For atheists, existence means something physical - that which can be perceived through the senses and if you want to go the whole nine yards, something measurable.
In contrast to the above, existence for theists goes beyond the physical - beyond our senses and instruments. — TheMadFool
Don't atheists do math? Believe in justice? Follow the law? All abstractions. Non-physical.
Atheists believe in and use abstractions. — fishfry
I was just thinking about the God-debate. The atheism-theism divide that hasn't been, to me, adequately resolved.
One key parameter in the debate seems to be the meaning of existence. There are other elements of the debate that's important but I'll focus on the meaning of existence.
It seems to me that the meaning of existence differs depending on which side of the debate you're on.
For atheists, existence means something physical - that which can be perceived through the senses and if you want to go the whole nine yards, something measurable.
In contrast to the above, existence for theists goes beyond the physical - beyond our senses and instruments. — TheMadFool
For atheists, existence means something physical - that which can be perceived through the senses and if you want to go the whole nine yards, something measurable. — TheMadFool
The atheist POV is reasonable because rationally speaking it's a mistake to go beyond the evidence. Our senses can't perceive x and so it is reasonable to believe x doesn't exist. Note however that such a view limits us to physical existence only. — TheMadFool
But naturalism, to theists, is too narrow a worldview. It fails to consider possibilities that seem to multiply the further you get from Earth. I mean how are we so certain that in a distant galaxy God hasn't given proof of his existence (physically or other wise)?
Also, radio waves can't be perceived with the our senses. We need instruments to detect them. So, it isn't that outlandish to think of things that can't be detected with our current instruments but do, in fact, exist. — TheMadFool
Metaphysical naturalism, also called "ontological naturalism" and "philosophical naturalism", is a philosophical worldview and belief system that holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences, i.e., those required to understand our physical environment by mathematical modeling. — wiki
So, here I am, torn between being open to possibilities (theism) and being rational (shaping my world view with reason).
What should I do? — TheMadFool
by non-physical existence, theists mean something outside of the mind, don't they? — TheMadFool
. A theist would agree that although they have belief, it's a belief based on faith and not on reason. — fishfry
There are other ways to qualify the term "existence". — creativesoul
SIlence. — Banno
What I'm hinting at as an 'atheistic' position who finds the same kind of dullness in both assembly atheism and theism that unwittingly understands itself scientistically. — 0rff
So this idea of outside the mind I'm finding a little tricky to get hold of. But outside reason makes sense. A theist would agree that although they have belief, it's a belief based on faith and not on reason. — fishfry
What is the right view then? Agnosticism? — TheMadFool
There are other ways to qualify the term "existence".
— creativesoul
What are they? — TheMadFool
For me, it's the paradigm of the 'right view' itself that deserves looking in to. — 0rff
Can they function as more than the barest introduction? — 0rff
But that's what's wrong with these oversimplifying terms. They are just title pages, indeterminate until the book is read. We have to really talk with others to get a sense of what they deeply value. — 0rff
That which exists has an effect/affect — creativesoul
That which exists has an effect/affect
— creativesoul
I once tried to prove god's existence with that. My argument is that god seems to have palpable effects on human lives. Therefore, I said, god exists. Of course the main error in my argument is I have to distinguish between existence of god and belief in god's existence.
Anyway...the cause/effect notion you're suggesting seems to fail because we can only perceive physical effects. — TheMadFool
.I was just thinking about the God-debate. The atheism-theism divide that hasn't been, to me, adequately resolved.
.One key parameter in the debate seems to be the meaning of existence.
.
It seems to me that the meaning of existence differs depending on which side of the debate you're on.
.For atheists, existence means something physical - that which can be perceived through the senses and if you want to go the whole nine yards, something measurable.
.In contrast to the above, existence for theists goes beyond the physical - beyond our senses and instruments.
.The atheist POV is reasonable because rationally speaking it's a mistake to go beyond the evidence.
So, here Iam, torn between being open to possibilities (theism) and being rational (shaping my world view with reason).
What should I do?
Gravity has efficacy. Thought and belief have efficacy. — creativesoul
Yes, “exist”, “real”, and “is” aren’t metaphysically defined, and a lot of unnecessary argument is the result of different definitions of those words. — Michael Ossipoff
Atheism isn't rational. It's pseudo-rational.
Theism needn't mean dogmatic, or doctrinaire or Biblical Literalist Theism. — Michael Ossipoff
Nothing? — Vajk
There's a difference between god and gravity. The former is a belief (true/false) but the latter is a fact (true). — TheMadFool
...the atheistic insistence on existence being defined physically may be unjustifiably restrictive.
That's what I mean. Existence is one of the issues. Atheists think God has to manifest physically. Of course theists too believe that god intervenes in the world. However, the point is the atheistic insistence on existence being defined physically may be unjustifiably restrictive. — TheMadFool
In the larger, meta-metaphysical picture, are you sure that that distinction is meaningful? — Michael Ossipoff
Maybe this universe superfluously has objective existence too—in addition to being identical in detail to a complex system of inter-referring inevitable abstract logical facts. — Michael Ossipoff
How many sets of "inevitable abstract logical facts" are there? — Jake Tarragon
That which exists has an effect/affect
— creativesoul
I once tried to prove god's existence with that. My argument is that god seems to have palpable effects on human lives. Therefore, I said, god exists. Of course the main error in my argument is I have to distinguish between existence of god and belief in god's existence.
Anyway...the cause/effect notion you're suggesting seems to fail because we can only perceive physical effects. — TheMadFool
Gravity has efficacy. Thought and belief have efficacy.
— creativesoul
Take god and gravity. Even if everyone stopped believing in gravity it would still exist - objects would fall to the ground, the planets would move around the sun.
Compare that to everyone abandoning their belief in god - prayer would cease, religious behavior would disapper. The effects of the belief in god would vanish.
There's a difference between god and gravity. The former is a belief (true/false) but the latter is a fact (true). — TheMadFool
Infinitely-many. — Michael Ossipoff
I would be inclined to say just one [inter-refer. Who decides on the subsets? — Jake Tarragon
A godlike being could exist outside our perceptual capabilities, but what would that mean for us if it did? The reason theists cite examples of a god intervening in the world is because that attempts to show a relational or somewhat involved god. A god who cares about the outcome here on earth. If there is no interaction/intervention we end up being deists. Deism is a fine idea, but it is impotent. — ProbablyTrue
"In the larger, meta-metaphysical picture, are you sure that that distinction is meaningful?" — Michael Ossipoff
I suppose that depends on which iteration of god we're talking about. — ProbablyTrue
.A godlike being could exist outside our perceptual capabilities
.…, but what would that mean for us if it did?
.The reason theists cite examples of a god intervening in the world is because that attempts to show a relational or somewhat involved god. A god who cares about the outcome here on earth. If there is no interaction/intervention we end up being deists.
.You're right...God simply doesn't fit in our world, at least not the interventionist God of Judaism, Islam and Christianity. This has led the faithful into a gymnasium where they must do mental acrobatics to try and fix the many inconsistencies of religion.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.