Does belief make something a fact?

Remove all ads!

I don't know if this topic has already been discussed but I'll ask it anyway.

Millions of people today belief in God and say that God exists but if nobody believed in God would God still exist?

 

Human you are asking a very simple question. Yes belief does have the ability to make things happen or if you prefer exist, be real. There are many cases that people were cured from seemingly hopeless diseases by a miracle, i would say their belief and faith to something higher cured them.
Mind is a very powerfull and strange tool .
As for gods there is a queue for that.
Gods death is oblivion, not anyone to remembers them to acknowledge their existence.

 

Does belief make something a fact?

No.

Did the world change from flat to round at some point?

 

It might have.

It has been proven beyond a doubt that miracles can happen, the problem is that belief is not usually a factor.

 

and

At this point it is probably time for me to bow out of the discussion. If this is the belief then we're all probably going to just talk past one another because I can't even begin to fathom this as a possibility. God's supposed miracle of a flood pales in comparison to man's ignorance making the world flat.

 

if God exists, he would no matter if he had believers or not.

If he does not exist, he would not excist no matter if he believers or not.

When I speak of existence, I mean something that is on its own.

Does faith make something real? Depends.

If all those you question say yes, then it is real. If just one say no, then it's not real.

 

I'm no philosopher, but I seem to recall that a number of thinkers have postulated that external reality might not exist (the only thing ABSOLUTELY provable is the Cartesian "I think, therefore I am"), and what we percieve as reality is largely the creation of our minds....I always think of the interrogation scene in 1984 when I hear this argument - the one in which O'Brien tells Winston about the party's philosophy of power...one thing....if belief really did change the world, wouldn't every scientist always find his or her hypothesis to be correct, simply due to individual belief Or maybe the scientist's belief in a consistent, independent external universe is stronger than belief in the hypothesis. Now here's a thought. What happens if belief can change the world, and a majority of people believe strongly that it doesn't?

 

Ironbeard, not even the Cartesian claim of "I think, therefore I am" is absolutely provable. It assumes three things: the "I" (why is the individual the focus, and not a nation or a cell?), the "think" (what is thinking, and how can you really prove that you are truly thinking?), and "am" (what does it really mean to be?). Descartes stopped too soon!

But I second Laches. The idea that belief can remake reality is ridiculous. It comes from playing too much Planescape and playing too little outdoors. His flat-earth example, and rastilin's reply, perfectly summarize the opposing mentalities.

Mithrantir, as for those people who claim to have willed themselves to a cure, that's scientifically explainable. The most likely possibility is that their beliefs were completely incidental to the physical healing, but the patients irrationally credit their irrational beliefs. We hear about people willing themselves to healing but not about those that are just as willful but die - because they're dead, so they can't tell us! It would be as if we tried to "will" a coin into only flipping heads, but only recorded those times we got heads.

Another possibility is that mental processes can have psychosomatic effects. But that's not belief remaking reality - it's one physical process (flashing neurons) triggering another physical process (blood cells or what-not).

Or another possibility is that there really is a God who listens to sincere prayers and acts miraculously. But in that case God is real and acts in response to the prayers - not that God is empowered or created by them.

So in answer to your question, Human - yes, even if no one believed in God, He would still exist. As Laches already emphasized, personal ignorance of a fact does not make the fact any less factual.

 

Well thank you Grey for proving my point. As i said what you believe is what kind of glass you use to perceive the world. If you choose the blue you will live in a blue world if you choose black, a black world and so on.

You seem to not to understand that the issue here is practically personal. IF I BELIEVE that the earth is flat then in my reality EARTH IS FLAT. I can't understand why you seem to think that we must share the same beliefs. And if you don't believe me then go and see a phyciatrist and ask him about the lunnatics and how can you define that a man is crazy. I can't understand why you absolute and with your opinion and do not even consider others people thoughts

Well that is exactly what i said for the subject of belief. And thank you again for proving me true. If here was a guy who was deeply religious, he would now have the exact opposite reaction. Because according to his beliefs miracles do happen and they show us the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ hallelulaj (whatever)

 

And thank you, Mithrantir, for proving Laches' point.

If you believe that the world is flat, then you act as if the world is flat. But that doesn't make the world one bit flatter. And if I believe that the world is round, then I act as if the world is round. But that doesn't make the world one bit rounder.

If I claim that the world is round, it's not that I'm being inconsiderate of other's thoughts. It's that the earth itself is inconsiderate of other's thoughts.

And speaking as someone who is indeed "deeply religious" (hallelujah!), prayers are not petty perceptions or wishful thinking, but conversations with a real Person. It's like chatting with a human doctor to discuss possible solutions - the doctor does all the actual physical work, even though the work was prompted by "merely" talking. So prayers are not remaking or reshaping reality but merely recognizing it.

 

It's the same as if I stopped believing in you. Will you cease to exist when I say you don't?

Let's say, your friends gather and make majority vote. You lose 20 to 0. Do you vanish?

Or will your computer dissolve in the air if you stop believing that it exists?

 

As a matter of fact, yes, a strong enough belief can have a physical, measureable effect upon the world, but this takes a focused, and developed mind. It's called magick, but it doesn't rely so much on belief as force of will. This is how miracuous healings can be performed on another person, not psychocosymatically. Of course, this can be done in other ways as well, ways that supercede our limited forces of belief and will, directly, given the proper initiations and attunements, irregardless of the nature of the belief of the practitioner or the recipient, again, I talk from personal experience. We talked about this before, and Grey Magistrate, among others including myself, agreed that nothing can really be proved or disproved, eventually you have to take something on faith. I don't really care if you think I am telling the truth, I have had enough experience to believe this (almost, I am never certain even of my own existence) beyond doubt, and I also believe that you shall eventually agree with me, of this I am certain. As to how this applies to God, that is silly, you can't talk of God being independant of anything, or dependant on anyhting else; you are God. God is infinite, not limited by finite notions (such as will, belief- to make something subject to this is to make it finite, and no longer absolute), besides, if you are talking about gods, not God, then I am sure they have a far superior ability than us.

You'll just have to believe me on that

 

dmc, I'm not talking about the shaky undisciplined minds of the general populace, allthough that, as Mithrantir has pointed out, can have a limited effect upon their environment (such as the placebo effect). I agree that allthough, for all intents and purposes, the world believing in a Flat Earth means that it will in effect, be flat for those people who believ such things, is not likely to actually make the world flat.

You're thinking that humans hold the only belief that's necessary. There are a lot of other denizens of the Eart that might of disagreed, besides, the Earth knows what shape it is, and it believes in it's self.

 

Simple answer: 'no'.

Belief has no impact on anything in the real world. Belief can spur things into happening but the act of believing itself does not make anything happen.

However I'd like to quote Sid Mier's Alpha Centauri "God has not been proven to not exist, therefore [according to society] he must exist." Belief in something can make it real to 'you' or to a group of people who believe the same thing. However this reality is limited to themselves and for something to exist it must exist for everyone.

Yet you can't argue that 'love' is an exception to this rule. Love happens usually between one person and something else, it exists through that person for that person has created the love. The fact that the person loves another person or object is what is real. eg. Sarah loves Andrew. That is real for everyone for in the world Sarah DOES love Andrew. It might not affect anyone else and they might not know about it but that doesn't make it not real.

Also to argue that belief makes things real is flawed because it also means to 'not' believe in something makes it non-existant. Both arguments must apply to make the other correct since if belief has the power to 'create' something it must also have the power to 'uncreate' something. Nobody believes that there is a planet called 'Narbalorathuk' in the 'Ursala' solar system under the 'Ronian' galaxy but that doesn't mean that there 'isn't' or that there can't be one. There 'could' be one yet nobody believes it.

 

It's not not believing in it, it's believing in it not- that is, the strong belief that it does not exist, and the will to enforce it, not simply the absence of belief either way.

There are many forms of consciousness different to that of our own. A planet does not have to be self-aware to know it exists, it wouldn't recognize that it is conscious, that is, unlike us, it is not apperceptive, and again, your six year old and dog could not will me out of existence, because I, and many others who have met me, believe me to be real. I am talking about very small changes here- telekenesis, levitation, manifestation of fire, healing, transportation, not such large (and nigh impossible feats) as the annhilation or annullment of another being, if that is even possible.

 

Manus, you write:

Yes...but my point was that some acts of "faith" are much more rational than others. "I think, therefore I am" and "Others think, therefore I am" both have to be taken on faith, but the first accords much better with perceived reality as a whole.

You write:

Yes, you can take that on faith. Or, you can look at ACTUAL occurrences in reality. Instead of telekenesis, we have cranes to move huge objects around. Instead of levitation, we have elevators. Instead of manifestations of fire, we have gas stoves. Instead of psychic healing, we have medical science. Instead of transportation, we have cars. And instead of annihilation, we have guns and knives.

Sure, this world could be no more than the sum total of the universe's dreams. It does take a bit of faith to accept that this world is real. But which side has the preponderance of evidence? - the side backed by thousands of years of careful science, philosophy, and theology, or the side which claims, as you do, Manus, that "you are God" and can wield "magick...as force of will"?

Which brings us back to Human's original question. Judging the world as we know it, does evidence create or reflect reality?

 

Alright. Personal beliefs aside, I am going to say Yes, belief does create reality.

If you percieve something, you believe that it exists in the way you are percieving it. A desk is a desk because you percieve it to be a desk, light reflecting off of the desk caught by your eyes make you visualize the deck, and so on. But what happens when you are not percieving the desk? Does it vanish? Wink out of existence? The logical answer would be no, because I could look at the desk, or any sort of matter, and it would be the exact same way that it was the last time I looked at it. From that, I could postulate that the desk will be still be a desk EVERY time I look at it.

But that is faulty logic. That line of thinking states that things will happen simply because they have always happened. This can be assumed, but never logically proved, because things happen in the future, and the future can never be truly known. If I drop a ball, I can logically assume it will fall, and the probablitly that it will fall is high, but it is not CERTAIN that it will fall, because it has never been dropped this particular time before. So going back to the desk, once I turn away, I can ASSUME it will still be there, but I cannot KNOW it will still be there, because I have not percieved it yet. Since I am not percieving the matter with my own senses, why does it contine to reform all the time, even when nobody is there to percieve it?

The answer lies in the Omiscience of God. All matter exists because God is continually percieving it, and therefore no matter is ever unpercieved, and at risk of ceasing to exist. If a tree falls in a forest, it does make a sound because God hears it. God's continual perception is responsible for the existence of all matter. Using this argument, although admittedly I am not quite sure where it came from (although I should know; I heard it in class and it might be on the exam...), then perception IS reality; if one ceased to perceive something, then that something may cease to exist, and although improbable, it is possible. So things exist because God is continually percieving them. People's belief in God does not cause him to exist; God's belief in people causes them to.

 

Let me try to pitch my two cents into the arena. I think that esentially we have two philosophies coming to blows, pertaining to the nature of the world, yet that needn't be the case. We have the realists on one side, represented by Grey, Laches and DMC...and, shall we call them the hyper-realists...as spoken by Manus and Mithrantir. The disagreement has arisen because our world is both real and unreal at the same time. Before you order the straight jacket...hear me out.

There are parts of this world that are solidly real, and can not be affected by faith, hope, belief or prayer. There is no ammount of delusion that will cause the Earth to flatten, time to stand still, or death to be avoided. There are hard and fast elements to this world that will exist regardless of what you, I or anyone does. I could believe with all sincerity that this monitor I gaze into does not exist...yet it will remain until I carry it out to the garbage can...or they come to take ME away. This is the real world that the realists are speaking of.

Just as (in my belief) the human body is a unique combination of a real flesh and an intangible spirit...there are elements to the world that flirt at the edges of observable science and reality. It is this realm of the world that Manus speaks of...where this hyper-reality can be affected to some degree. Whether you call it Magick, miracles, telekinesis, God, angels, demonic possesion, faith...there is a part of this world and our lives not bound up in the rock solid reality within which we live each day. Can man translate hyper-reality into reality and change obvious fact?...no...but in that area where physical reality doesn't always hold sway, the above mentioned tags can wield significant power.

Whether it is a Pagan circling in the forest or an Orthodox Christian who venerates the relics of a long dead Saint, this hyper-real world has been recognized through all of human existence...it is only the arrogance of science that has drowned out the quieter voice of art.

So you see, at least as far as I see it, both sides are right, you are just talking about different things. Sort of like pondering the usefulness of water for washing and longing for it's necessity to preserve life.

I now have to return to my blacklights and the contemplation of my navel.