Well, ought I take it that you are not going to explain what you think about how truth plays a role?

There is no miracle involved. There is no wrong meaning. Meaning is use. If you want to know what something means you must look at the context of what is being discussed. "Emergent properties" have conventional usage. It is when the sum total is greater than than the sum of the parts. Water has an emergent feature of quenching thirst and fire both that neither of it's elemental constituents possess.

There is a bit of irony at work as well Jb. In order for your arguments to work, we must redefine some very common terms. You've claimed that rocks have consciousness. Reasonable folk should just laugh and walk away.

Perhaps it be better to ask what do you suppose truth has to do with whether or not God is real as I suspect that our views diverge tremendously regarding that.

I suspect that you're attempting to distinguish between what different folks mean by "truth".

I am curious what you mean by "the backside of defining truth".

It does not follow from the fact that we define things that all things being defined are subjective. I said a bit about that earlier. You didn't answer my question...


How does one believe IN truth?

So, it seems that we agree that truth is not subjective, by I am at a loss to understand what "believing in real truth" means. Could you explain that in different terms? Is there some kind of truth that is not real?

How does one believe IN truth?

Your clarification is imperative to my understanding what you're saying here.

Unshakable conviction.

This line of reasoning is based upon a couple of dubious presuppositions. One being that the primary foundation of one's belief system acts as the sole means for accepting and/or rejecting subsequent considerations, which may or may not conflict with the current content of one's belief system. The other being that if one doesn't 'choose' between conflicting views when they arise that his/her life will be chaos as a result of vacillating between these.

That is clearly not always the case. One can always suspend judgment and feel good about doing so. I would also say that some folk end up completely rejecting their original foundation in lieu of another.

Now, I would agree that the existence of conflicting beliefs within an individual's belief system can be quite problematic. That is compounded if and when s/he does not know what makes things true, what sorts of things can be true, what it takes for this or that to be true, the difference between calling something "true" and something being true, and perhaps even a reasonable grasp upon the different senses/uses of the term "true".

So, we still need an agreement upon what constitutes being "real" in order to proceed to answer any question which asks "Is 'X' real?" The variable X could be filled in with any appropriate term by substitution.

"Is the sky real?"
"Is government real?"
"Is thought/belief real?"
"Is love real?"
"Is this conversation real?"
"Is a cheeseburger real?"
"Is Newton's second law of motion real?"
"Is mathematics real?"
"Is the number 5 real?"

It ought be clear by now how important agreement is to the meaningful progress of this discussion.

A bit on how definitions work. Some things are completely man-made. We define those. Other things are not man-made. We also define those. The former we cannot get 'wrong'. The latter we can. This all ties into how we go about identifying that which we are talking about. When someone says "X" and another understands, then we have an example of agreement upon whatever "X" is. That much being said...

So, just about anyone who believes in a god will say that they do not know(or cannot know) what it is that they believe in?

I find that an odd thing to say.





I assert that there are no such things as "images in the brain". If there were, it would require a viewer in the brain. Just say no to homunculi.

Well, the bit you've said about 'T'ruth is not so much a confict for me as it is a conflict for you. Whether or not I will be able to effectively explain how that is the case has yet to be seen. It would eventually require your agreement.




Yes. Folk have been attributing events that happen in our lives and the world to a supernatural being for as long as we've been curious about why stuff happens. As it turns out, most of the stuff that used to be thought of as an act of God doesn't require positing a God in our knowledge. Thunder storms, lightning, hurricanes, floods, untimely deaths from (previously)unknown causes, etc. All these sorts of things and many many more used to be thought of as 'evidence' of the existence of God. Entire belief systems have been built around the unwavering belief in God.

I've experienced - first hand - what you would may call "a work of God". There are many things that have happened in my life that I simply cannot explain. Events that defy common sense, rational thought, and/or reasoned explanation. I no longer attribute these sorts of things to God, not because I deny the existence thereof. Rather, because there is no reasonable means for distinguishing between which notions of God are accurate(assuming that that is possible) and which ones are not.

I am of the strong opinion that if there is a creator of this universe then this entity must exist beyond time and space. All human knowledge is limited to that which appears in time and space. Thus, we cannot have knowledge of that which may or may not exist beyond.





Just curious. Have you read all of these studies? If not, then how can you claim knowledge of what us within them?

I'm sure that there are lots of studies that could be used to support all the different sorts of belief. That is uninteresting really.

I took the time to respond to save an otherwise unwitting reader from being fooled. I have shown - in great detail - how/why what you've written is irrelevant to the question at hand. If you wish to argue against what I've claimed, then do so.

Just in case one didn't get the more complex points I've already raised, I'll be more direct and simple this time around...

Picturing a rose conjures up the memory of some thing that we can all point at. The existence of a rose is point-of-view-invariant. The existence of an imagined rose is not. Thus there is a clear difference between our imagining a rose and a rose. There is no possible distinction to be drawn and maintained between God and imagining a God. Thus, the line of thinking you've introduced does not lend itself to a good argument for the existence of God. God's existence is akin to our picturing a rose in our minds when no rose has been seen.

That is exactly why/how we have so many different religions. All those folk hold that what they think/believe about what they call "God" or "Allah" or whatever the case may be is true and what others believe is not.

The bit about truth is gibberish; prima facie evidence that you have no idea what truth is and/or the role that it plays in thought/belief and the statements that follow.

Why ought anyone here try to figure out why you would say anything at all? Your personal psychology is not the focus. Rather than instruct the reader to make sense of the words you write, why don't you say something clear, concise, and meaningful. Relevancy is always a plus too.The topic is "Is God real?" not why does Pan say the stuff he does.

Sigh.

This is almost meaningful and/or relevant, but it doesn't really add anything. Let's look a bit closer...


1. We are asked to picture a rose in our mind.

Doing that is to remember what a rose looks like. So, we are asked to remember and/or imagine what a rose looks like. No problem(s) so far.


2. We are then asked "Is that rose is real?"

Because this question immediately follows the instruction to remember/imagine what a rose looks like(to picture a rose in our minds), and it specifies "that rose", it only stands to reason that the question refers to the one that we have been asked to imagine/remember(picture) - otherwise it's unintelligible. It is an odd question though. I say that that question is completely misguided. We are being asked if there is a difference between our memory of a rose and a "real" one. That is to ask if there is a difference between our memory and what is real.

Memories are real, not in the same sense of "real" that distinguishes the physical object from our memory of that, but rather in the "real" sense of existing. Our memories exist as product of thought/belief. We are a part of reality. Thus, as it's been used, the term "real" doesn't really add anything useful and/or relevant to our understanding.


3. Then "Or is it simply a real image in your head"? Any picturing of a rose in your mind would be called an "image in your head" So, what's the point of this line of questioning? And perhaps most importantly...

What does it have to do with what is being asked? I mean if it somehow tells us something about the question "Is God real?" it is certainly not clear what it is trying to say. Let's apply it to our focus and see bow it holds up to scrutiny...


Picture God in your mind.

Is that God real? Or is it an image in your head? Or not real at all because there is no physical evidence?







Assuming sanity, we all do just that. In fact, if we did not trust our senses in some fashion we could not go on about our daily business. What does trusting our physiological sensory perception apparati have to do with whether or not God is real.





You may not need another to agree with what you CALL "real", but it would be utterly meaningless without someone else agreeing. There are no private languages. If there is a difference between CALLING something "real" and something being real, then you've arrived at a significant problem.

What's this bit about tools for what to call "real" supposed to do? I mean, surely language is one. Language is necessarily learned from another and follows rules of social convention, which is necessarily social. That requires another - obviously so. Thus, it only follows that your own tools, whatever you may think/believe those are, required someone's agreement at the most fundamental level, lest you would not know how to use words as you do. If you had no words, what could you possibly say about anything?





So...

It seems that after analysis, the quote that this post addresses is rather uninteresting and irrelevant.

This may need a bit of unpacking, but I'll suppose that we pretty much believe the same sorts of things. I mean, I hold the position that most everyone agrees upon much more than we disagree. With that much in mind...

It seems clear to me that the existence of God and a belief in God are utterly indistinguishable.

I suspect we agree here, but I'll wait for confirmation prior to continuing. You may like to know that there are serious logical issues with claims that require severing thought/belief from reality.

The definition for "reality" wasn't being questioned. What we mean by "real" when we ask the question 'Is God real?' is the current focus, or at least I think/believe that it ought be in order to make progress.

As if answering those questions affects what's been stated thus far. I could not know the answer to those questions, and what I've stated be true nonetheless.

It implied no such thing. It was and is quite clear. Either you see it or you don't. By "see" I mean grasp what is being put forth.




As I've said, the question is misguided. Life comes before meaning, therefore there can be no meaning OF life.

The chicken and the egg are two different stages of the same life form. It has no bearing.

There is an appeal here. I think it prudent for one to know as much about a subject matter as possible. While Pyrrhonism aims at suspending judgment in order to contemplate as many different aspects of any given subject matter, is isn't sustainable. I mean, it is interesting to contemplate the tenets and keep them in mind, especially while first contemplating something that has yet to have been contemplated. However, it just doesn't match how folk act in their daily routines. I mean folk behave on a daily basis without doubt regarding lots of things.

---

"Is God real?" indeed does look like a meaningful question. In order to answer it we must set out what being real consists in/of. Personally, I find the often used real/imagined distinction utterly incapable of setting out certain things. As you've already suggested, we could find a place of agreement('we' meaning the participants) and begin building upon that until we arrive at exactly what the question is asking for.