# Fundamental Misunderstanding of the Nature of God **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 13, 2005, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885 "2005-11-13T20:00:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2005, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885/141 "2005-12-02T23:19:53Z")
> [@Hoodoo Ulove](#): > > Disregarding the irrelevancy of whether Einstein agrees with you, you do indeed have the right to use the word “God” to mean “what ever exists”, but this tells us nothing about either God or existence, but merely about how you’re using the words. There’s nothing there to disagree with. This is exactly why I feel atheism to be irrational. How can one de facto disbelieve in God if God is a synonym for existance? Certainly one can disagree with the usage of a word, but largely what I see is an argument over semantics, which is something i’ve been saying OVER AND OVER AND OVER. Then someone comes and cleverly states that what I am describing is no different from atheism, which isn’t entirely accurate, because there is one little tiny polarizing difference that seperates the two, which is semantic. Now, I do not think that the bible has any greater authority over the nature of God than anything else. Clearly God exists. The question is: ‘What is God?’ not “Does God exist?” Maybe God is purely conceptual. Maybe God is everything, maybe I am wrong about the nature of God maybe I am right. We can argue that from here to eternity. However, it is straight up ignorant to say that God does not exist, because by typing the word God or any derivation thereof, you are accepting that clearly God DOES exist. Atheism therefore is oxymoronic, as it depends upon a concept of theism in order to even be a word. Now what I would argue is that religion is at the root of all of our consciousnesses, like it or not. We all evolved from the belief systems of our forebears, and we cannot escape that, we can only change the belief systems we hold today. Generally the atheist argument requires a narrow definition of God that is easy to debunk, and is therefore completely pointless. It assumes a stable definition of the word God in order to debunk it. Now, most atheists believe in existance. Most atheists believe in consciousness. You combine those two concepts and you are starting to get an inkling of what the word “God” means. I would argue not that a rock itself is conscious, but that it is consciousNESS. The Consciousness determines the form that existance manifests itself. The reason I see Atheism as being irrational is that they will take information structures that occur in nature such as DNA, and use them as evidence of lack of a deterministic consciousness. This makes absolutely no sense. What is information? IN Formation. If something has a form, then it contains information that helps to determine that form. Information on a physical level could then be considered as the thoughts of existance, or God’s thoughts. A star is a piece of information, it’s relative location to it’s planets is information, it’s color spectrum is information and so on and so forth. What I find ironic is that people find their inability to understand what I am saying as evidence of MY idiocy. The basic assumption is that I do not know what I am talking about. I do know what I am talking about, I just don’t necessarily have the common vocabulary to describe it. I am extremely skeptical of **SentientMeat’s** concept of a universe with a specific size. I am willing to buy into the idea of a Planck length, but that the length of that Planck unit was derived based upon our knowledge of the sizes of structures we currently knew to exist. I do not see how this helps to determine the size of the universe. Of course my knowledge of Quantum Physics is in short supply, so I cannot possibly argue with someone like **SentientMeat** who’s cosmology is quite developed. I would need to learn a great deal more about the cosmology he is using in order to offer a satisfying debate on the subject. I have used the Sefer Yetzirah which discusses how multidimensionality springs up merely by the contemplation of a singularity. Again lacking the understanding of **SentientMeat’s** cosmology I cannot say for certain, but I am extremely dubious about his concept of what a singularity is, and I would say that Existance is most definitely an infinite curvature of spacetime, and that you cannot have singularitIES, for there is only one singularity, for it is SINGULAR, meaning the only thing that exists, for something to exist beside it would stop it from being Singular. In short you cannot have more than one singularity in all of existance. Existance itself is the singularity. Perhaps a Black Hole is a good window into the fundamental singular nature of existance. Now the reason I believe people dismiss Kabbalah is because they have no reference for it. However here I am going to offer up a Wikipedia link for you. [Ein Sof](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ein_Sof) So atheism by this logic is irrational, because it is arguing against a term that is defined many different ways. To deny God, one is denying all possible definitions for God. Basically it’s a linguistic paradox, that doesn’t exist in any actual sense, only that one can use terms to oppose one another. > [@Einstein](#): > > God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically. So simply because one can cleverly pit two words against one another, what does this pitting of words tell us about anything? As everyone seems to agree, no matter which side of the debate they are on, it tells us NOTHING. The paradox enlightens us to the limitations of our language, and is not a good indicator of the overall nature of existance/God. So by saying God does not exist you are denying every possible definition of God. Now to deny every possible definition of God, you must KNOW every possible definition of God. I am doubting that any of the atheists here KNOW every possible definition for God. God as a singularity has no opposite. It’s like applying existance to “Nothing”, which means simply “No Thing”, which is a dualistic tool with which to describe the existance of a “thing”, not because Nothing exists empirically for it to exist it would stop being Nothing and become A Thing. We understand things in a dualistic model, but the object itself is not dualistic, it is monistic. This is why I do not disagree with **SentientMeat** when he says that all things are physical. I disagree with his idea that there is no such thing as the metaphysical. Metaphysics is the study of things that have no position in time or space in and of themselves. Take for instance, Passion, I can have passion right now, but that passion is dependent upon me and my position in time and space to manifest, but as a concept it exists eternally, free to be used whenever it is necessary. Now hopefully some of you will get what I am saying. If you do not, please don’t mistake your lack of understanding for MY lack of understanding. My inability to relate it to you depends as much on my understanding of YOU as it does upon my understanding of the subject at hand. Erek ---
**Author:** ![2centsworth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/43a26b/32.png) [@2centsworth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2centsworth)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885/142 "2005-12-03T21:00:35Z")
> [@drmark2000](#): > > Isn’t it the troll who says that? > > To continue: > > Psalm 23 (A Psalm of King Soylent Green) > > The Pigs With Wings are my sheperds; > I shall not want. > They maketh me lie down in cool mud-wallows. > They lead me beside my own rivulets of urine; > They restoreth my soul. > They lead me in the paths of piggishness > For their names’ sake. > > Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, > I fear no slaughterhouse; > For They art with me; > Their moist snouts and their oinks, > They comfort me. > > They prepare a table for me in the presence of mine Farmer Green; > They anointest my head with a distinctive but subtly flavored marinade, > My slop trough runneth over. > Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of life; > And I shall dwell in the sty of the Pigs With Wings > For ever. > > Amen I liked Wish You Were Here better ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885/143 "2005-12-03T21:40:08Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > > [@me](#): > > > > Disregarding the irrelevancy of whether Einstein agrees with you, you do indeed have the right to use the word “God” to mean “what ever exists”, but this tells us nothing about either God or existence, but merely about how you’re using the words. There’s nothing there to disagree with. > > This is exactly why I feel atheism to be irrational. How can one de facto disbelieve in God if God is a synonym for existance? I should have added that there’s nothing there to agree with, either, beyond agreeing that **Monavis** was using the word “God” in the way she did. > [@mswas](#): > > However, it is straight up ignorant to say that God does not exist, because by typing the word God or any derivation thereof, you are accepting that clearly God DOES exist. You seem, strangely, to make no distinction between the description and the thing described. > [@mswas](#): > > Information on a physical level could then be considered as the thoughts of existance, or God’s thoughts. It can, indeed, be so considered. **SentientMeat** ’s physicalism and your panpsychism are, in my opinion, equally impossible to contradict or verify by any appeal to experience. > [@mswas](#): > > So by saying God does not exist \*\*you \*\* are denying every possible definition of God. I hope that by _you_ you don’t mean _me_. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2005, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885/144 "2005-12-05T12:53:08Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > How can one de facto disbelieve in God if God is a synonym for existence? By _disagreeing_ that “god” is a synonym for “existence”. If it were, then it would also be a _verb, eg._ “I think therefore I god”, “There gods no integer greater than 2 for which x, y, and z such that x[sup]n[/sup] + y[sup]n[/sup] = n[sup]n[/sup] ” or “The universe has always godded”. > [@](#): > > Maybe God is purely conceptual. _ie._ imaginary. > [@](#): > > However, it is straight up ignorant to say that God does not exist, because by typing the word God or any derivation thereof, you are accepting that clearly God DOES exist. Atheism therefore is oxymoronic, as it depends upon a concept of theism in order to even be a word. Do believe in faeries? An answer of “no” on your part would be just as “oxymoronic” (and I don’t think you know what that word means - the word you are looking for is _contradictory_) since even using the word “faerie” is apparently a tacit admission of their existence. > [@](#): > > Now what I would argue is that religion is at the root of all of our consciousnesses, like it or not. Not. The root of consciousness is _sensory input_ and _memory_. > [@](#): > > We all evolved from the belief systems of our forebears No, since my beliefs are directly _opposed_ to those of my ancestors. We evolved from bacteria. Call them ‘conscious’ if it makes you happy, but you might as well talk to the weather. > [@](#): > > Now, most atheists believe in existance. Most atheists believe in consciousness. You combine those two concepts and you are starting to get an inkling of what the word “God” means. Why conflate the two so unnecessarily? Would you have the surgeon ask the anaesthetist “Is the patient ungod yet?” > [@](#): > > I would argue not that a rock itself is conscious, but that it is consciousNESS. Then you handle language more clumsily than an egg-collector with Parkinson’s disease, and create just as much unnecessary mess. > [@](#): > > The reason I see Atheism as being irrational is that they will take information structures that occur in nature such as DNA, and use them as evidence of lack of a deterministic consciousness. This makes absolutely no sense. No, that entire _sentence_ made no sense. A corpse is not conscious, but is still made of DNA. > [@](#): > > What is information? An arrangement of physical matter which is encoded to represent memory, whcih is itself demonstrably physical. > [@](#): > > I do know what I am talking about, I just don’t necessarily have the common vocabulary to describe it. It is precisely because you _don’t_ use common vocabulary, but seek to pick alternate definitions out of thin air, that you struggle to make yourself understood here. > [@](#): > > I am extremely skeptical of **SentientMeat’s** concept of a universe with a specific size. The speed of light in vacuo is constant, and the universe expands at that speed from a highly compressed size around 13.7 billion years ago. You will receive a Nobel prize for demonstrating either of these facts to be false. > [@](#): > > but that the length of that Planck unit was derived based upon our knowledge of the sizes of structures we currently knew to exist. No, please **listen**. I have told you several times that you are **wrong** about this. The Planck scale is **constant**. > [@](#): > > Of course my knowledge of Quantum Physics is in short supply, so I cannot possibly argue with someone like **SentientMeat** who’s cosmology is quite developed. If you confuse cosmology with quantum physics you are confused indeed. Do you not _trust_ me when I tell you what you are factually incorrect about? > [@](#): > > I am extremely dubious about his concept of what a singularity is It is a point of infinite curvature of spacetime, such as at the centre of black holes (which [demonstrably exist](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Galaxies_AGN_Inner-Structure-of.jpg)). > [@](#): > > I would say that Existance is most definitely an infinite curvature of spacetime, and that you cannot have singularitIES, for there is only one singularity, for it is SINGULAR Again, you are using the word incorrectly: more than one black hole exists. Just because it happens to contain the word “singular” doesn’t mean there’s only one of them, any more than your username means that you are a creation of Microsoft. > [@](#): > > Existance itself is the singularity. Use your language as clumsily as you like, but don’t expect to be taken particularly seriously. Presumeably, when spacetime _isn’t_ infinitely curved there is _no_ existence? > [@](#): > > So atheism by this logic is irrational, because it is arguing against a term that is defined many different ways. To deny God, one is denying all possible definitions for God. Basically it’s a linguistic paradox, that doesn’t exist in any actual sense, only that one can use terms to oppose one another. You are gibbering. You can make whatever sounds from your mouth, or place whatever shapes on my screen, but you are not actually saying anything of substance. > [@](#): > > So by saying God does not exist you are denying every possible definition of God. Not _every_ definition: the “imaginary entity” can be said to exist as a superposition of properties (memories) in the biological computers of humans, rather like the existence of Sonic the Hedgehog. > [@](#): > > This is why I do not disagree with **SentientMeat** when he says that all things are physical. Congratulations. Now if we could just agree to use the same _English dictionary_, we might have a lot more to say to each other. > [@](#): > > I disagree with his idea that there is no such thing as the metaphysical. The you **directly contradict** your last sentence in which you agreed that **all** things are physical. _Meta_physical means **beyond** the physical. > [@](#): > > Take for instance, Passion, I can have passion right now, but that passion is dependent upon me and my position in time and space to manifest, but as a concept it exists eternally, free to be used whenever it is necessary. Concepts exist as “averages of memories”, which are themselves physical. > [@](#): > > My inability to relate it to you depends as much on my understanding of YOU as it does upon my understanding of the subject at hand. Then you won’t mind me **defining** your posts as _incomprehensible_. After all, it’s only words, huh? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2005, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885/145 "2005-12-05T13:28:04Z")
> [@Hoodoo](#): > > SentientMeat’s physicalism and your panpsychism are, in my opinion, equally impossible to contradict or verify by any appeal to experience. You’re quite right - we can only ask each other what description we _agree_ on. Everyone is perfectly entitled to call rocks, corpses and DNA molecules _conscious_, but I would strongly discourage them from becoming professional anaesthetists. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2005, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885/146 "2005-12-05T14:58:11Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Everyone is perfectly entitled to call rocks, corpses and DNA molecules _conscious_, but I would strongly discourage them from becoming professional anaesthetists. 🙂 In fairness, **mswas** , doesn’t, at least in the sentence I was responding to, call rocks conscious. > [@mswas](#): > > I would argue not that a rock itself is conscious, but that it is consciousNESS. Not that I would expect you to find this any more satisfactory. My comment in my previous post should not be taken as an endorsement of panpsychism, but as an attack on physicalism. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2005, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885/147 "2005-12-05T15:08:13Z")
> [@Hoodoo Ulove](#): > > My comment in my previous post should not be taken as an endorsement of panpsychism, but as an attack on physicalism. Fair enough. I have never pretended that physicalism is a _falsifiable_ or _testable_ position. Indeed, none of the _alternatives_ to it are either, and so one must either sit on the fence for one’s entire life or move, however infinitessimaly, towards a position which cannot be tested: that is the nature of “one’s philosophy”. Put simply, if a biological machine _did_ begin to ‘think’, it could never think of an unattackable philosophical position. It could only say which option had the least serious weaknesses. ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2005, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885/148 "2005-12-05T15:21:01Z")
I don’t think that avoiding unfalsifiable propositions should be characterized as “sitting on the fence”. It’s more like saying “what fence?” I admire your commitment to the scientific method, and hate to see you deviate from it. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2005, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885/149 "2005-12-05T15:30:49Z")
> [@Hoodoo Ulove](#): > > I don’t think that avoiding unfalsifiable propositions should be characterized as “sitting on the fence”. It’s more like saying “what fence?” I admire your commitment to the scientific method, and hate to see you deviate from it. Well, that limits me very gravely in my pursuit of happiness and clarity in everyday life. Can I opine on the taste of a given wine, or express my preferences in music, or cheer my chosen football team safe from your disappointed _tut-tut_ting that I can’t back up my position with some verification? If we cannot set forth why we select our _entire worldview_ from the numerous ludicrous options, then one wonders when we should converse with each other at all. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2005, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885/150 "2005-12-05T15:36:49Z")
And, incidentally, you are most definitely jumping off the fence _in favour of the scientific method_. Can you please show me how this is a _verifiably justified_ jump to make? ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2005, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885/151 "2005-12-05T15:57:55Z")
Thank you for reining in my overstatement. My objection to unfalsifiable metaphysical pronouncements is that they take the _form_ and have the appearance of scientific statements, and not of aesthetic judgments. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2005, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885/152 "2005-12-05T16:08:13Z")
Heh heh, no worries. Some very clever people go their whole lives without being able to distinguish the two! I try my best to make it abundantly clear what is _my position_ and what is _scientific_, but thanks for forcing me to clarify it once again. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2005, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885/153 "2005-12-05T16:19:42Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I do know what I am talking about, I just don’t necessarily have the common vocabulary to describe it. I really urge you to find someone who shares your beliefs who can provide you with the appropriate voacbulary. Frankly, as a theist, I find your attacks on atheism, using words that have common meanings in ways that no one else uses them, to appear nonsensical. For example, > [@](#): > > However, it is straight up ignorant to say that God does not exist, because by typing the word God or any derivation thereof, you are accepting that clearly God DOES exist. Atheism therefore is oxymoronic, as it depends upon a concept of theism in order to even be a word. Read in standard English, this is gibberish. It argues that a totally imaginary construct _must_ exist simply because somene has imagined it, then uses a misunderstanding of “exist” to confuse the recognition by atheists than one can imagine something that does not exist and the actual existence of that imagined object. By that logic, you must admit that the Invisible Pink Unicorn must exist because we can talk about her. You may be attempting to say something different, but that is the meaning that your words have in accepted English in the early 21st century. ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2005, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885/154 "2005-12-05T17:03:03Z")
**SM** , I’m enjoying this too much to let it drop. I was rereading your [OP](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=315717) on Sonic the camcorder-doom player, and find myself in full agreement with your twelve propositions. This raises the question of what it is that we might possibly be disagreeing about, if anything. The answer, I think lies with the Stanford article on physicalism you so often cite. > [@](#): > > Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on the physical. I would suggest that these two formulations are actually quite different statements. The latter is, to my eye, actually a scientific and not a philosophical observation. The former, which implies that atoms, rocks, galaxies _are physical_ is the sort of statement that I object to. Do you see my point? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2005, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885/155 "2005-12-05T17:43:36Z")
> [@Hoodoo](#): > > Do you see my point? I can’t quite see the distinction in that cited sentence, but I think I get your general point. I would agree with old Lud Wittgenstein when he says that “There are physical objects” is a _premise_, a _foundational belief_, than an empirically testable statement. In other words, **if** we agree that some things can reasonably be called “physical”, then we can go on to explore what things _can’t_ be so described (or what must _happen_ to those phsyical things to yield a meta- or non-physical entity), _ie._ we can go on to ask what supervenes and what doesn’t. Even then, I could supply all the experimental results I though supported a given supervenience and, like some here, you could automatically naysay and I could do nothing except repeat myself. But if we **don’t** agree that _anything_ can be described using the ‘p’ word, we really don’t have anywhere to go at all - least of all appealing to some scientific test which _demonstrates_ that some entities are “physical”. All I could ask such a disagreer would be “if the atom, rock or galaxy can’t be called _physical_, what _can_ you call it?”. ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2005, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885/156 "2005-12-05T18:21:00Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > I would agree with old Lud Wittgenstein when he says that “There are physical objects” is a _premise_, a _foundational belief_, than an empirically testable statement. I find it painful and embarassing to disagree with my dear Wiggy, but to call “There are physical objects” a _belief_ puts it on the same level as to say “There are green objects”. I do not suggest that it is impossible to meaningfully use the word “physical”. A definition is not a belief. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2005, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885/157 "2005-12-05T18:28:22Z")
> [@Hoodoo](#): > > to call “There are physical objects” a belief puts it on the same level as to say “There are green objects”. Yep. Problem? > [@](#): > > A definition is not a belief. Hmm, I’m not sure I can go with you there. We can _disagree_ on whether a certain thing falls within the boundaries of a certain linguistic referent: when we do, we are expressing an _opinion_, an _aesthetic judgement_ of whether or not describing a thing as physical “sits well with us”. That sounds a lot like a belief to me. Indeed, by disagreeing you are surely saying “I do not **believe** that beliefs and definitions are equivalent”? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2005, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885/158 "2005-12-05T19:11:14Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Yep. Problem? Oh, muddlemuddlemuddle. I’m feeling my way here. I can test “There are green objects” by looking out my window at the pines. Is this an equally satisfactory test for "There are physical objects’? > [@](#): > > **physical:** having material existence : perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature \ In a trivial sense it is. But for someone who considers the reality of the physical a real question, it ain’t. Ask\*\* Liberal\*\*. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2005, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885/159 "2005-12-05T22:24:21Z")
> [@Hoodoo](#): > > I can test “There are green objects” by looking out my window at the pines. Is this an equally satisfactory test for "There are physical objects’? Ah, whoa there hoss. The trees emit EM radiation of wavelength between 500 and 560 nm. We have not yet _agreed_ that this is the definition of “green”. Measure the wavelength all you like; without that agreement, it will all be for naught. Similarly, we might agree that the tree is _physical_ and even some tests which physical objects pass compared to other ones, such as emitting EM radiation. But without that initial _agreement_, we’re going nowhere. > [@](#): > > In a trivial sense it is. But for someone who considers the reality of the physical a real question, it ain’t. Ask **Liberal**. I have, many times. We _disagree_. Our _beliefs diverge_. But it’s not **Lib** I’m sending screen shapes to right now, it’s you. ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2005, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885/160 "2005-12-05T22:51:57Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > . . . we might agree that the tree is _physical_ and even some tests which physical objects pass compared to other ones, such as emitting EM radiation. But without that initial _agreement_, we’re going nowhere. B-b-but we might agree on tests for the physicality of the tree, but not on a test for the physicality of _everything_. This would be despite our agreement on the definition of physical quoted above. “Everything is physical” stated in a context of philosophical discussion is not a matter of mere definition, nor a statement of aesthetic preference, nor yet is it contingent upon any material observation. I don’t think it means a damn thing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885.md?page=9)