# Triskadecamus got me to thinking about faith **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 9, 2007, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/triskadecamus-got-me-to-thinking-about-faith/403383 "2007-05-09T13:45:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2007, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/triskadecamus-got-me-to-thinking-about-faith/403383/81 "2007-05-12T12:12:06Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] Is it supposed to have clarity? It strikes me as prose. [/QUOTE] Liberal claims it does: > [@](#): > > They stand out, but not for their heavy-handed obviousness; rather, it’s for their light and clarity. He has an uncanny ability to condense an otherwise complicated viewpoint into an almost Quakerish plain take. I’m certainly not getting it. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2007, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/triskadecamus-got-me-to-thinking-about-faith/403383/82 "2007-05-12T13:07:40Z")
[QUOTE=Kalhoun] Liberal claims it does: I’m certainly not getting it. [/QUOTE] It’s a personal thing I suppose. Like poetry. Liberal has spent some time on “proofs” about God. For someone to suggest it’s better to not have proof could be an interesting contrast to ponder. I find those type of things personal and a matter of timing. If you’re mentally ready and the right idea comes along it can be an AHA! moment. Sometimes it just rattles around in your head for a while. You get a sense it’s meaningful to you but it hasn’t quite come together. That’s just my take on it. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2007, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/triskadecamus-got-me-to-thinking-about-faith/403383/83 "2007-05-12T13:31:07Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] It’s a personal thing I suppose. Like poetry. Liberal has spent some time on “proofs” about God. For someone to suggest it’s better to not have proof could be an interesting contrast to ponder. I find those type of things personal and a matter of timing. If you’re mentally ready and the right idea comes along it can be an AHA! moment. Sometimes it just rattles around in your head for a while. You get a sense it’s meaningful to you but it hasn’t quite come together. That’s just my take on it. [/QUOTE] It’s a contrast, for sure. But it’s also been a widely accepted take on religion since forever. Most people don’t have any interest in “knowing” the truth; they cling to faith and would cling to it even if presented with irrefutable proof that there is no god. **Tris** strikes me as one of those people, based on the paragraph **Liberal** quoted. Godthink is an addiction to most believers in the world. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2007, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/triskadecamus-got-me-to-thinking-about-faith/403383/84 "2007-05-12T15:48:36Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] Well, I think you’re giving medicine a bit too much credit; it’s largely still a guessing game at this stage, though there are some semi-consistent principles involved in it, and it does continue to evolve. But you’re missing the point in any case. The sensory object doesn’t make any difference. Whether the doctor is looking at you directly or looking at data from machines that looked at you, he is still seeing nothing more than light collected (upside down) on his retina. He’s not seeing you or the numbers. He’s seeing light. Physically, you are nothing more than a massive electromagnetic spasm suspended in a field of gravity. [/QUOTE] So what? If that effect behaves in all ways as if it was showing real things, then there is no reason to think that it isn’t showing real things. Seeing light is one of the ways we interact with the universe, and so far we have no reason to believe that we are doing anything but seeing light. As long as things behave consistently , testably, and predictably the way they have been up until now, then there is no reason to think they aren’t real. > [@](#): > > Again, nonsense. Cakes don’t measure. You must allow for an agency outside the universe to measure God’s effects, just as you must allow for an agency outside the cake to measure the cake. It is useless to apply science to God; science is empirical by nature. Yeah, I thought that was a metaphor, not just a cake. How about: we are the cake, the inside of the oven is the universe, and god is the oven. My argument still holds. If god has an effect on us, we can measure it as something independent of the universe. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2007, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/triskadecamus-got-me-to-thinking-about-faith/403383/85 "2007-05-12T16:27:43Z")
[QUOTE=hotflungwok] So what? If that effect behaves in all ways as if it was showing real things, then there is no reason to think that it isn’t showing real things. Seeing light is one of the ways we interact with the universe, and so far we have no reason to believe that we are doing anything but seeing light. As long as things behave consistently , testably, and predictably the way they have been up until now, then there is no reason to think they aren’t real. [/QUOTE] I agree. Why would you not believe things that are real based on common understanding of how we measure our world, but you DO believe in something that meets none of those criteria? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2007, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/triskadecamus-got-me-to-thinking-about-faith/403383/86 "2007-05-12T16:37:55Z")
[QUOTE=Stalky] I hope you don’t mind me saying, but if you’re this much of a sophist in regards to those things that can be directly measured by your senses how is it that you feel that complicated ideas which arise from the complicated interaction of those senses (primarly the firing of neurons in the area of you brain that deal with experience and knowledge), like the idea of God, are more valid than simple ideas like hunger? [/quote] Lordy, that’s quite a mess. Let’s break it down: I’m hoping that your accusation of sophistry is born of ignorance rather than malice. Perhaps you meant “solipsist” instead of “sophist”, but in either case it’s nothing to do with me or my philosophy. Maybe you intended to equivocate, and weave together the connotations of “sophism” in the grand tradition of Gorgias with “sophist” in the manner of today’s modern blowhard. But I’m sure that all of us would like to identify with certain sophist principles, such as those of Protagoras that extole the virtues of using words correctly. 😉 As to complicated ideas, I don’t know what could be more simple than God qua Love, where love is the facilitation of goodness, and goodness is that which edifies. If you have postulated that God is complicated, then that is not a burden upon me. Finally, what we can conclude from scientific studies of the brain and its interaction with God is precisely nothing. As one noted neurologist and neurological researcher put it, “Why is the revealed truth of such transcendent experiences in any way ‘inferior’ to the more mundane truths that we scientists dabble in? Indeed, if you are tempted to jump to this conclusion, just bear in mind that one could use exactly the same evidence – the involvement of the temporal lobes in religion – to argue for, rather than against, the existence of God.” VS Ramachandran, MD, PhD, _Phantoms in the Brain_, pp 184-185 > [@](#): > > It seems that if you believe so strongly in being unable to truly know the world in which you live you should disbelieve even more strongly in the end result of what surely must be a very complicated internal process. The idea of God. > > Basically, I’m calling you on an inconsistancy. A mysterious calling, to be sure. I’ve no idea where you got the notion that I think that we are unable to “truly know the world”. After all, I’ve said plainly what the world truly is: it’s a probability distribution. A mathematical inequality. A wraith of possibilities, all of which are contingent on observation. Know that, and you know the world. > [@](#): > > I am not a sophist. Not that I disagree with the philosophy per se. The problem I have with it is that sophistry is pointless, even if true, so one might as well act as if we truly do have some limited access to reality. I feel this a priori is rational, even if not AS rational as a sophist interpretation, and since I happen to enjoy collecting and exchanging knowledge I can be okay with that. Again with the “sophistry”. I have no idea what you mean. > [@](#): > > If you’re calling the above jump from complete sophistry, to limited empiricism “Faith” then you’re using the word in a context that is misleading and confusing. Sure it can be seen as a kind of faith, but it’s at such a basic level that it is required to even communicate. This communication is required to even comtemplate the idea of examining your reality empirically by cross-referencing some of your experiences with others in the same boat. Calling this step “Faith” is like calling 2 trout a “school” of fish. You might be right about it but it’s hardly significant enough to bother. Perhaps it would be best if you were less metaphorical and more direct. With regard to physical things, surely there can be greater precision than parables about fish and odd references to rhetorical vice. I honest to goodness have no idea what idea you are trying to convey, and therefore do not know how to respond. > [@](#): > > The problem with using Plato as support is that he lived in a world that lacked modern physics as was thus pretty unfamiliar with the behaviour of elementary particles. While this may work as a “philisophical” basis certain maths exist that accurately describe the real world and are expressed just this way. [R -\> Not R.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many_worlds_interpretation) First of all, I did not use Plato as support (though I certainly would not be ashamed to do so.) Plato was merely the one who conceived essentia — that which a thing is to be. If I were to write a syllogism, you surely would not say that I’m calling upon Aristotle for support just because Aristotle conceived the logic necessary to formulate a deduction. And second, if you don’t want someone calling upon Plato, surely you should not call upon MWI. At a 2005 QM workshop hosted by the University of Waterloo’s Institute for Quantum Computing, the many worlds interpretation was [decidedly unpopular](http://www.iqc.ca/~qipcourse/interpret/survey.html). > [@](#): > > I have no disagreement with this (though that obviously doesn’t mean we’re right.) King of the non-real things that defy metaphysical ubiquity, I present to you “The Idea of God.” If God is the Supreme Being, then He is metaphysically ubiquitous by the definitions of both “supreme” and “being”. > [@](#): > > Since Entropy is a demonstratable physical phenomenon, and the Universe may well have both a beginning and an ending in the timeline (this hasn’t been determined, and may be indeterminable) this idea forces you to exclude everything that reasonably could have caused you to want to define reality in the first place from your definition. You’re leaving an awful lot of premises audiatur et altera pars. I have no idea why (1) being “demonstratable” distinguishes entropy from any other “physical phenomenon”, nor (2) what use to the discussion there is for the epistemic emptiness of the universe’s timeline, nor (3) why once we’ve excluded the universe, we’ve excluded “everything”. It seems to me that your argument goes in circles: the universe is all there is because the universe is all there is. > [@](#): > > I think the problem here is not that the physical universe is not real, but rather that you’ve misdefined reality by basing your definition on the macro world and outdated philisophical ideals, then falsified it by aknowledging the seeming ubsurdities of the micro world (instead of generating a definition borne with those aknowledged), but unwilling to admit that your defininition is flawed you have appealed to “Faith” and ultimately invented a God that satisfies it. Stunning. That was a veritable tour-de-force of non sequiturs, almost like a spider crawling upside down and backwards. I’m still reeling from the notion that I “falsified” a definition. > [@](#): > > Here’s a direct question, are you calling the entire universe God, or is God an outsider in your philosophy? I think both “supernatural” and “metaphysical” clearly imply that God is not a part of nature and is not a physical being. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2007, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/triskadecamus-got-me-to-thinking-about-faith/403383/87 "2007-05-12T16:45:34Z")
[QUOTE=Kalhoun] Real proof would convince us all. [/QUOTE] [You](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth) [surely](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design) [don’t](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction) [mean](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fung_shui) [that](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_trial). ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2007, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/triskadecamus-got-me-to-thinking-about-faith/403383/88 "2007-05-12T16:48:53Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] It’s a personal thing I suppose. Like poetry. Liberal has spent some time on “proofs” about God. For someone to suggest it’s better to not have proof could be an interesting contrast to ponder. I find those type of things personal and a matter of timing. If you’re mentally ready and the right idea comes along it can be an AHA! moment. Sometimes it just rattles around in your head for a while. You get a sense it’s meaningful to you but it hasn’t quite come together. That’s just my take on it. [/QUOTE] Mine too. In fact, that’s an excellent description of exactly what happened. Even proof itself isn’t proof of anything because there are always unproven assertions underlying every proof. As Zeriel already pointed out, “At some level, a priori axioms rule the roost, even for the most hardcore of rationalists.” ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2007, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/triskadecamus-got-me-to-thinking-about-faith/403383/89 "2007-05-12T17:22:40Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] [You](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth) [surely](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design) [don’t](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction) [mean](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fung_shui) [that](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_trial). [/QUOTE] No, I think I do mean it. With the exception of those unfortunates I mentioned above, I think proof, either way, that was based in what we see as understandable evidence that most reasonable folks can grasp (water is necessary for life, for example) would cause the vast majority to give up their argument and recognize the reality. A positive in the god column would not guarantee worship, mind you, but would simply acknowledge an existence. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2007, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/triskadecamus-got-me-to-thinking-about-faith/403383/90 "2007-05-12T18:38:14Z")
[QUOTE=Kalhoun] A positive in the god column would not guarantee worship, mind you, but would simply acknowledge an existence. [/QUOTE] But of what use would that be to God? Suppose you were the host of a party, and someone was there who acknowledged your existence, but cared nothing about you otherwise — including your rules for your house. If the Judeo-Christian God were to prove His existence to you, would it change anything about the way you view God? Would you, if not worship Him, at least respect Him and do as He asks with His world? Either way, since He asks for worship, your knowledge would only condemn you. At least in not knowing, [you are not held to account](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=9&verse=41&version=31&context=verse). ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2007, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/triskadecamus-got-me-to-thinking-about-faith/403383/91 "2007-05-12T18:51:16Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] But of what use would that be to God? Suppose you were the host of a party, and someone was there who acknowledged your existence, but cared nothing about you otherwise — including your rules for your house. If the Judeo-Christian God were to prove His existence to you, would it change anything about the way you view God? Would you, if not worship Him, at least respect Him and do as He asks with His world? Either way, since He asks for worship, your knowledge would only condemn you. At least in not knowing, [you are not held to account](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=9&verse=41&version=31&context=verse). [/QUOTE] There isn’t much I like about the judeo-christian god. Worship would be unthinkable. I think knowledge of his existence would probably make me very angry. The “not knowing” might buy me a pass with him, but the secretive nature of his existence gets him in trouble with me. And since I’ve lived my life without him all these years, I wouldn’t see a need to change what I was doing. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2007, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/triskadecamus-got-me-to-thinking-about-faith/403383/92 "2007-05-12T23:36:44Z")
[QUOTE=Kalhoun] There isn’t much I like about the judeo-christian god. Worship would be unthinkable. I think knowledge of his existence would probably make me very angry. The “not knowing” might buy me a pass with him, but the secretive nature of his existence gets him in trouble with me. And since I’ve lived my life without him all these years, I wouldn’t see a need to change what I was doing. [/QUOTE] I think that, from your point of view, that’s a fair assessment. So, what I don’t understand is why you would even desire, let alone demand, any sort of proof. Why not just be happy for those who are content in their faith while you continue to pursue your own happiness in your own way? ---
**Author:** ![Stalky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b782af/32.png) [@Stalky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stalky)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2007, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/triskadecamus-got-me-to-thinking-about-faith/403383/93 "2007-05-13T00:46:39Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] Perhaps you meant “solipsist” instead of “sophist” [/QUOTE] Aye, indeed I did. I was not accusing you of any sort of deception. That was a term I had picked up recently, and obviously wrongly. My apologies. I meant the belief that things that are percieved may not be real. Certainly you believe they aren’t, by your own admission. [QUOTE=Liberal] God is real. The universe is not real. It is nothing more than a probability distribution. “The atoms or the elementary particles are not real; they form a world of potentialities and possibilities rather than one of things or facts.” — Werner Heisenberg. [/Quote] Briefly then, why does your solipsist philosophy, as outlined in the above quote, apply to your conceptualization of the world around you but not to your conceptualization of God? [Quote=Liberal] surely you should not call upon MWI. At a 2005 QM workshop hosted by the University of Waterloo’s Institute for Quantum Computing, the many worlds interpretation was decidedly unpopular. [/Quote] I never asserted anything about the accuracy of the MWI, only that the mathematics of it seemed to be in direct agreement with the proposition R -\> Not R and that said mathematics could be used to describe the universe. > [@](#): > > Finally, what we can conclude from scientific studies of the brain and its interaction with God is precisely nothing. As one noted neurologist and neurological researcher put it, “Why is the revealed truth of such transcendent experiences in any way ‘inferior’ to the more mundane truths that we scientists dabble in? Indeed, if you are tempted to jump to this conclusion, just bear in mind that one could use exactly the same evidence – the involvement of the temporal lobes in religion – to argue for, rather than against, the existence of God.” VS Ramachandran, MD, PhD, Phantoms in the Brain, pp 184-185 The sum total of useful information in the above paragraph is exactly zero. > [@](#): > > If God is the Supreme Being, then He is metaphysically ubiquitous by the definitions of both “supreme” and “being”. u·biq·ui·tous - existing or being everywhere, esp. at the same time; omnipresent: ubiquitous fog; ubiquitous little ants. met·a·phys·i·cal - 2. Philosophy. a. concerned with abstract thought or subjects, as existence, causality, or truth. b. concerned with first principles and ultimate grounds, as being, time, or substance. It seems to me that the term metaphysically ubiquitous is a contradiction. In that to be ubiquitous God must be everywhere at once, but to be metaphysical God should be an abstraction, which would exist as an idea and therefore be present in some kind of memory storage device (like a bundle of neurons or a harddrive.) > [@](#): > > You’re leaving an awful lot of premises audiatur et altera pars. I have no idea why (1) being “demonstratable” distinguishes entropy from any other “physical phenomenon”, nor (2) what use to the discussion there is for the epistemic emptiness of the universe’s timeline, nor (3) why once we’ve excluded the universe, we’ve excluded “everything”. It seems to me that your argument goes in circles: the universe is all there is because the universe is all there is. If no **Liberal** or universe existed you would never have tried to define “reality.” It is the existance of both of those very “real” things that prompted your definition of reality and their subsequent exclusion from it. I just found it a tad ironic. > [@](#): > > I think both “supernatural” and “metaphysical” clearly imply that God is not a part of nature and is not a physical being. Then why not answer directly instead of wriggling? I didn’t ask for you to convey the implications of previous statements. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2007, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/triskadecamus-got-me-to-thinking-about-faith/403383/94 "2007-05-13T00:54:21Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] I think that, from your point of view, that’s a fair assessment. So, what I don’t understand is why you would even desire, let alone demand, any sort of proof. Why not just be happy for those who are content in their faith while you continue to pursue your own happiness in your own way? [/QUOTE] Because their happiness, and the religious right’s attempts to control the bodies and minds of non-believers, is making making my freedom to live without religion extremely difficult. I figure that if the basic premise of existence were proven, maybe they’d stop. Some of them, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2007, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/triskadecamus-got-me-to-thinking-about-faith/403383/95 "2007-05-13T16:16:59Z")
[QUOTE=Kalhoun] Because their happiness, and the religious right’s attempts to control the bodies and minds of non-believers, is making making my freedom to live without religion extremely difficult. [/quote] Understood. But that’s a political problem. Leaders of the religious right are politicians just like those in government. It should be possible for you to direct your ire at Jerry Falwell, without directing it at Jane Faithful. I understand that you have a different perspective than I do, but from where I sit, Ms. Faithful would be less sympathetic with Jerry Falwell if you didn’t prove his case for him that you’re her enemy. > [@](#): > > I figure that if the basic premise of existence were proven, maybe they’d stop. Some of them, anyway. I honestly doubt that because, armed with both proof and free-will, it is hard to imagine the terror they would unleash. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2007, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/triskadecamus-got-me-to-thinking-about-faith/403383/96 "2007-05-13T16:38:20Z")
[QUOTE=Stalky] Aye, indeed I did. I was not accusing you of any sort of deception. That was a term I had picked up recently, and obviously wrongly. My apologies. I meant the belief that things that are percieved may not be real. Certainly you believe they aren’t, by your own admission. [/quote] Your apology and admission of error are very classy. Thanks. However, my worldview is not solipsistic because I believe that God is real and that God can be perceived. It is only the universe that is not real. (And I would add that its perception is intrinsically unimportant.) > [@](#): > > Briefly then, why does your solipsist philosophy, as outlined in the above quote, apply to your conceptualization of the world around you but not to your conceptualization of God? As stated above, I’m not a solipsist. If you want to classify me, the most concise and accurate label would be Christian Libertarian Objectivist — a renegade with respect to the first and the last, and a purist with respect to the other one. > [@](#): > > I never asserted anything about the accuracy of the MWI, only that the mathematics of it seemed to be in direct agreement with the proposition R -\> Not R and that said mathematics could be used to describe the universe. It is, of course, possible to construct any sort of logic system, including one that allows for contradiction. But if we are going to allow such a construct to be used as a basis for our discussion, then we might as well stop discussing. We’re both right and we’re both wrong, and there’s no point in saying anything. > [@](#): > > The sum total of useful information in the above paragraph is exactly zero. I wouldn’t dismiss Ramachandran so readily. There is no greater neurological authority. Feel free to search on what his peers have to say. > [@](#): > > u·biq·ui·tous - existing or being everywhere, esp. at the same time; omnipresent: ubiquitous fog; ubiquitous little ants. > > met·a·phys·i·cal - 2. Philosophy. > a. concerned with abstract thought or subjects, as existence, causality, or truth. > b. concerned with first principles and ultimate grounds, as being, time, or substance. > > It seems to me that the term metaphysically ubiquitous is a contradiction. In that to be ubiquitous God must be everywhere at once, but to be metaphysical God should be an abstraction, which would exist as an idea and therefore be present in some kind of memory storage device (like a bundle of neurons or a harddrive.) It is your 2b (“being”) that is applicable in this instance. Metaphysical ubiquity means necessary existence; i.e., being in every possible world. > [@](#): > > If no **Liberal** or universe existed you would never have tried to define “reality.” It is the existance of both of those very “real” things that prompted your definition of reality and their subsequent exclusion from it. I just found it a tad ironic. But I agree with you on that. As Liberal, the human animal, I’m just atoms observing atoms. Everything about the universe is trivial. Even whether God created it is immaterial; it serves Her purpose all the same. From Her perspective, it is an amoral mis-en-scene in which we can act out our moral decisions with freedom of moral will. > [@](#): > > Then why not answer directly instead of wriggling? I didn’t ask for you to convey the implications of previous statements. 🙂 Because your question was plurium interrogationum. I believe you drew a false dichotomy by giving me choices A and B only. What I did was tell you in my own words how I would characterize my own thoughts. I don’t know what could be more direct than that. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2007, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/triskadecamus-got-me-to-thinking-about-faith/403383/97 "2007-05-13T16:53:47Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] Understood. But that’s a political problem. Leaders of the religious right are politicians just like those in government. It should be possible for you to direct your ire at Jerry Falwell, without directing it at Jane Faithful. I understand that you have a different perspective than I do, but from where I sit, Ms. Faithful would be less sympathetic with Jerry Falwell if you didn’t prove his case for him that you’re her enemy. [/quote] Most of my ire IS directed at the zealots; however, as I said in another thread, the softer side of god belief doesn’t fight hard enough against the bad guys. I believe there is some sort of misplaced loyalty among the believers that makes the softies less likely to speak out against the hard-asses. If the softies would stand up and say belief belongs in the “personal stuff” column and not in the “public policy” column, our leaders wouldn’t be pressured to pander to the bad guys. I believe that the bad guys are the majority; otherwise, their voice wouldn’t be so influential. > [@](#): > > I honestly doubt that because, armed with both proof and free-will, it is hard to imagine the terror they would unleash. That’s certainly a possibility, but I think there is strength in numbers, too. Maybe we could get them to blink. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/triskadecamus-got-me-to-thinking-about-faith/403383.md?page=4)