Poll - Belief in God

[Zaye]

Waxy and whoever said agnostic deals with knowledge, not faith, are right on the mark based on my understanding of agnosticism. Contrary to being an intellectually vacuous position, it is truly the only intellectually honest position when dealing with knowledge of God or goRAB or lack thereof. (That's not to say necessarily that one cannot have faith and recognize the lack of knowledge at the same time.)

Though I recognize Webster isn't the ultimate source for definitions, and definitions are fabricated by humanity anyway... Webster does indicate that agnosticism deals with knowledge of an ultimate reality.

Main Entry: 1ag

[lesa]

Good post, sinjin. Thanks. I really liked it. It made me think...In all the years - about 35 - that I've hunted and tromped in the Sulfur and Red River bottoms, I can count on one hand how many skeletons of wild hog I have seen. And they're plentiful here.

[Kim T]

I seem to remember that Jesus came down, was made man, was crucified and rose from the dead. I may not have personally witnessed the acts, but I believe that they occurred and were observed in the physical world.

[Ifraaz350zGTR]

You seem to remember that, eh? You think people observed that he came down and was made man? You think people observed him raise from the dead? Perhaps we should have a little debate about what people observed... I'm really interested in hearing specific accounts of someone who actually 'observed' one of these particular phenomena. =\

[Nichole ♥]

The arguments for or against the contemplation of an idea or entity that has no evidence in the physical world may not be logical. But it can certainly be logical to contemplate such an idea or entity.

Consider: Bob experiences an event for which he cannot find a cause in the physical world, no matter how much Bob tries. Bob considers that maybe there is a cause that exists in the physical world that he has not yet found, but Bob also considers that maybe there is a cause that is outside of the physical realm. Assuming there is a cause... and assuming that there is no evidence for a cause in the physical world... then the possibility for a cause outside of the physical world is certainly logical.



Hmmm... A distinction neeRAB to be made here between the physical world and the metaphysical.

Within the physical world, there are many examples of logical possibilities without observable evidence. (In fact, I bet you could name several yourself.) --> Unless you are considering from an omniscient and timeless perspective. From such a perspective, there was evidence at some point in time for everything that has ever existed in the physical world. Whether or not it was actually observed by an entity is irrelevant.

On the other hand, there cannot be physical evidence of metaphysical existence in the physical world. If there were... it would no longer be considered metaphysical. However, from the lack of physical evidence, one cannot logically conclude that there is no such thing as a metaphysical realm. This is akin to an individual living in Mesopotamia 5,000 years ago concluding that there is no such thing as Tennessee because there was no known evidence within the scope of his/her knowledge for the existence of Tennessee. Admittedly, it is not a perfect analogy, but it works on multiple levels. The geographic area of Tennessee did, in fact, exist at that time, regardless of the ignorance of the individual. The concept of Tennessee wasn't even defined and understood as it is by us today, but that doesn't mean that the geographic area did not exist. It is conceivable that we are not truly contained to the physical realm, in a similar way that Mesopotamian individual was not contained to Mesopotamia.

While there is certainly no physical evidence to support the above idea, there is also no physical evidence to dis-prove the idea. Perhaps non-physical evidence is outside the scope of our knowledge at this point in time. Perhaps we do not have the understanding or tools to measure this metaphysical evidence.

This is my personal opinion, but I believe that limiting our scope of knowledge and understanding to the physical realm through logic and reason is akin to the individuals in the pre-Renaissance age limiting their scope of knowledge and understanding to that which was revealed to them by the church.


This is quite plainly your opinion... to which you are entitled. Though, I certainly cannot know what you mean when you use the term 'God.' There are many different ideas and definitions for that term. In fact, by some definitions of 'God,' it would be impossible and illogical for 'God' to not exist. (Such as this definition: The universal force that causes all things in the physical realm. Because all things that happen in the physical realm, happen -- And because all things that exist in the physical realm, exist -- this is proof that something caused these things to happen and to exist. Whatever that something is, is God.)


Depending on what definition of 'God' one uses, there certainly can be a premise. Such as in my example above: Things exist. That is the premise that we can take for granted within the physical realm. If our definition of God is that which caused the existence of those things, then it logically follows that this definition of God must exist. Otherwise, those things wouldn't exist. Follow?


Based on whatever conception of God you are assuming, this may be true.


Here are some examples of 'negatives':
o Bigfoot does not exist.
o 'God' does not exist.
o Human beings are not capable of running a mile in under four minutes.
o It is impossible for straight-line winRAB to exceed 200 miles per hour at the earth's surface.

As is evident, negative statements can be proven false with just one example or piece of evidence to the contrary. But negative statements can never be proven true... because it is always possible that new evidence will be discovered -- even evidence that is beyond imaginable within the current universe of human experience.

[Aloha!! :)]

Yes

Yes


OK

[rocketgirl]

Advances in science reveal the earth's mysteries, causes, and effects everyday. There are few 'big' questions left unanswered, unfortunately, so I'll give you some credit, however, given trenRAB in solutions and explanations for forces that were once deemed 'supernatural, magical, or otherwise unknowable' such as gravity, magnetics, and atomic structures provides a much more logical, satisfying, and realistic physical explanation than God. The trend seems to be in favor of science and the physical universe. Any theory based upon some piece of physical evidence, such as evolution, is more plausible than God or something 'supernatural'. There are few instances, if any, where supernatural evidence even holRAB a candle to scientific conjecture. Even if big bang isn't correct, it is more logical and satisfying than God or the supernatural.



Metaphysical theories often become physical possibilities. The atom, quarks, and even controversial subjects such as nanobiology were all once metaphysical theories and beliefs there were proven to be true or accurate. A recent example would be the possibility of examing the composition of space, as once it was believed to not have any composition at all. Metaphysics are often ideas that we generally hold up as 'ridiculous' but in many cases have contributed to physical breakthroughs, in which case they are no longer metaphysical and thus they were never metaphysical to begin with, which is simply another explanation undermining the idea of something supernatural.



Your analogy has no credibility because there is no proof that it had ever happened. You are defining two different situations. The symbolic association, Tennessee, and a nameless landform. The landform is the only one that has physical meaning. The symbolic association, Tennessee, could be called anything and symbolized by anything. Language itself has no bearing the object the word symbolizes. If we did not hold up objects by their symbolic references, however, we would always be confused about what we were talking about. The landform is the landform no matter what you call it.



There is no 'metaphysical' evidence. Metaphysics is a field that attempts to discover a logical means of explaining cause and effect and solving problems that we can't physically provide evidence for. Metaphysical theories that prove to be correct become physics. Metaphysics does not deal with supernatural or religious explanations, but regardless, it still seeks to define physical possibilities.



I couldn't agree with you more, but unfortunately, science seems to dictate otherwise. We are starting to run out of topics to blame supernatural phenomena on.

[Quote]
This is quite plainly your opinion... to which you are entitled. Though, I certainly cannot know what you mean when you use the term 'God.' There are many different ideas and definitions for that term. In fact, by some definitions of 'God,' it would be impossible and illogical for 'God' to not exist. (Such as this definition: The universal force that causes all things in the physical realm. Because all things that happen in the physical realm, happen -- And because all things that exist in the physical realm, exist -- this is proof that something caused these things to happen and to exist. Whatever that something is, is God.)[\Quote]

I am using God as a general all encompassing entity. By entity, I mean something of intelligence, not just some floating energy garbage.



This is an unfair assessment, of your four examples, 3 of them are observable and logically influenced. 'God' does not exist is not observable, vaguely definable, or logically accessible.

[koriek361]

@Leviathon --
I get the sense that we're understanding each other a little more clearly now. However, I would suggest that there are still many, many 'big' questions left to be answered. Most of which we cannot even yet fathom. That is my opinion... just as yours is that there are few left unanswered. It's a matter of perspective. I would also point out that your use of the word 'satisfying' regarding natural explanations is a matter of perspective. Some individuals are literally terrified at the possibility of no God.

Perhaps I need to educate myself better regarding the term metaphysical... I was using it largely as synonomous with supernatural. "Beyond the physical" or "beyond the natural." I don't think my philosophy textbook published in 1979 discusses quarks. ;-)

Regarding the analogy, though... there need not be any proof that the specific event happened. The point of the analogy is to illustrate that there are things that are beyond the scope of our knowledge at any given point in time.

You caught one other level of the analogy as well, but didn't tie it back to the discussion. "The symbolic association, Tennessee, could be called anything and symbolized by anything. Language itself has no bearing the object the word symbolizes." In reality, Tennessee is completely fabricated. It is an idea. A concept. Yet the geographic area that we call Tennessee exists in reality. The name has symbolic meaning to us because we all agree upon the parameters of the concept. My point is that just because we do not have agreed upon parameters of the concept 'God,' and can perhaps not even comprehend the full implications of such, does not indicate that one does not exist. Much like a Mesopotamian 5,000 years ago could not even fathom the concept of "Tennessee."

I don't wish to draw the analogy out much farther than that, because I recognize it's limitations. But, I do think it illustrates in a simple manner the point I am making. If it still does not communicate to you, feel free to say so. I will attempt to convey the message in a different way.

By definition science is useless to explore the supernatural realm (if such exists). By definition, science is limited to that which is observable in the physical realm. Logic and reason go hand-in-hand with science, but they, too have their limitations. It is certainly within the realm of possibilities that something exists outside of the observable physical world. And it is certainly within the realm of possibilities that there is a way to access that realm. I am not suggesting that there IS such a realm. Only that it is possible. And that no matter how much of the natural world science discovers, science as we know it can never be used to discover evidence for it -- by definition. I'm not even necessarily talking about 'God' or 'Heaven' or 'The Supernatural' as typically perceived by a religious person or an individual with faith...

I'm suggesting that IF an as-of-yet un-defined realm exists outside of the observable physical realm, then such a realm exists. If it does not exist, then it does not exist. I understand you to be essentially saying, "The existence of such a realm is not logical. It is not possible. There is no evidence to support the existence of such a realm, and there cannot be any observable evidence." And (if this is what you're saying), I would almost agree with you. Except for the part about it not being possible. Because it is conceivable. And even if it is unlikely based on our current understanding of the universe of knowledge... it is still possible. Because, truly, we do not know all that is possible.

In summary, I believe I get your point. There is no evidence for the existence of "a general all encompassing [intelligent] entity." There is no universally agreed upon definition of 'God.' Any attempts at creating such a definition are fabricated by humanity, and cannot then be objective in nature. Therefore, any specific parameters of 'God' do not exist. If I understand you correctly, you believe that there are no parameters that could possibly encompass the concept of 'God' because you believe that 'God' does not exist in any form on any level in any realm.

My response to what I believe your point to be is this: Absence of physical evidence cannot be used as proof (or even evidence) for the absence of a concept for which there can be no physical evidence.