Can Science Rule Out God

[Terry Sampson]

would be required to wear a dunce cap in Revoltistan

I don't think questfortruth is going to take kindly to that law.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't think questfortruth is going to take kindly to that law.

But it's a really nice dunce cap.

 

[Terry Sampson]

But it's a really nice dunce cap.

Matches my suspenders, but I still doubt qfort's gonna like it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Matches my suspenders, but I still doubt qfort's gonna like it.

The law is the law.

 

[Terry Sampson]

The law is the law.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, because science deals with the physical world and God is the metaphysical.

This seems to be a more damning dismissal of God than you'll hear from most atheists.

As far as science is concerned, if a thing has physical effects, it can be tested.

 

[Audie]

I believe science would eventually prove the necessity for God's existence -rather, the necessity for at least the development of self-awareness and creativity prior to what we call the singularity and big bang -a creator responsible for purposefully making that which is now from that which was before.
Furthermore, that it could be done by the same manner of reverse-engineering of the present arrangement which lead to understanding the general origin/initiation of the universe.

While such things as the study of the development of self-awareness and creativity of Earth life/humans can correctly be called a "science", its principles are not usually coupled with or applied to sciences which have to do with the origin of the universe -or anything prior.

The example of Earth life clearly shows that some things are absolutely impossible without self-aware creativity -and those things indicate such by their nature. The fact that everything which now exists is a re-arrangement of that which has always existed means that principle will have always applied.

What is possible and impossible in relation to the self-aware creativity of Earth life references an already-extremely-complex and -dynamic environment.
The necessity of an overall/all-encompassing creator (developing) prior to that environment (the universe) -or extremely-purposeful complexity in general -would reference the most simple states possible. Of course, no initial/original or eternal creator could have decided THAT it would exist -but would be responsible for all that required conscious decision as increasingly able to consciously decide.

What esrth life clearly shows to YOU only
speaks to how you choose to see.

 

[Audie]

As did I. Although for me, that meant not reading the article at all.

I've had far too many ppl not bother reading my link so I'll do the same.

Instead, I'll answer the question. No. Nor can it escape the fact that the first science was actually supported by the church. God is a deity not only of souls and afterlife and stuff like sin and morality, but also of the created world. The church patronized the sciences to a large extent because they wanted to understand the natural world. In fact, even in religious schools, they make sure that you learn biology, chem, physics, mathematics, etc. This is despite the schism most churches had after ppl like Copernicus and Galileo proposed models on the universe contradicting Biblical thinking.
Even so, science can never really escape its church influence. For example, Lemaitre proposed the Big Bang that many scientists claim is proof that a model of the universe can exist without God (only it really can't, because the Big Bang requires causal forces that wouldn't have existed until after things were already created, that is prior to the Big Bang even gravity wouldn't exist). Lemaitre is a Catholic priest, and the Big Bang is based on the actual creation rewound to an origin point. Nor can it escape what quantum physics says about it. Quantum physics shows that particles react differently when ppl are there, it shows that on the atomic level nothing actually dies, and so on.

When you speak absolute garbage - see your "claim is proof",
you just kill any chance of taking you seriously.

 

[PureX]

You are avoiding the obvious. If we agree that a certain configuration of pixels has a unique meaning, then if we both see the same configuration of pixels, we can mutually agree on its meaning. If we see different configurations of pixels, we're going to have a misunderstanding.

The pixels contain no meaning. They are merely designated representations of idea sets.

If I say in the last post you called me "a son of a b*tch," and I ask a mod to check it, and in fact that phrase never appears in your last post, my claim is incorrect and any mod worth their salt is going to say, "sorry, your claim was unfounded." Imagine the absurdity of a mod, say, banning you from RF because the claim that you called me a son of a b*tch was "true for me," despite no independently verifiable evidence of such a thing.

The mod agreeing with me would still not make the claim any more or less true than had the mod agreed with you. All it would mean is that the mod interpreted the text as I did, rather than as you did. Which would be, of course, his subjective interpretation, and so not an "objective truth", as you seem to be imagining.

When 99 people presume that the world is round, it's because they are all choosing and interpreting a similar information set in a similar way. And when one person presumes the world is flat, it's because he is choosing and interpreting a different information set in a different way. Both presumptions are "true" relative to the information sets and the methods of reasoning being used to derive their conclusions. But in actuality, "Truth" doesn't really even enter into it. The Truth is 'what is'. It's the integrated whole. But we don't have access to that. All we have are a bunch of inter-related information sets called facts that we assemble into reasonably functional presumptions of truth. And I think it's crucial that we humans keep this in mind, lest our delusions of truth possession destroy us.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

When you speak absolute garbage - see your "claim is proof",
you just kill any chance of taking you seriously.

This is called a dismissal without a disproof. It's used by lazy thinkers to shout down arguments they have no ability to actually dispute.

It's like this:

I, the person attempting to prove something shows diagrams, a philosophical "if this, then that must be" assertion, links to articles, or even a long argument as to why this assertion equals that conclusion.

You, the lazy thinker get to say "That's stupid, you haven't proven anything" and go back to sleep.

Or... I can say "Okay then, I've stated why I believe this thing, now the burden of proof is shifted to you. You have to disprove it."

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Any scientist who claims gods are proven or disproven
would be required to wear a dunce cap in Revoltistan.
(It's our most severe law.)

I would be okay with that, so long as all atheists also must do so.

Science ought to be religiously neutral.

 

[Left Coast]

The pixels contain no meaning. They are merely designated representations of idea sets.

You are not interacting with what I actually said. I agree that the pixels contain no inherent meaning; they have an assigned and mutually agreed meaning. What I said is: "If we agree that a certain configuration of pixels has a unique meaning, then if we both see the same configuration of pixels, we can mutually agree on its meaning. If we see different configurations of pixels, we're going to have a misunderstanding."

The point of this is to say that a third party can confirm which configurations of pixels appear on the screen, because the pixels are observable and measurable objects in the physical universe. We can invite a third, fourth, fifth party, and so on to do the same. The more people that honestly agree with you that a certain configuration of pixels does not appear in the post, the more likely it is that I was mistaken and perhaps misread something.

The mod agreeing with me would still not make the claim any more or less true than had the mod agreed with you.

Of course not. The mod agreeing doesn't "make the claim more or less true." The claim is true or false independent of what anyone says about it: either the words appear in the post, or they don't. The content of the post is an objective fact of the world. The mod's agreement is a piece of evidence that we can use to assess the likelihood that my claim about the words is accurate or not. If we recruit more people to examine the text, their perceptions are yet more evidence one way or the other. The likelihood that everyone else on RF is either independently misperceiving the text or lying about it, is vastly less likely than the hypothesis that I alone am.

All it would mean is that the mod interpreted the text as I did, rather than as you did. Which would be, of course, his subjective interpretation, and so not an "objective truth", as you seem to be imagining.

Then you don't understand what "objective" means. If I make a statement and it is confirmed independently by others via physical correlates that are measured and conform to my statement, then by definition my statement is objective. Again, none of this is dogmatic or infallible: it's probabilistic.

When 99 people presume that the world is round, it's because they are all choosing and interpreting a similar information set in a similar way. And when one person presumes the world is flat, it's because he is choosing and interpreting a different information set in a different way.

Yes, that's obvious. The question is whether the 1 person's or 99 people's interpretation of the data is correct, ie accurate. We assess this by independently verifying the evidence for a round and flat earth and evaluating/testing it empirically. Inevitably, we are highly likely to discover that the flat earther has an incomplete information set, an inaccurate information set, is irrationally misinterpreting her data set, and/or the predictions we would expect on a flat earth hypothesis do not come to pass.

Both presumptions are "true" relative to the information sets and the methods of reasoning being used to derive their conclusions.

As before, you are straining the meaning of words to the point of incoherence. If someone is being irrational and using sh*tty, incomplete data to assess a hypothesis, and they come to a faulty conclusion as a result, there is no meaningful sense in which their position is "true." It may be honest, but that doesn't make it true.

But in actuality, "Truth" doesn't really even enter into it. The Truth is 'what is'. It's the integrated whole. But we don't have access to that. All we have are a bunch of inter-related information sets called facts that we assemble into reasonably functional presumptions of truth. And I think it's crucial that we humans keep this in mind, lest our delusions of truth possession destroy us.

And the physical data of our senses are the only reliable means we have to assemble those "reasonably functional presumptions of truth." Which is why it is not meaningful or coherent to say that a God which has no physical correlate is "real."

 

[Revoltingest]

I would be okay with that, so long as all atheists also must do so.

Science ought to be religiously neutral.

We make no distinction regarding religion or the lack thereof.

 

[PureX]

You are not interacting with what I actually said. I agree that the pixels contain no inherent meaning; they have an assigned and mutually agreed meaning. What I said is: "If we agree that a certain configuration of pixels has a unique meaning, then if we both see the same configuration of pixels, we can mutually agree on its meaning. If we see different configurations of pixels, we're going to have a misunderstanding."

The point of this is to say that a third party can confirm which configurations of pixels appear on the screen, because the pixels are observable and measurable objects in the physical universe. We can invite a third, fourth, fifth party, and so on to do the same. The more people that honestly agree with you that a certain configuration of pixels does not appear in the post, the more likely it is that I was mistaken and perhaps misread something.

And my point is that none of that means anything, except what we've all decided in advance what means what. The whole process is relative, subjective, and inherently biased. Agreement is not a pathway to truth. Just because 99 out of 100 humans presume that the "truth of the world is spherical" does not mean that it is.

Of course not. The mod agreeing doesn't "make the claim more or less true." The claim is true or false independent of what anyone says about it: either the words appear in the post, or they don't. The content of the post is an objective fact of the world.

No, its not. Because the post HAS NO CONTENT. All it contains is a complex arrangement of symbols that need to interpreted. That interpretation then becomes the presumed content of the writer, by the reader. The arrangement of symbols may be an "objective fact" but once we begin to interpret them the result in no longer objective. It is subjective. It's even metaphysical (conceptual).

The mod's agreement is a piece of evidence that we can use to assess the likelihood that my claim about the words is accurate or not.

Agreement is only evidence of agreement. It's not evidence of truthfulness.

If we recruit more people to examine the text, their perceptions are yet more evidence one way or the other. The likelihood that everyone else on RF is either independently misperceiving the text or lying about it, is vastly less likely than the hypothesis that I alone am.

Agreement is only agreement. It is not indicative of truth. And more agreement doesn't change that.

...none of this is dogmatic or infallible: it's probabilistic.

It's probability is based on functionality, not on truth. Just because something works does not mean that it's true. It just means that it works relative to our applied criteria for success. All of which are inherently biased, by our being who and what we are (and are not). You think the process that you're describing is somehow getting us closer to the truth of things, but it's not. And even if it did, we wouldn't be able to tell that it had.

It's very important that we humans understand this, because otherwise we are going to be constantly falling under the spell of our own biased delusion of truth and reality (as we are very prone to do). And that tends not to end well for us.

 

[Audie]

I would be okay with that, so long as all atheists also must do so.

Science ought to be religiously neutral.

This is called a dismissal without a disproof. It's used by lazy thinkers to shout down arguments they have no ability to actually dispute.

It's like this:

I, the person attempting to prove something shows diagrams, a philosophical "if this, then that must be" assertion, links to articles, or even a long argument as to why this assertion equals that conclusion.

You, the lazy thinker get to say "That's stupid, you haven't proven anything" and go back to sleep.

Or... I can say "Okay then, I've stated why I believe this thing, now the burden of proof is shifted to you. You have to disprove it."

More garbage. You could say the same if I had
objected to a claim of ski resorts in Kansas

An absolute marvel of nature is how you anti
science religionists cannot fathom such an
obvious and basic thing about science.

Theories, laws, can never ever be proven, because
we can never have all possible data. There could
be an exception to falsify it. Simple.

As long as you cannot grasp that you just kill
your credibility saying anything at all about
science.

I bet you still wont get it, and try to argue.

 

[Audie]

We make no distinction regarding religion or the lack thereof.

It was just more barfin down the wrong rabbit hole.

(Even worse than a strawman)

 

[Left Coast]

And my point is that none of that means anything, except what we've all decided in advance what means what.

Which I've agreed with every time you've said it, and which is completely irrelevant to the original point I made.

The whole process is relative, subjective, and inherently biased. Agreement is not a pathway to truth. Just because 99 out of 100 humans presume that the "truth of the world is spherical" does not mean that it is.

I never claimed that, so I don't know why you keep saying it. I was extremely specific with what I said about agreement. Agreement is a piece of evidence we use to independently and probabilistically verify our perceptions (which is inherent it what it means to be objective).

No, its not. Because the post HAS NO CONTENT.

By content, I meant the symbols themselves, sorry if that was confusing.

Agreement is only evidence of agreement. It's not evidence of truthfulness.

Agreement is only agreement. It is not indicative of truth. And more agreement doesn't change that.

We're coming to a need for clarification on the meaning of "truth." If "true" means "consistent with objective facts" then yes, empirical agreement is certainly evidence of truth.

It's probability is based on functionality, not on truth. Just because something works does not mean that it's true. It just means that it works relative to our applied criteria for success. All of which are inherently biased, by our being who and what we are (and are not). You think the process that you're describing is somehow getting us closer to the truth of things, but it's not. And even if it did, we wouldn't be able to tell that it had.

You're defining truth as "how things really are," but as you point out we have no direct access to that information, all we have are our sensory perceptions of things. This is why we use what you're calling "functionality" to test reality. If we have a claim that "in condition x, y will occur" and then we produce condition x, and y subsequently occurs, we can coherently say the claim is true.

A reality in which my claim "works" but isn't "how things really are" is indistinguishable from a reality in which my claim works because it actually is "how things really are."

This is why your attempt to claim we can't determine if things are "true" because we don't know "how things really are" is ultimately incoherent. The only definition of "truth" that has any relevance to our lived experienced is precisely "that which comports with objective fact."

It's very important that we humans understand this, because otherwise we are going to be constantly falling under the spell of our own biased delusion of truth and reality (as we are very prone to do). And that tends not to end well for us.

On the contrary, it's extremely important that we humans understand that testing claims against objectively verifiable data is our only meaningful method for understanding any "truth" about the world. When we pretend that one proposition can be "true for you" but a contradictory one can be "true for me," that tends not to end well for us, because it makes the entire basis of how we understand and interact with the world completely illogical and incoherent.

 

[PureX]

I was extremely specific with what I said about agreement. Agreement is a piece of evidence we use to independently and probabilistically verify our perceptions (which is inherent it what it means to be objective).

Verify our perceptions relative to what? A presumption of Truth, aren't we presuming? What you mean by "accuracy" is accuracy to "the truth". And this is what I am trying to point out as being illogical. Because "the truth" is what is, not what we think is, is. This objectivity that you are putting so much stock in is not obtainable, because we humans simply cannot transcend what we are, and what we are not. WE are the "subjects" of subjectivity. And there is no escape. Flat Earths, round Earths, fluxist Earths; they're all human conceptualizations, and they are all biased by the limitations of the human condition. And they are ALL TRUE in that they are part of 'what is', and they are ALL FALSE in that they are limited, relative, and biased. Consensus does not indicate truthfulness.

We're coming to a need for clarification on the meaning of "truth." If "true" means "consistent with objective facts" then yes, empirical agreement is certainly evidence of truth.

We have no access to "objective facts" because as we are the source of the subjectivity (relative bias). Human cognition is a lens that only sees subjectively. The truth is what is. We cannot perceive what is. We can only perceive inter-related bits of what is, and understand them via to our own human bias. That's why consensus does not get us any closer to truth.

You're defining truth as "how things really are," but as you point out we have no direct access to that information, all we have are our sensory perceptions of things. This is why we use what you're calling "functionality" to test reality. If we have a claim that "in condition x, y will occur" and then we produce condition x, and y subsequently occurs, we can coherently say the claim is true.

But functionality does not test reality. It only tests for functionality. We then assume that functionality equals reality because most of the time the only reality we care about is the reality we can control to our own advantage. The same way we assume that consensus equals truth, because we feel safer (more righteous) in numbers.

Humans are always spouting off about how they love the truth and pursue the truth above all else, but when you look at how we behave it is very clear that we have very little interest in anything resembling the truth. What we're interested in functionality, and delusions of righteousness. That is the truth (the 'what is') of us. And we will never be able to transcend this rather pathetic condition until we can at least recognize it in ourselves.

A reality in which my claim "works" but isn't "how things really are" is indistinguishable from a reality in which my claim works because it actually is "how things really are."

Except that one is logical and one is not. While both are biased to the point of blindness, because they are both equally "real". Both our ignorance and our presumed knowledge are equally "real". And therefor, equally true.

 

[Left Coast]

Verify our perceptions relative to what?

Objective facts.

A presumption of Truth, aren't we presuming?

Yes, because "consistent with objective fact" is how I define "true." That's what I tried to explain.

What you mean by "accuracy" is accuracy to "the truth". And this is what I am trying to point out as being illogical.

But it isn't illogical. You have this notion in your head that since we can't infallibly surpass all subjective bias, that the entire enterprise of trying to accurately understand the world is a non-starter and all claims are equally "valid." Sorry, that just doesn't follow.

Because "the truth" is what is, not what we think is, is. This objectivity that you are putting so much stock in is not obtainable, because we humans simply cannot transcend what we are, and what we are not. WE are the "subjects" of subjectivity. And there is no escape.

If "what is" and "what we think is, is" are indistinguishable, then the distinction is meaningless and irrelevant. That's what you're missing.

Objectivity is obtainable: we define it, and we achieve that definition all the time.

Flat Earths, round Earths, fluxist Earths; they're all human conceptualizations, and they are all biased by the limitations of the human condition. And they are ALL TRUE in that they are part of 'what is', and they are ALL FALSE in that they are limited, relative, and biased.

But they're not all "what is." The Earth cannot simultaneously be flat and not-flat, they're mutually exclusive. The concepts of Earth flatness and Earth roundness both exist in people's heads, but that is not the same as the claim that the Earth is flat is true.

Consensus does not indicate truthfulness.

We've been over this. Consensus is evidence that helps us assess probability.

We have no access to "objective facts" because as we are the source of the subjectivity (relative bias). Human cognition is a lens that only sees subjectively. The truth is what is. We cannot perceive what is. We can only perceive inter-related bits of what is, and understand them via to our own human bias. That's why consensus does not get us any closer to truth.

Yes, we do have access to objective facts. You still aren't grasping what "objective" means.

But functionality does not test reality. It only tests for functionality. We then assume that functionality equals reality because most of the time the only reality we care about is the reality we can control to our own advantage. The same way we assume that consensus equals truth, because we feel safer (more righteous) in numbers.

No. We assume functionality equals reality because that's the only coherent definition of reality that matters.

Say I see a small bird one day. It walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck - in fact, in every way it matches the definition of a duck, down to the genetic level. The question you want us to ask is, but what is it, really? Is it really a duck? It could be a robot, or an illusion, or we could all be in the Matrix and imagining a holographic simulation of a duck. But the point I am trying to drive home to you is that if one of those alternatives is really what is - if it's a robot, or a simulation - if the simulation is so perfect that it's indistinguishable from an actual duck and we'll never know which is which - then what difference does it make? If it meets all the criteria for the English word, "duck," then it makes nothing but sense to call it a duck and treat it like a duck. Because our experience is identical to what it would be if we were actually seeing a duck.

This is why your whole objection to not knowing "what really is" is ultimately pointless and incoherent.

Except that one is logical and one is not.

How? Which is which? They're identical. If one is logical, by definition the other is logical.

While both are biased to the point of blindness, because they are both equally "real". Both our ignorance and our presumed knowledge are equally "real". And therefor, equally true.

If both possibilities are equally true, then you just defeated your own argument. You should have no problem using "functionality" (ie the testing of claims against empirical evidence) as a proxy for truth: the only definition we can assess, and the only one that has any discernible effect on our existence.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

how is the conceptual phenomenon of "God" any less "real" than any other conceptual phenomena, including the phenomena of "reality" itself?

This is a topic of great interest to me - what is true and what is real - so I will write at length on it. My apologies to those who prefer short posts.

Reality is supported by evidence that can be experienced by the senses. The concept of reality derives from experience, and the concepts can be tested for validity.

God conceptions lack this connection to experience (empiricism), and as such cannot be used for anything except comforting oneself by choosing to believe what one wants to be true, possibly at great cost, as the Branch Davidians discovered. They wanted to believe that their leader was a god that could protect them, or that there was a god above judging them on their faithfulness - ideas that caused them to make lethal errors that those using evidence to decide what was true avoided.

The mind is most useful at observing reality, generating useful generalizations about it that allow one to predict and often control outcomes. But we won't find the world to be any way if we don't look at it. If we sit in armchairs and speculate about observable reality, we are guessing, as Aristotle did (see below).

Contrast that with evidence-based thinking. After initially roaming my neighborhood, I determined by actually experiencing its layout that I live five blocks north and three blocks east of the pier. The deciding factor of whether that is correct or not will be whether this idea can be used to get me to the pier. If walking 5 blocks south and three blocks west works as hoped to get me to the pier, then the idea is correct. If I end up anywhere else, it was wrong.

This is the sine qua non of what we call a correct idea, or a fact, or a true statement, or knowledge - that the idea can be used to effect desired outcomes better than competing ideas. .

Flat and round are human conceptualizations. The "Earth" is just an elaborate collection of physical phenomena, some of which we humans can perceive, and some of which we (probably) cannot. How we conceptualize it's "shape" depends on the phenomenal criteria we are using to do so. We delude ourselves into thinking that the shape of the Earth is a "objective fact" when it's really just a subjective conceptualization based on phenomena that we are currently able to perceive and how we choose to quantify it. There are many other dimensions from which the collective phenomena we call "Earth" may appear as something quite apart from a sphere.

This kind of thinking feels nihilistic - a dismal form of solipsistic radical skepticism, the major thrust of which is that if nothing can be known entirely or with certainty, then nothing can be known, and all positions are equally valid.

We are not deluded into believing that the earth is relatively spherical, which is a fact like the fact of my distance and direction from the pier, which reliably gets me there every time. We have empirical evidence to support that between the flat-earthers and those wedded to evidence, one has a correct idea and the other doesn't. Once again, we go back to observation. Erastothenes observed shadows and determined that the earth was roughly spherical:

Others observed the shape of earth's shadow on the moon during lunar eclipses and saw that it was rounded. Others still noted distant ships sinking below the horizon, which is inconsistent with a flat earth. More recently, we have seen the earth from space and orbited it. Does none of this matter? Is any opinion as good as any other?

The two models can be tested in terms of their predictions. On a flat earth, if you sailed in a straight line, you would eventually fall off of the earth. On a spherical earth, you never hit an edge and return to your point of origin. This is what I mean by the empirical nature of truth. Correct ideas are the ones that can be used to make accurate predictions. Sail off in one direction until you fall off of the earth or return to your point of origin and decide which idea is useful and which is not. Call the one correct, and the other incorrect. One idea is a keeper and should be added to the present fund of knowledge, the other rejected.

The point is that data portal is subjective, limited, always changing, and as a result, quite misleading.

Yet I (and you too) successfully trust and use the evidence provided by our external senses every day. Do you look both ways before crossing the street? If so, you are relying on evidence to create a desired outcome - crossing the street safely. Ignore the evidence and act on beliefs rooted in faith - cross with your eyes closed to keep that pesky evidence out if you like, but I don't think you'll like the outcome as well. Once again good ideas, correct ideas, and useful ideas are the ones that work - that can be used to maximize desired outcomes and avoid undesirable ones. This is what matters, and I doubt that you take a philosophical position questioning the reliability of the portals of experience when crossing the street. You become the same as me - an empiricist rooted in the experience of evidence.

Speculation divorced from empiricism is unhelpful - sterile. Aristotle asserted on faith that heavy objects fall faster than lighter objects. Galileo finally put that to the test, and showed for all time that it was wrong.

Others speculated that the stars controlled our lives, and that accurate predictions could be made using astrological techniques. The evidence says otherwise. Put it to the test. Follow the lives of two babies born in adjacent delivery rooms at the same time and demonstrate that their lives were very different. No horoscope would be correct for them both. Then toss the idea onto the scrapheap of other sterile metaphysical speculations divorced from empiricism, which happens to be where I put god concepts. Can't find a single one with evidentiary support, nor one for whom belief in such a god can be used to make life better.

The tenor of our two positions is opposite. I am very much into correlating what is called truth with empiricism, and you seem to prefer philosophical position which diminish the value of empiricism, ideas I can't find a use for.

We cannot conceptualize non-existence.

I can. I can even define its qualities. The nonexistent is that which has no empirical correlate and which cannot be experienced empirically even in principle. This is how many gods are described. The supernatural fits well into that category as well. Likewise vampires and leprechauns.

The fact that we can conceptualize "God" means something exists and is being conceptualized in this way.

This is the ontological argument for God, first proposed by Anselm, who postulated "that, if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality." I really don't understand why this argument had any traction then or now. It's backward. Correct ideas are derived from experienced objects, processes and relationships, not the other way around. Simply conceiving of a simplistic idea as a god no more indicates that gods exist than thinking of leprechauns and vampires. Why would anybody think otherwise?

The Earth is whatever we determine it to be. That's as true individually as it is collectively. So if one individual determines it to be flat, while everyone else determines it to be spherical, then so be it.

Really? The earth is what we discover it to be empirically.

To the individual it's flat. To everyone else it's a sphere.

The individual is wrong. Is that so difficult to say?

If one's concept of truth is not rooted in empiricism, then it is not a useful definition of truth. The idea has no meaning if divorced from external reality. What matters is that we have preferences and desires, and that we make choices to try to make some things happen and not others. If a belief allows us to do that, it is right, correct, true - whatever term you like best for keeper ideas.

The measure of a correct idea is its utility. Ideas that cannot be used to make life better are either irrelevant, such as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or wrong and potentially dangerous if they lead us to make bad decisions, as with the Branch Davidians.