Homosexuality was also framed as such. Times move on. — I like sushi

You're on the right track, but I think you're missing something...a clue you've overlooked. Just my gut instincts, my intuition, that's all.

cured by use of psychedelics — I like sushi

There is no God!

purely ‘mental illnesses’ — I like sushi

God Delusion, Richard Dawkins? The jury's still out it seems.

Someone has to be sick! Oui?

My point is that if such beings exist they are beyond my conception so talking about them is futile just like talking about square circles. — I like sushi

What makes a god difficult to conceive? They are just like us or any other cresture.

God Delusion, Richard Dawkins — Agent Smith

Indeed! Dawkins truly is a mental case...

In the sense that you are framing the term ‘god’ I agree. The most common problem, as I stated, it people ‘defining’ god in low resolution so that it is pretty hard to question them about it.

Very often, for those that do make more of an effort, their view of ‘god’ is not really that much far removed from a physicists view of the universe - although the language and terminology is quite different and varied (but to be fair the same kind of goes when we get deep into cosmological talk on the physicy side!)

I’ve already stated this twice at least. You are talking about ‘infinite’ and ‘eternal’ as if you have personal experience of such (which you do not). And the ‘gods’ are infinite and eternal (as you say), but that means you cannot possibly know about their motivations and reasoning because you are not eternal nor infinite.

This is like asking what it is like to be a bat but on a level akin to asking what it is like to be a unicorn - I would have an easier time imagining what it would be like to be a unicorn though.

And the ‘gods’ are infinite and eternal (as you say) — I like sushi

That's not what I think. I think they are just like any creature on Earth.

:up:

...I assume belief is derived from truth... — Shwah

Define "belief" in such a way that we could write a coherent essay on belief, so that when we were finished, we could then replace each use of the term "belief" with the definition provided without the essay suffering from any significant loss of meaning. Do the same with "truth". Then see how much sense it makes to say that belief is derived from truth by substituting, yet again, the definitions for the terms in the claim "belief is derived from truth".

Generally speaking...

In order for one thing to be derived from an other, the latter must exist in it's entirety prior to the former. Otherwise, there is nothing to be derived from.

As it pertains - however loosely - to the thread, "truth" is a term once abducted by religion and capitalized accordingly. This was done as a means to refer to any statement as "Truth" or "the Truth", when it was believed to be somehow inspired by and/or coming directly from the God of Abraham.

They're not equivalent in my estimation but asymmetric. Meaning one entails the other but the other does not entail the one. I would just use the definitions provided under any general dictionary.

Belief

an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

True

in accordance with fact or reality.

Both on Google. Belief entails true (or existence but I see truth in any non social construction to literally entail existence) where true entails accordance with reality. Ontologically I see no issue ordering them like that although epistemologically I'm interested in finding a caveat.

Edit: recursively the definition of belief becomes, "an acceptance that a statement is in accordance with reality".

If it is possible to physically effect a subatomic particle residing in one location by virtue of physically disturbing a different one residing in another location, and it is, then that observable event lends direct support to all sorts of supernatural ideas and/or explanations(including gods) for all sorts of different scenarios/situations that people find themselves in.

Some folk believe that prayers somehow work. Quantum entanglement provides a possible means for that to happen. Etc.

That's all I mean by saying that quantum entanglement left room for supernatural entities.

Yes, I know that subatomic particles don't really reside in one location, and it doesn't really help to talk like that, but those who take quantum mechanics as fodder for deep-seated beliefs in non physical entities do not understand quantum mechanics or particle physics anyway.

Quantum entanglement, since it's a mirror effect (if up then down or if down then up), wouldn't help in prayer, the exact opposite of what you pray for will occur. So, prayer miracles attributed to saints would be bogus and its better to have enemies (who wish you ill) than friends (who wish you well).

Nonetheless, interesting!

..those who take quantum mechanics as fodder for deep-seated beliefs in non physical entities do not understand quantum mechanics or particle physics anyway. — creativesoul

its better to have enemies than friends. — Agent Smith

Nah. It's better to know both.

You defined the term "true". The term "true" is not interchangeable with "truth".

Normal definitions are okay, I mean that's how people use the terms. But, there are significant issues with both layman use and academic uses.

Caveat for what?

Mirror neurons.

Nah. It's better to know both. — creativesoul

Sounds like a (good) plan. Hopefully neither your friends nor your foes get wind of it. They would cancel each other out if equal in number and depending on how fervent their love, and how intense their hate, for you is.

Mirror neurons. — creativesoul

What are mirror neurons?

I do my best to not make enemies.

do my best to not make enemies. — creativesoul

I managed to tick off a mafia don. Luckily or unluckily, he was a bit s-l-o-w, in MO, not in mind. Here I am in the belly of the Sarlacc. I have a name to go with the face now, Jabba the Hutt! :smile:

Another 955 years to go...

Truth has a root in true.

the quality or state of being true.

The caveat would be interesting to see if we need belief to accept truth which are arguments I've had thrown at me where it works differently epistemically because we are an agent way under the domain of these terms like truth. If you believe that then I'd be interested in that counterproposal but I feel like entailment places belief as derived from true/truth.

They fire(for most people anyway) while observing another having a familiar experience. It's said to be the basis for empathy, although I'm not convinced of that. I've serious issues with how some people use fmri imaging to draw unwarranted conclusions. Those images are of increased bloodflow.

They fire(for most people anyway) while observing another having a familiar experience. It's said to be the basis for empathy, although I'm not convinced of that. I've serious issues with how some people use fmri imaging to draw unwarranted conclusions. Those images are of increased bloodflow — creativesoul

Oh! No one knowingly does evil, eh Socrates?

Those images are of increased bloodflow. — creativesoul

Indirect means, logic at its best, the apogee of reason! Is it possible to see without looking? Yup!

I can't make sense of what you're trying to say. The substitution exercise spelled out earlier renders the things you're saying unintelligible and/or incoherent. I've no choice but to move on unless this matter is corrected.

Yes, I know that subatomic particles don't really reside in one location, and it doesn't really help to talk like that, but those who take quantum mechanics as fodder for deep-seated beliefs in non physical entities do not understand quantum mechanics or particle physics anyway. — creativesoul

This remains to be seen. When the gods created the world/universe, they made use of a very special ingredient. Hidden variables. It's by means of these they can reach us. Actually interfere with their creation. Though its hard.

Oh! No one knowingly does evil, eh Socrates? — Agent Smith

Well, I do not use the term "evil" but all sorts of folk knowingly take actions that they know will cause all sorts of unnecessary harm to others.

So, people knowingly do bad stuff all the time, and that holds good regardless of the origin of the moral standard.

The only way to parse the word belief is by a definition of truth. The only distinction between truth and belief is "acceptance of" which, being epistemic, has little effect on "truth", by being tangential anyways, but the only way to make it parse differently would be to say one can accept things that are false and I'd argue it's impossible to do so meaningfully and can at best be done by accepting the "false statement" conditionally.

When the gods created the world/universe — EugeneW

I've no reason to agree with this presupposition. I'm agnostic on the issue of the origin of all things. Could not care less really.

It's not that simple. Yeah, I know.

I look at Hitler, whose evilness few (allegedly insane) people dispute, and think of him in terms of not what he was, but in terms of what he could've been. That kinda sorta gives me some peace of mind. I'm Jewishy.

I've no reason to agree with this presupposition. I'm agnostic on the issue of the origin of all things. Could not care less really — creativesoul

Than there is nothing left to say dear reader...