No, because I believe I can feasibly explain the Big Bang. But to someone who sat on the fence, your inability to do so would seem just as terminal as an inablility to explain God.
That you believe metaphysical things exist as well as physical things, thus receiving a serious wound, Ockham-wise.
Please do.
The operative word being “seem”.
Concepts can BE metaphysical, but they are not necessarily metaphysical. Metaphysics studies what is beyond “reality” - which I presume you would take to mean what is scientifically existant and observable.
Well then, is truth a physical thing?
If you believe in the existence of metaphysical things, why not go the whole hog and believe in God? That would see to me to be at least an intellectually honest approach.
Huh? There’s a huge logical leap here. Let’s say I believe that maths is metaphysical. I don’t, but let’s skip that. Why should I make this enormous leap to believing in some other, completely different entity?
Maybe later, I’m enjoying myself.
Very well, I put it to you that an inability to explain the Big Bang is at least as logically terminal to the argument that God is unnecessary as the inability to explain God is to the argument that God is necessary.
Why not, if the existence of metaphysical entities is outwith the scope of epistemic investigaton?
And Dangermom’s similar statement.
I absolutely agree, and when and where the majority of people are bought up non-religiously (Comunist Russia comes to mind) then I would expect that in those places stupid people would be more likely to be atheistic than religious.
You see I make no value judgement vis-a-vis religion. It is mearly that stupid people don’t change, and so remain as they were taught without questioning what they are taught.
( vis-a-vis means face to face, and is similar to saying with respect to )
Sorry, my last post was poorly phrased. I should have said that by believing in metaphysical things you are making an ontological commitment. Belief in God is no big further step, logically speaking.
No, seriously. I’m genuinely interested. This is not some trick in the debate. I really want to know.
Can’t agree more. People who have not read up thoroughly on Thor are really missing something. Likewise people who have not looked at whether virgin sacrifice really does placate the volcano gods.
Well, heck, why stop there. You believe in God, why not go the whole hog and believe in Allah, Vishnu, the Easter Bunny, Ghosts, Invisible Mind rays from the CIA, etc etc? Wouldn’t that be even more intellectually honest?
I believe that some metaphysical things are true. That doesn’t make them physical, why are you hung up on the physical to describe non-faith based belief systems? I don’t believe they exist physically. If they did, they wouldn’t be metaphysical.
I do think, to call concept an objective truth, the concept (which is tool which my physical brain is using to evaluate the physical world in a more effective manner) should actually be demonstrably effective in the physical world. Good mathematic, scientific, etc theories reliably do that. Garbage ones don’t. God doesn’t answer any questions about how the world works, it just puts all the questions into a big folder labelled “God made it that way”. I don’t find that helps me understand or act in the physical world in any better way.
If you only believe in God, but not other metaphysical entities, you’ve limited your belief where it stopped being supported by whatever you’re using as your test of objective truth. You haven’t said, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say you’re coming from some tradition of gnostic teaching about God.
I’m using what I described in the previous post, which is pretty much the scientific method (if a metaphysical concept is not reliable useful (i.e. repeatable by different people with consistent results) in a way that describes or predicts something physical (i.e. measurable, perceptible to the senses), it’s not objectively true.
And subjectively I believe chocolate is better than vanilla, and you can’t prove me wrong! (or right)
I cannot see either the relevance or the smoking gun of your argument, SentientMeat. I know where your slippery slope is coming from, but you should really define metaphysical in a bit more detail, because you seem to insist on treating all concepts as metaphysical entities.
Emotion, cognition, existence, property, relation, causation, space, time, imagination, language, semantics, these and countless others could all be considered metaphysical under your vague definition, which I questioned earlier. Heck, the word chair and the user Abe could be metaphysical according to your tilt as I understand it. It seems you are forcing the label of metaphysical on anything intangible, including all concepts.
I’ll leave that with the mention of Kiri-kin-tha’s First Law of Metaphysics: “Nothing unreal exists”. More than just a pretty tautology!
Not being able to explain the Big Bang has no bearing on most other considerations, including divinity – that would be the old either-or fallacy. But, again, this is pretty loose language, what do you mean by “explain”? I too would be interested in hearing your version. The Big Bang is hardly a simple event to have all figured out, and most of us struggle to refine our understanding of it on a regular basis.
Also, what about Occam’s razor? You alluded to it in passing a number of times but haven’t really explained how it features in your arguments. A version of Occam’s razor can be used to slash through the solipsisms that result from reducing the argument to absurd levels, but how can it support the claim that everything intangible must necessarily be metaphysical in some “supernatural” way that you haven’t yet defined?
I think “intelligence” is a rather inappropriate word to use in the OP question. Intelligence is not a single dimension quality in itself but is a product of built several faculties of the mind. It comprises different measures of abilities e.g analytical, reasoning and logic, comprehension, critical, questioning, concentration both in intensity and span, etc. Each individual had these elementary faculties but in different measures. A religious person may be high on other faculties and not as much on “critical” and “questioning”. Further, religion is a modified form of “indoctrination”. While intelligence is built over time, religious indoctrination takes place early in life, and becomes so well embedded that even intelligence acquired later is unable to erase it. It is because of “indoctrination” that an otherwise analytical and reasoning mind refuses to analyse and reason with his religion.
Well, that’s my point – it’s not a simple theist/atheist dichotomy. Religiosity, like IQ, is something that could be measured on a graduated scale – at one end, religious zealots; at the other end, total atheists; in the middle, most people, who believe in God because they were raised to and it has never occurred to them to question that. Anyway, so what if there are more theists than atheists? There’s also highly unequal distribution of the population along the IQ bell curve. Nevertheless, it ought to be possible to measure the comparative level of religiosity between different IQ levels. E.g., if 80% of people with IQs between 90 and 110 believe in God, and only 60% of people with IQs between 110 and 130 believe on God, obviously that tells us something important – but exactly what it tells us would require further research.
I know there’s controversy about how important IQ is. Nevertheless, there’s no doubt it’s measuring something, some stable feature of individual psychology, in the sense that a person who gets a given score on an IQ test will get a similar score on a similar test a year later.
Further data, in support of my contention that I am not stupid:
I am unwilling to enter debates on the existence of God, with people who cannot define existence, or God.
I extend that unwillingness to those who cannot prove their own existence with the exact same level of logically consistent proof they demand for God.
I prefer to contemplate the beauty of the music of the Gausopheme. And I thank God that it exists.
But, I am not a logician.
Tris
Existence: the faculty of being.
God: Sorry, but that’s your job. You say you believe in God, well define God. What exactly is it you believe in? It is impossible to debate something if you won’t tell me what it is.
I can. In fact, I just did. The simplest explanation for these words that you’re reading is that a human typed them. That explanation raises no further questions and follows what we already know of the world. I require no more evidence than that: circumstances whose simplest explanation is the existence of God, however you define God as per above.
Biqu,
What is described in that article you linked to has nothing to do with why I believe in God.
It has also an absolutely incorrect and misleading title since that “research” was only done among a certain section of Christians.
Salaam. A
In fact you choose for the simplest explanation and then you conclude that you know it all.
It requires a lot more effort to actually come to the reasoning that your existence could be caused by the existence of God 
Salaam. A
Such a test mesures nothing “stable”. It mesures nothing else then what it is made for with the exclusion of all other factors that could be of influence on the actual validity and worth of the given result. Further it gives only the reflection of a moment in the life of the one who wants to take it. Next it can give various results depending time and circumstances and how the individual wants it to vary.
Salaam. A