Your kick can bestow life?
Whoa, back the truck up. Exactly what did you observe? And how do define “God” in the first place? (Unless this is all a big whoosh and you’re merely talking about Michelangelo paintings and certain episodes of The Simpsons…)
I’m curious about this as well. Liberal, you’re an eloquent and prolific poster here and I don’t put anywhere near the likes of kanicbird. If you can express what it was that convinced you there is a God, you have my rapt attention. You say you’ve observed God, you weren’t just exaggerating, where you?
Maybe so. Badchad was a bully. He was singularly fixated on Polycarp. And Der Trihs has yet ever — ever — in any discusion with me that I can recall, to provide a cite backing any of his claims. His posts are mindless, wandering, and desultory diatribes. Nothing more. Polycarp, on the other hand, provides not only cites, but scholarly sources. Der Trihs routinely and blindly attacks the faithful as everything from stupid to dangerous. Polycarp, on the rare occasions when he attacks, aims his ire at individuals, and does not, for example, blame all atheists for the deeds of others. So in that sense, they certainly are opposites, you’re right.
I’m glad you ask that question because it raises a point that I’m constantly making. Science is an appropriate epistemology for observing nature, but is worthless for observing God (or any metaphysical entity). Demands for “scientific proof” (whatever that means) of God’s existence are at best misguided, and betray a profound ignorance on the part of Der Trihs and others who make such demands about the nature of science and of epistemology generally.
Why do I bring that up? Because there are more than half a dozen definitions of “observe” — just common ones, not technical ones — only one of which has anything to do with observation in a scientific sense (4b in Merriam Webster). Almost any of the others applies to religious observation, but especially number 5: “to come to realize or know especially through consideration of noted facts”.
I’ve actually explained many times the particulars of my first epiphany with respect to my faith, and I’ll be happy to expound further on it, but assuming you don’t want to be bored to tears just now, suffice it to say that my experience involved something akin to the wholesale replacement of what I knew before with what I know now in an instant of time. One moment, I was an atheist; the next, I was a believer, seeing the world in a completely different way than I had seen it a second before.
One thing I’d point out before closing is that there was a thread some time ago asking what it would take for atheists to believe in God. There was a long string of mundane answers — show me some miracles, explain things to me, make up for perceived evil deeds, and so on. But all those suggestions seemed rather momentously dull to me. Really? You want to see magic tricks and hear stories? That’s it? That would convince you that God exists? I was amazed, frankly. I knew that that would not have sufficed for me.
And then SentientMeat posted. He said words to this effect, “God would have to replace what I know with some other knowledge.” And of course, this was what I recognized as being necessary to believe in God. Belief is not a choice that is made. The whole thing I had with PRR originally was his insistence that belief in God was a choice, but his refusal to comply with my demand that he demonstrate his claim by choosing to believe. It was because he kept making that claim, but kept ignoring my demand that our relation quickly soured.
Anyway, I hope that helps you to understand better.
When it comes to looking for God, science is totally useless.
Of course, science is equally useless when it comes to looking for Oz, and for pretty much the same reason.
I had a similar experience shortly after I “gave my life to Christ,” as they put it. Turns out I was having a psychotic break with reality. Not that there’s anything wrong with psychosis, of course – hell, I practically revel in it 
– but where I draw the line is when people start forcing their psychotic beliefs on others, or use their so-called faith as an excuse for psychotic, selfish behavior.
Or maybe it’s just the endorphin rush. Sharing the same faith with a congregation of people can have a powerful effect on brain chemistry.
I seldom attend church, and when I do, it’s unprogrammed Quaker. It’s been a long time since I was an atheist — more than 30 years now. I can’t remember what I blamed my psychotic, selfish behavior on way back then.
And being a Christian, what do you blame it on now?
Myself.
Can’t you simply state it hypothetically, though? Sort of in a ‘as far as is known, all sheep are white’? I mean, of course, if that happens to be true, you will never (and can never) with absolute certainty know that it is, but at least its converse ‘not all sheep are white’ would be open to verification, through the falsification of the hypothesis of the whiteness of sheep.
I’ve made the point elsewhere, and I’d be interested in your answer: wouldn’t a universe an existing god interacts with necessarily contain evidence (of the scientific sort) of this fact? Because if it didn’t, it would be identical to a universe without god, or at least one he doesn’t interact with, since any difference could be pointed at as evidence. I guess I just have trouble imagining how, in light of that, it is possible to have a universe that is scientifically the same as a godless universe, yet still is interacted with by god (or the metaphysical in general).
Incidentally, I agree with you on your definition of belief as being essentially tautological, and that is pretty much my main reason for being a non-believer: that I don’t believe.
Yes! That makes the claim an epistemic modality. That’s exactly the sort of claim that science is perfect for investigating. As long as the modal is retained, the propositional claim can be altered to anything we wish, including its negation, and then tested scientifically.
It should not be surprising at all that a godless universe is scientifically indistinguishable from a godful universe. I have to wonder, given your understanding that analytical tools in and of themselves cannot tell us anything about the real world, why you wouldn’t understand that science in and of itself cannot tell us anything about a metaphysical world. Examining God with a science experiment is like examining gravity with prayer. When you do examine gravity with science, you can determine things like its strength between two masses at a given distance. In other words, your physical investigation will yield conclusions with physical results.
You can’t escape that tautology because you are yourself physical and are a part of the experiment you conduct. Or as Arthur Eddington put it, “There is no essential distinction between scientific measures and the measures of the senses. In either case our acquaintance with the external world comes to us through material channels; the observer’s body may be regarded as part of his laboratory equipment.” That is, what you are actually measuring is what is in your brain, not what is in the world.
You should put analytic claims to tests of logic, empirical claims to tests of observation, and religious claims to tests of faith. It’s not a mix-and-match proposition.
Yes, but every epistemology is tautological. Logic forces you to start with unproven statements called axioms. Science forces you to apply the philosophical principle of falsification, which is not itself falsifiable. And faith forces you to accept as true things that your senses cannot detect.
As far as our investigations of nature are concerned — and since Arthur Eddington is on my mind of late — the great scientist made my favorite observation: “Something unknown is doing we don’t know what.” AE
Ah. Well, the way I view the world, a deferral to the incomplete nature of our knowledge about it is implicit in any claim pertaining to it. (Everyone basically adopts this convention implicitly, for instance when asked whether or not it’s raining, you’ll likely either answer yes or now rather than including a disclaimer referring to the probability that your senses may be deluding you on the issue.)
I don’t think I can accept this analogy quite that way. If god’s actions affect any sort of change within the real world, these changes are subject to scientific inquiry. You’re trying to keep your epistemologies separate while at the same time claiming that objects subject to metaphysical inquiry affect those subject to scientific inquiry; I don’t think that’s simultaneously possible. Similarly, I don’t quite agree that there’s nothing that analytical tools tell us about reality, purely in and off themselves – in fact, they tell us everything. The problem is, they tell us a lot more than what is actually manifest – if you could draw up all logically valid deductions from all possible premises, the complete description of reality would be a subclass of those, and would be tantamount to those deductions consistent with empiricism. The metaphysical claims, it seems to me, would be a similar subclass, and what you’re claiming, to me, seems to be that they’re both disjunct – i.e. that there are no metaphysical claims science can evaluate – and have elements in common – i.e. that metaphysical processes affect reality.
I don’t see how both can be compatible.
Well, that is probably the greatest degree of certainty we can achieve regarding just about anything. 
I hoipe you understand that, from my perspective, it wasn’t that I was smugly ignoring your demand, but genuinely not getting what it was you were asking me, and partly not being able to frame the theological discussion in your terminology. I will concede that you’re either a deeper thinker than I am on matters of theology, or that we fundamentally disagree about some crucial element that I have trouble being articulate about (and have very little interest in exploring.) But I wasn’t (in that instance, at least) simply being a dick. If I could have the discussion with you, I think I would, but I can’t discuss something that I don’t understand in the slightest.
And as to **Polycarp **and Badchad–I’ll pass on that one, too. I think I’ve said my piece, and De Bannuis Nil Nisi Bonum…
Talking about a nonmaterial god who resides in another dimension that leaves no evidence makes as much sense as talking about the secret appearance of the superhero Atom in this week’s episode of Lost.
Where was he? In every scene.
Why couldn’t we see him? He was subatomic.
How could he manage to breathe if he was smaller than an air molecule? It’s too complicated for you to understand.
What makes you think he was there? He was secretly guiding all of the characters to do what they did by implanting thoughts in their minds.
Why wasn’t he in the credits? It’s a secret that will be revealed…later.
How did you come by this information? It’s rather obvious to those who know how to think properly.
Now you’re just being silly. For one thing, Ray Palmer is too damn cool for Lost. For another, if he were to go slumming on that island, he’d spend all his time ogling…
um, I don’t actually who’s one this show. Somebody help a brother out.
But aren’t you saying then, that your experience of “God” is an entirely subjective phenomenon? How can you determine that your experience of “God” isn’t merely your imagination filling in the blanks, fulfilling your deep desire for universal order and unconditional love? And using that construct, wouldn’t the atheist/skeptic viewpoint be equally valid, with their lack of faith fueling their imaginary need for a chaotic, soul-less universe?
The mere ANTICIPATION of my kick can bestow life. Where do you think Jodie Foster’s kids came from?
Since I can’t say what I want in the thread in question, I can link to it here and express myself:
Kanicbird, shut the fuck up. Seriously.
Robin
Oh, dear God. He is getting worse.
You’d be surprised. Let’s look at whether it’s raining in the context of an epistemic versus a metaphysical possibility. Someone says, “It’s possible that it’s raining outside.” Two different meanings can be taken from the statement: (1) It’s possible, for all we know, that it’s raining outside; and (2) It’s possible, in some world including this one, that it’s raining outside. Now, number (2) might sound strange as worded, but I wanted to emphasize its meaning. You’d usually hear it more along the lines of, “No condition exists making rain impossible.” Or “It is possible for it to rain.”
Number (1) expresses an epistemic modality of the type you mentioned about sheep. It is a matter of our knowledge, and not a matter of boundaries. It can be answered, for example, by looking out the window or walking outside. Thus, scientific inquiry can determine the soundness of an epistemic claim. But number (2) is a matter of contingency. It doesn’t matter what we know. It’s possible that it can rain whether we look out the window or not. If we see wetness, it could have been caused by something else. If we see what looks like rain, it could be a water-fan such as ones used on movie sets. If everything is bone dry with nary a cloud in the sky, we still can’t say that rain is impossible because as soon as we cease our observation, a cloud could swoop in and drop its contents. Optical illusions and physical tests make no difference. It is possible that it can rain if contingencies involving rain are met.
So although people may not think about the difference, the difference is there. And it is not subtle. That’s why epistemic claims about God’s existence are pointless, Czarcasm’s second-grade smart ass quips notwithstanding. Obviously, it is understandable, given his vaccuous knowledge of both science and philosophy, that he is so stupid about such things. And Der Trihs is on a level even below that. Nevertheless, it is more than a little exhausting when a debate opponent is unwilling or unable to pose the question as a metaphysical claim.
(Hence, nonsense about gods in other dimensions who leave no effects, and so forth.)
Certainly, it is completely satisfying when the opponent will bother to enlighten himself, as SentientMeat did when we began our discussions of the matter. He took the time to read up on the fundamentals of modal logic and the philosophy of science. He became an outstanding debator on the issue. In fact, we currently have a member, Indistinguishable, whose membership I sponsored because he engaged me honestly and knowledgeably about the issue. He knows far more about the logic systems involved than I do, and he made excellent arguments. It was a delight to encounter him. Similarly, you and a couple of others are taking the time to fish out what I’m saying, rather than hurling inciteful and sarcastic epithets designed to insult and demean both me and the God Whom I love.
Those are interesting comments. I would say that analytical inquiry tells us all about the physical world in the sense that Eddington said. In other words, it isn’t saying anything at all about nature herself, but about the way we frame nature. To repeat the quote for your convenience: “What we are observing is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our type of question.”
Now, as to the effects of a metaphysical agent acting on the physical world, certainly these are effects that science can examine. But it can examine only the effects, not the cause.
Suppose, for example, you saw an object on your desk suddenly disappear and then reappear on your head. You would (rightly) exhaust every possible scientific test before determining that there is no physical explanation for the event to have occurred. But in fact, a physical explanation is quite simple, although devising a scientific test for it would be quite difficult if not impossible (epistemically impossible). We know for a certainty that a subatomic particle can spontaneously change locations in spacetime. There is no reason that all the particles in your desk object could not have spontaneously moved. A remarkable coincidence to be sure, but possible (epistemically possible) nonetheless.
But even knowing this, you know nothing (at least, nothing derived scientifically) about any sort of agency involved in the movement of the object. And so, suppose someone made the bizarre sounding claim that gravity works by unseen angels pushing objects (a Newtonian view) or bending spacetime (an Einsteinian view). It’s as good an explanation as any, since science doesn’t provide one. Metaphysical claims aren’t testable scientifically because they are meta-physical. If we are to use the word, we shouldn’t act as if it had no meaning. If Johnny asserts that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists, his claim is as valid as the claim that Jehovah God exists. These are claims that can be tested only by faith.
That’s unfair to you, really. I was at least as petulant and intransigent as you were. Whatever problem we had then no longer exists. You held your part of the bargain like the man of honor you are. Then you had the courage and moral fiber to initiate the making of peace between us. I consider you to be a friend and a peer. If I say anything that you don’t understand — and I am certainly not a gifted writer by any means — don’t hesitate to ask for clarification.