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?

What would be the basis to even begin making any claims about a god's mind? Where are we getting any information about it from? — Terrapin Station

I didn't understand your point.

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''.

The possibility has to be a reasonable one worth considering. — Chany

The stakes are high in this one. The truth/falsity of god is crucial to what we value, how we live our lives. Doesn't this make it reasonable (your words) to reconsider the possibility no matter how small?

What you are effectively asking for is special pleading in the case of the existence of God — Chany

You're committing the fallacy of accident. This is a special case and so must be given due respect.

what is wrong with my analysis of the child analogy as faulty? — Chany

You haven't yet convinced me that I should ignore the simple possibility that we and our reason could be mistaken.

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.?

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?

The way out of the circularity of talk is not to start with talk. — unenlightened

Agreed! The problem is with deductive logic with the Munchausen trilemma looming over it like a malicious spirit.

I am saying it is impossible to account for all the control variables in this case, which is required for the experiment to work. — Chany

I'm saying I can make a random choice. I'll flip a coin and choose. That removes the difficulty of making things equal in all respects.

Now that this avenue of attack is out of the way, please explain what is wrong with my argument regrading the failure of the child analogy — Chany

I'm trying to solve the problem of evil, in effect making god's existence compatible with evil. It all rests on the possibility that there's nothing impossible about us, our thinking, being wrong.

I understand that global skepticism is impractical but look at the issue. It is of universal importance - what if there is a creator, a god? It would change everything: the way we conduct ourselves, the way we think, etc. Therefore, it is wise to entertain this doubt, this skepticism. In this case evwn the tiniest of possibilities is very significant.

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.

There is a difference between leaving the possibility for error and claiming that something is unjustified — Chany

A thought, even a possibility, can shatter and transform us....Friedrich Nietzsche

If you you do not trust the mind's ability to make sound judgments to any degree, then we are left in a permanent state of agnosticism on everything. — Chany

I think everybody, even non-philosophers, understands your point. So much so that it needn't be explicitly stated.

How can I ensure the case to pick each can is perfectly symmetrical and equally appealing in your mind and remains that way as you go through the decision making process? — Chany

Just holding the two cans in each hand suffices as equality in all respects to me.

Completely missing the point there: I do not accept that the human mind is so faulty to the point of inability to generate arguments. I am saying your stance is self-defeating. — Chany

How so? I only have a single thought viz. I could be wrong. There's nothing self-defeating in that. I think skepticism is recommended in philosophy.

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?

Your answer is also one generated by human cognition. If you are saying that all products of human cognition are faulty, then you and your arguments fall into that category. As such, they can be dismissed as easily as you dismiss mine- including the one in which you state human cognition is faulty. — Chany

Well, if you accept we could be wrong in our thinking I'm happy to accept my own fallibility.

Again, I do not have to argue against the existence of God or prove that God does not exist to show that your argument is faulty. — Chany

So what then is your position? The following three options are what you have:

1. God exists
2. God does not exist
3. You don't know

I do not need to disprove God to disprove your argument. — Chany

My argument is god exists. You contradict that. So, I'm asking you to prove to me that god doesn't exist.

First the world, then we can talk about it. — unenlightened

I agree.

And we talk sense to the extent that we conform our talk to the sensible world. — unenlightened

I agree. And how do we talk? Through propositions.

You could easily show me 2 cans of coke, one in each hand and ask me to choose.

I'm saying the problem could be in our tool (human cognition) and you keep showing me works (arguments, explanations) made by that very tool.

It does not follow from this fact alone that we have observed an actual situation of two equally compelling choices that Buridan's Ass describes. — Chany

I'll offer you conclusive proof. Please invent a situation that accurately captures Burridan's Ass' situation. I'll be happy to take the role of the ass (X-) ). You can observe what I do.

That's a red herring. — Sapientia

That's a red herring.

You provided a refutation of my argument. You basically said an omni-god should know how to explain simple earthly matters to humans which is not the same as a child-adult relationship where the adult has no recourse to teach the underdeveloped mind of a child.

I then pointed out that it may be we're not ready for a divine revelation. That god wishes to hide some knowedge from us for our own good.

Yes, for the umpteenth time, you are wrong. — Sapientia

Can you prove to me that god does not exist?

Well there's a self-defeating proposition for you. — unenlightened

I'm referring to a general principle of logic. I'm sure you've come across many cases in which the principle was violated and the result was bashing the truth. That's my evidence for my statement.

This other, non-propositional stuff is sometimes called the world, or the ground of reason. It's what everyone except philosophers and politicians talks about. — unenlightened

We apprehend the meaning, if there's one, of the universe through propostions. How else could we do it?

Or it could be that the ass cannot make a decision or its mind has a built-in deterministic way of dealing with situations like this. — Chany

The fact is that we do make random choices in our lives. We never get stuck like the ass. I'm sure if you were ever hungry you wouldn't get paralyzed between two boxes of cereals. Fact shows that we are capable of making random choices.

Which is why I have come to the conclusion that talking about the divine is a waste of time. — Bitter Crank

In an apparently meaningless existence talking about the divine is a rational choice.

Mucking about with "well, gee whiz, maybe evil is masquerading as good" and all that leaves you in a muddle. — Bitter Crank

But so many philosophical issues e.g. simulation theory, skepticism, etc. seem to turn around mere possibility. Why can't I treat the god-evil issue in the same manner. It's quite unfair to write pages and pages on simulation theory or skepticism or whathaveyou and deny this to an important central issue - god.

Very good point. If evil is for the greater good, stopping it would be evil too.

My reply is that evil that cannot be prevented/avoided has divine purpose. Not all evil. Those which we can prevent/avoided should be prevented/avoided. God (if he exists) has empowered us enough to prevent some forms of evil but not all.

It's a pretty morbid view, in my view... — Wosret

No, it is not morbid to investigate a matter thoroughly before judging. I'm exploring all possibilities here. I don't want to make a mistake especially when it comes to truth. I've seen a lot of posts in TPF about the possibility that our universe is a simulation. They've been serious discussions on the topic. That even when such an idea is completely based on a mere possibility. I only ask equal treatment of the god issue as well.

And I dare say that knowing whether evil had a divine purpose is way above your pay grade. — Bitter Crank

My response is:

You don't even know for sure whether a divine being exists — Bitter Crank

This is just game playing. "Evil" has clear enough meanings, and so does good. Trying to confuse them is a waste of reasoning power — Bitter Crank

A good point. I will respond very blandly to your fantastic post.

We don't know whether evil is truly good or not just as a child doesn't understand why he got spanked.

So maybe the evil is required for some greater good? — Mongrel

Yes, may be.

Do you believe evil has ever been commited?
6m — Mongrel

Yes but I don't know whether this has a divine purpose or not.

The problem of evil is that God is supposed to be simultaneously omnipotent and omnibenevolent. — Mongrel

I cannot even imagine the genius of Newton, Einstein, Euler, etc. Doesn't this inform me to lend some latitude to the god-evil issue?

No. — Bitter Crank

Why not?

The mind and intent of god are unfathomable to us. Therefore, we must think twice before we pronounce judgment on the world and all its contents. Evil may serve a greater good - we don't know. I read somewhere: "what if laughter were really tears?"

I am capable of distinguishing the two. In fact, it's far more difficult to find similarities than distinctions — Hanover

How then are they separable as distinct from each other? We don't have direct access to the minds of other animals. All we have is their external behavior (how they respond to the environment). Again I think we have very different conception of the term ''consciousness''.

n other words, there is evil that does nothing — Chany

You're already assuming the conclusion here. Whether evil serves a purpose of greater good is the issue.

I do agree that there's a great amount of evil in this world: children are raped, tortured, enslaved, killed, etc. Whether this is "senseless" or not hasn't been established yet and given my analogy I don't think it's possible for us to know (yet).

But does my analogy refute the problem of evil?

lack of ability on God's part cannot be used as an excuse, nor can some mental limitation on our part to understand, comprehend, and deal with the reasons for gratuitous evil exist — Chany

I don't think it's an excuse. I think I've given a valid reason why god allows evil to exist. Heck, I can continue on with my child-adult-god analogy as in ''spare the rod and spoil the child''

I think we don't agree on the meaning of the term ''consciousness''. You seem to think, and that is expected, that consciousness is a phenomenon that only animals have. Perhaps you even think humans have the most evolved form of this faculty.

I have no issue with that. I think animal consciousness is unique too and deserving of distinction between it and the rest of phenomena and the term ''consciousness'' is appropriate and exclusively applied to it.

However, how do we come to know whether something is conscious or not? We have access only to external behavior. We can't directly experience the consciousness of another entity, can we? So, a plant growing towards the sun and a man looking for shade in the hot sun are indistinguishable.

However the rock is not an idea in one's head. A god on the other hand, is a vision of man and does not exhibit direct physical properties. — Qu3stion

How do you know this?
As per scientific principles the only way to confirm the existence of something is by detecting its effects on instruments and our senses. God does have physical effects on us - imnthe way we eat, we dress, we think, we speak, etc. Am I wrong then in concludig god exists?