are very relevant to my argument.

For a moment forget I asked you about your beliefs on god.

Now let me ask you how can we distinguish between fictional beings and real beings?

Now let me ask you how can we distinguish between fictional beings and real beings? — TheMadFool

:-}

This is irrelevant. I know Harry Potter is a fictional being because the author made up the character and openly admits to that by putting the book in the fiction setting. Your argument proves Harry Potter is real. Therefore, it is faulty.

If you want an explanation as to how to distinguish between fact and fiction, please reread the many posts explaining just that.

If you want an explanation as to how to distinguish between fact and fiction, please reread the many posts explaining just that — Chany

I've read all the posts and in none of them do I find a convincing argument how to distinguish fact from fiction. They already assume that god is fiction.

Let us review our positions to really get to the crux of the matter.

Science relies on effects of hypothesized entity to prove that said entity exists. There is no other way to do it. Now people have and are still hypothesizing the existence of god. So, I make observations of my own. I see people behaving in manners that indicare god exists. God's effects are everywhere - temples, food, rituals, etc. Therefore, I say, god exists.

Then you reply that these effects that I see are caused by ''belief'' in god and not god.

I ask you to help me distinguish between ''belief'' in something and the ''real'' thing but you don't have an answer.

I have summarized our debate until now. Please focus on the 2nd last paragraph (above) and we can continue our discussion will make progress.

Let's say I believe that my car works. That is the hypothesis: my car works. In order to verify this hypothesis, I must be able to do a set of actions (an experiment) that produce observations that might falsify the hypothesis; if I cannot, science cannot work and science cannot make any claims on the truth of the hypothesis. In this case, I can by putting my key in the ignition and turning it. I turn the key and the car starts working. My belief is verified because I did an experiment whose outcome could have been the car did not start and did not work. Note that the fact of the car working is independent of my belief that the car will work. If the car had mechanical problems and actually would not work, then when I went to turn on the car, the car would not start and I could not drive. My belief in the car working does not influence the actual outcome or the observation of the car starting. If the car does not start, my belief that car works is false.

Let's say I believe that God is the cause of human religious beliefs. That is the hypothesis: the explanation for human religious beliefs is that God exists and is the religious are just responding to God's existence. In order to verify this hypothesis, I must be able to do a set of actions (an experiment) that produce observations that might falsify the hypothesis; if I cannot, science cannot work and science cannot make any claims on the truth of the hypothesis. We run into a problem here; what experiment can we set up or what set of observations can we discover that would a) falsify the hypothesis, and b) falsify the alternative hypothesis (the explanation for religious beliefs is that the religious believe in a nonexistent being and act according to their false beliefs)? We already know that, at most, all but one view on God is false, so we already know people can be motivated by false beliefs in a false God.

A fictional being runs into this situation quite often. We cannot find any observations that would indicate that being is anything more than fiction. All the observations of the supposed being can be explained away. The existence of the supposed being may even contradict known facts about the world. For example, the Loch Ness Monster: we know the original photographs are faked. We know that there is nothing in the lake because we scanned the entire thing and found nothing. We know that an animal population could not survive for such a period of time without being discovered. There is absolutely no reason to believe the Loch Ness Monster exists and every reason to believe it to be nothing but fiction. Therefore, based on science, the Loch Ness Monster is effectively falsified and is a fictional being. The fact that I have to explain this is sad.

Also, you ignored the first part of the post. Your argument is refuted because I can prove things I know are fiction to be true using your argument, like the Loch Ness Monster. People believe in the Loch Ness Monster and go on tours, have sightings, and commission documentaries, despite all the evidence against it existing. But, according to your argument, the Loch Ness Monster exists, because people believe in it and behave as if it were real.

P.S.

Science relies on effects of hypothesized entity to prove that said entity exists. — TheMadFool

This sentence indicates that you do not understand the modern scientific method or how it works. It does not prove directly, it falsifies competing hypotheses and deduces that to the only hypothesis left. If you do not get that, you do not understand science.

It does not prove directly, it falsifies competing hypotheses and deduces that to the only hypothesis left. — Chany

As far as this universe is concerned can you tell me what are the competing hypotheses to god?

Shifting goalposts from observable religious practices to the general teleological argument for the existence of god. Take it one step at a time.

Regarding your initial argument, the observation of religious practices as proof of God's existence, do you admit the argument is faulty and that we cannot use religious practices as good evidence of God's existence?

Shifting goalposts from observable religious practices to the general teleological argument for the existence of god. Take it one step at a time. — Chany

I'm not shifting goal posts. I want to know the truth. You've taken the trouble to explain what the scientific method is. Thanks I'm grateful. I'll go along with your line of reasoning.

According to you we should have competing hypotheses to explain a phenomenon. Then we rule them out one by one until we're left with the one that explains matters adequately.

I want to do that with god. So, will you help me or not? What are the competing hypotheses?

Regarding your initial argument, the observation of religious practices as proof of God's existence, do you admit the argument is faulty and that we cannot use religious practices as good evidence of God's existence? — Chany

Suppose I'm wrong. How would you explain temples, prayer, rituals, ceremonies, festivals, etc.?

I want to do that with god. So, will you help me or not? What are the competing hypotheses? — TheMadFool

Each observation would have to be taken per case by case, ultimately, though we may be able to group some into categories if we are lucky. What observation do you want to use God to explain?

Suppose I'm wrong. How would you explain temples, prayer, rituals, ceremonies, festivals, etc.? — TheMadFool

Here a potential explanation: people do not like the unknown. We look for patterns and tend to find them in places they do not exist. We also like to apply agency to things; we like to believe things are like us, and have minds like us. Simply put, we made something like a god up as an explanation for something we saw. The concept of god became refined as time went on and eventually reached to where we are at now. Again, as I said earlier, notice how a lot of the pagan gods are effectively really powerful people with magical powers over a specific domain who demand sacrifices that a human would have.

Each observation would have to be taken per case by case, ultimately, though we may be able to group some into categories if we are lucky. What observation do you want to use God to explain? — Chany

You're beating around the bush. Please give me the list of hypotheses we have for the existence of this universe.

Simply put, we made something like a god up as an explanation for something we saw. — Chany

Question begging. This is the key issue here and you're already assuming god is ''made up''.

I see people behaving in manners that indicate god exists. God's effects are everywhere - temples, food, rituals, etc. — TheMadFool

The part in bold is begging the question. You're just assuming your conclusion in one or more of the premises. This is another logical fallacy, like the red herring fallacy where you change the subject. You need to actually back those premises up.

Your next step is to erroneously claim that you're just applying the scientific method, although it has been explained to you that you're not.

You then manage to circle back to the starting point again, and that's basically how this discussion has continued over 12 pages.

I ask you to help me distinguish between ''belief'' in something and the ''real'' thing but you don't have an answer. — TheMadFool

He isn't obliged to do so. The burden is on you. This is just another diversion. And I don't believe for a second that you're unable to differentiate between the two.

Please give me the list of hypotheses we have for the existence of this universe. — TheMadFool

You don't ask for much, do you? Why is he doing all of the work? Aren't you capable of answering these questions yourself? You have the internet at your disposal. Why not look them up yourself?

Question begging. This is the key issue here and you're already assuming god is ''made up''. — TheMadFool

That's not charitable at all. You've taken his quote out of context - another informal fallacy. He clearly stated at the start of that paragraph that he was giving a potential explanation.

You are avoiding our posts. I also think that God might exist, but I would never use that logic to prove it. By the same logic, we could say that anything we read in fantasy books, fiction movies, etc., would be true! I fail to see how God influencing us is any different from unicorns, minotaurs, or ghosts influence us. Also, using that logic, you could say that anything that anyone has ever said, to someone or to themselves, would be real, because it influences us. You could say that Ptolemy's theory of the planets is real, AND that Copercinus's too! There would be too many paradoxes.

How do we distinguish a belief in something from the real thing?
As an example:
How do we distinguish a belief in a stone from the real stone itself?

How do you distinguish fantasy from reality?

Honestly, why are you asking me that? Whatever next? How do you tie your shoe laces? How do you know that a bicycle isn't a tree?

Why do you guys even bother discussing? It's kinda annoying seeing this thread back up when I come to PF. This thread isn't even worth 12 pages. It should have ended with the first three posts excluding OP. It's such a bad logic but this guy can't understand that despite being explained for 12 pages. Explaining his mistakes if futile at this point.

Why do you guys even bother discussing? — FLUX23

Not sure. Probably a reason not too dissimilar to yours. Boredom? An impulse? An urge to correct? Naïvety? Masochism?

I asked the question because that's the point where we parted ways. I thought we should look for some common ground from where to continue the discussion.

Let me repeat my question:

How do we distinguish a ''belief in something'' from the ''real thing''?

I used to go on a site with people like this all the time, so it does not bother me. And, I actually learned a lot about science and stuff over the course of the thread. To be honest, philosophy of religion is one of the few areas I like discussing and feel I can actually attribute to, though I am done with this thread at this point. I thought I finally made progress, but I realized that was not true.

I asked the question because that's the point where we parted ways. I thought we should look for some common ground from where to continue the discussion.

Let me repeat my question:

How do we distinguish a ''belief in something'' from the ''real thing''? — TheMadFool

But if you can't answer that question yourself, then I'd rather not pursue it. To me, it is like the questions I asked you in my last reply.

But if you can't answer that question yourself, then I'd rather not continue the discussion. — Sapientia

But I'm simply following your train of thought. Do you mean your thoughts and ideas are unworthy of discussion?

But I'm simply following your train of thought. Do you mean your thoughts and ideas are unworthy of discussion? — TheMadFool

You're not so much following it, as questioning it to the point of ridiculousness. Like if I responded to the above as follows:

But what does "mean" mean? And what's a thought? How does a thought differ from a xylophone? And besides, what's a question?

I think you have to draw the line somewhere.

You're not so much following it, as questioning it to the point of ridiculousness — Sapientia

It was once ridiculous to say the earth is a sphere.

I think you have to draw the line somewhere. — Sapientia

Strawman. You draw the line where it suits your needs.

You draw the line where it suits your needs. — TheMadFool

Yes, it suits my needs not to waste my time with someone who asks stupid questions that they should already know the answer to. Sorry. You'll have to find someone else.

Yes, it suits my needs not to waste my time with someone who asks stupid questions that they should already know the answer to. Sorry. You'll have to find someone else. — Sapientia

Kindly shine the light of your knowledge and wisdom on me. I'd be grateful.

Kindly shine the light of your knowledge and wisdom on me. I'd be grateful. — TheMadFool

What you're asking us here is to explain the very argument you've been trying to make!

If you don't know yourself the argument you've made, then I see no point in trying to find it for you!

This may not seem very philosophical on the face of it ... but when I see a beautiful woman, I think, "There is God!". I find it impossible to believe that said beautiful woman is the result of a blind, mindless, meaninglesss process of evolution. She therefore must have been created by an intelligent being who appreciates beauty. Is my conclusion irrational?

Is my conclusion irrational? — Dredge

But how do you feel when you know that somewhere some poor child is starving to death? Do you still think of God?