But none of those other concepts have an all-encompassing, beyond time-and-space itself, interwoven in the fabric of reality quality to it.

Ah, but the god concept *isn’t* spaghetti monster, Big Foot, Tinker Bell or Santa Claus.

If someone’s belief has god-as-“sky daddy”? Then sure, it’s comparable.

But none of those other concepts have an all-encompassing, beyond time-and-space itself, interwoven in the fabric of reality quality to it.

For accurate comparison of concepts, you’d have to pit the God concept next to other concepts that are at that level and see “who wins”.

====

Let’s see who you could pit against the god concept:

Law of physics. Some people consider the laws of physics as originating from beyond tiem and space, interwoven in the fabric of reality itself and all encompassing.

What else?

Logic. Some people place logic there.

Mathematics. Some people write whole books about that notion.

There’s others I’m sure.

====

There’s numerous formulations of the god concept. Example: if one believes that all emanates from God, then what could be more natural than that if they consider it true? It depends on their theology.

 

People with a particular theology don’t put theirs next to others. They consider the others misguided at best, completely awful at worst.

So if you try to bring up other systems and then say “because theirs is bunk, so is yours” they will say “But mine is not bunk, only theirs” and you end up back where you started.

====

If there’s a ‘something’, it’s not external, unless it’s sitting somewhere up in the 12th dimension in “the Bulk” somewhere and even THEN it’s still part of stuff in some way, even if only at origin.

It’s easy to put up a cardboard god and then knock it down. I was embarrassed for Hawking a few years ago when he made a TV show based on a book he and someone else wrote trying to show that God isn’t necessary.

Why was I embarrassed for him? He put up a cardboard image of the god concept that was very limited in scope and then knocked it down. Anyone can do it. You did it in the post. But that doesn’t make it accurate. It means you knocked down the cardboard template you made not the concept it’s based upon, because it only encompasses a very narrow view of said concept.

====

“The internet is useless. Just look at this pile of strings on the ground. They look like the internet and what do they do? Nothing. So the internet does nothing.” That’s the logic you’re using.

===

What about the view of God where the systems of logic and mathematics are us peeking into the mind of God?

The more religoius-minded have said such things. I didn’t see you include that aspect.

====

I can go with that definition. I usually call people who consider mathematics to be at the foundation of everything to be neo-Pythagorians.

====

Connotations is gossip though.

====

Only to those who participate in gossip. I can’t always help those that do. I try not to participate though, especially when trying to ascertain the truth-value of things.

====

Many views of God have a bad reputation. I myself don’t like to use the word God except in an academic sense for that reason. If I have a view of God that’s different than common and I use the same word, people will assume I mean what they think I mean and not what I mean.

So, I avoid the very word. It *has* been tainted, it’s true.

====

Image vs substance.

===

Never understood people who acted “in the name of God”. If God were real (and I don’t know), how likely is it that any human is in a capable position to “speak for God”, if God is even 0.00001% of what God is purported to be?

So, God got slandered. Happens everyday in entertainment magazines. Most celebrities recover.

====

Here’s what Huxley said:

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle… the fundamental axiom of modern science… In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration… In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable

Notice the last line: “Not demonstrated or demonstrable”.
That’s two possibilities.

—-

I can’t say they’re not demonstrable. But I can say they’re not demonstrated. Hence: agnostic.

But if you try to fix me into saying “they’re not demonstrable”, I will disagree because I don’t know that.

Unknown means unknown. Unknowable means can never be known. Much different things.

====

If every scientist approached the unknown and decided it was unknowable, nothing would get done.

====

That’s the certainty you’re satisfied with. You’ve concluded your study and you’re finished.

====

 

Physics is the science of the physical. There’s more than one science.

====

You’re making stuff up now. If you talk about science, it means science. If you’re talking about physics, say physics.

====

There’s no realm that couldn’t theoretically be studied by a science. The “subjective” is one the sciences all have a problem with but as far as following the scientific method? It applies to anything they’re studying.

====

No. metaphysics is beyond the science of physics. There are other sciences that can go into that realm just fine.

=====

Example: there are sciences that study people and their opinions. Or their behaviors. Or animals and their behaviors. What realm do the concepts within these sciences live in? They’re not metered in spacetime but in concepts. Concepts themselves are metaphysical.

===

Metaphysis doesn’ have tot mean “spooky woo”. It can also refer to things like concepts and ideas and constructs, none of which have a physical basis but an ideological one.

====

If they’re not measuring the brain itself with an EKG machine, they’re not measuring the brain in spacetime but studying its products.

====

The same place Mathematics, Logic, and thought experiments reside in: the Platonic realm.

===

Well, they’re not a product of the brain per se, but rather a product of the *processes* of the brain.

Processes have physical components to it but processes, while they *do* take place in a time dimension, aren’t always measurable in a physical dimenson. I mean you *could* but things like “Where do ideas come from?” would require a lot of traveling back and forth through spacetime to map it all out.

=====

 

Spacetime may turn out to be the wrong metaphor for the Universe as well. There’s nothing in the sciences that requires any answer to remain.

Right now it works though.

Theoretically, these these *might* be measurable but we don’t know for sure. What we have now is what we know. What sciences *might* do is unknown. Some say unknowable but I don’t go that far.

=====

I am agnostic about what the sciences are capable of and I am also agnostic to the possibility of some type of god concept being a reality.

I have more “faith” that the sciences will be capable than I do in “faith” that the god concept might be a reality, but I still leave a spot open.

====

[and no it’s not “Pascal’s Wager”. Rather, it’s “insufficient to conclude” yet]

====

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


+ four = 6

Leave a Reply