For atheists, existence means something physical - that which can be perceived through the senses and if you want to go the whole nine yards, something measurable.

In contrast to the above, existence for theists goes beyond the physical - beyond our senses and instruments. — TheMadFool

Don't atheists do math? Believe in justice? Follow the law? All abstractions. Non-physical.

Atheists believe in and use abstractions.

Don't atheists do math? Believe in justice? Follow the law? All abstractions. Non-physical.

Atheists believe in and use abstractions. — fishfry

Not exactly what I meant. The abstract is mental but by non-physical existence, theists mean something outside of the mind, don't they? God isn't simply an abstraction.

I was just thinking about the God-debate. The atheism-theism divide that hasn't been, to me, adequately resolved.

One key parameter in the debate seems to be the meaning of existence. There are other elements of the debate that's important but I'll focus on the meaning of existence.

It seems to me that the meaning of existence differs depending on which side of the debate you're on.

For atheists, existence means something physical - that which can be perceived through the senses and if you want to go the whole nine yards, something measurable.

In contrast to the above, existence for theists goes beyond the physical - beyond our senses and instruments. — TheMadFool

There are other ways to qualify the term "existence".

What should I do? — TheMadFool

SIlence.

For atheists, existence means something physical - that which can be perceived through the senses and if you want to go the whole nine yards, something measurable. — TheMadFool

Respectfully, I think this is a narrow conception of the atheist. Admittedly there is an assembly line scientistic atheist, and these may even be in the majority. A more radical atheism expands its critique to include the idea of the physical. Of course there's a world out there, but as rule we look at it through the theoretical goggles of educated common sense --the 'superstitions' of the day. The assembly line scientistic atheist has a less embarrassingly obsolete pair of goggles than the amateur theologian who already capitulates to scientism by understanding religion as belief in a set of propositions. What I'm hinting at as an 'atheistic' position who finds the same kind of dullness in both assembly atheism and theism that unwittingly understands itself scientistically. Both ignore the experience that is closest to them. Both cover-over the life they actually live with a 'dead' universal truth.

The atheist POV is reasonable because rationally speaking it's a mistake to go beyond the evidence. Our senses can't perceive x and so it is reasonable to believe x doesn't exist. Note however that such a view limits us to physical existence only. — TheMadFool

Of course I care about evidence, but what's left unquestioned here is the source and foundation of this understanding of the reasonable. I suggest that it's not at all just about evidence. It's about the sense we can make (or not) of various assertions in context. For instance, my objection to most (but not all) theisms is largely about the vacuity of the idea of God in these theisms. The content is not there in the first place. The word is slapped on a vague mess of feelings and half-thoughts. They can't say what they mean because they don't know exactly what they mean.

On the other hand, what I call scientism is a more or less uncritical conformity to respectable educated common sense. The roots or foundations of science are left unexamined. The idea of explanation is left unexamined. The massive gap between the way we experience the world un-theoretically and the highly mathematical scientific image is hardly acknowledged. 'Metaphysical' positions are unwittingly conflated with scientific hypotheses. For instance, 'physical existence' is already an abstract. Scientific observation is theory-laden. It is a highly useful way of looking at and thinking about the world, but this undeniable utility seduces us (in my view) into a kind of stupidity. Finally, how many non-scientists are ultimately just believing what they are told by an expert culture with gadgets? No doubt this trust has a certain pragmatic justification, but does it not suggest an inaccurate outsider's view of science?

Surely there are those who sneer at the theist in the name of science who don't know what a differential equation is or how to construct a simple hypothesis test in statistics. So they believe the personalities on TV. They take on the beliefs of those who tend to be successful. I'm not against those beliefs in their proper realm. I'm just pointing out that mostly thoughtless conformity exists on both sides. Many of our 'reasonable' atheists would be 'reasonable' theists if theism happened to be the view of the experts on TV.

But naturalism, to theists, is too narrow a worldview. It fails to consider possibilities that seem to multiply the further you get from Earth. I mean how are we so certain that in a distant galaxy God hasn't given proof of his existence (physically or other wise)?

Also, radio waves can't be perceived with the our senses. We need instruments to detect them. So, it isn't that outlandish to think of things that can't be detected with our current instruments but do, in fact, exist. — TheMadFool

These things that possibly exist invisible to our instruments are not something that we could revere, though. Why couldn't a atheistic scientist acknowledge undiscovered entities? It's not the entities that happen to be already discovered, as I see it, but rather the framework that bestows 'official' or metaphysical existence in terms of these instruments and the theories that guide their use.

Metaphysical naturalism, also called "ontological naturalism" and "philosophical naturalism", is a philosophical worldview and belief system that holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences, i.e., those required to understand our physical environment by mathematical modeling. — wiki

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that metaphysical naturalism doesn't exist on its own terms. It's so stupid and extreme that it only makes sense as a countermovement against an equally crude theology. It denies its own ground (a rich history of the doing and living and thinking of human beings), unless one is really to believe that all of this living and doing is 'just' or 'really' [updated 'atoms and void'].

What is the attraction here? An obsession with the unchanging. A living man is born. He lives and learns and speaks and then he dies. He exists in 'real' or 'human' or 'meaningful' time, a time in which meanings and feelings and sensations move. But these are hard to catch and fix and be absolutely certain about, precisely because they are alive. Since the same atoms and the same void are always there, they are the really real, never mind their empty stupidity. Whereas the field of meaning in which Democritus (for instance) could invent or enrich atomism is unreal in its mortal elusiveness. In short, an obsession with being right, or with possessing a deathless truth, tempts us to call our most intimate experience of reality an illusion. This 'deathless truth' or proposition-as-god is the 'theism' of the assembly line atheist.

Metaphysical naturalism is a perverse fantasy that lives parasitically on successful engineering. Note that the success of engineering plugs us back in to human desire and the reality of our embodied, future-driven situation.

So, here I am, torn between being open to possibilities (theism) and being rational (shaping my world view with reason).

What should I do? — TheMadFool

I'd suggest searching out both better atheist and better theist thinkers. I like negative theology (theism), for instance, and anti-scientistic philosophers like Heidegger (atheism). What I find interesting is how the atheist/theist distinction breaks down in the limit. Old religious myths come back to new life in the midst of sophisticated self-critical 'atheist' critique, etc.

A last line: what are we to make of 'the kingdom of God is within you'? How does religion start to understand itself as a truth factory? How does it start to turn away from intimate, lived experience of 'God' to understanding itself as metaphysics?

Atheists believe in and use abstractions. — fishfry

Hence, the requirement for an argument for the indispensability of mathematics, required because, according to it, ‘our best epistemic theories seem to debar any knowledge of mathematical objects.‘

by non-physical existence, theists mean something outside of the mind, don't they? — TheMadFool

I thought you meant that atheists only believe in the existence of physical things. If you didn't mean that at least I'll try to clarify my own thinking. There seem to be three levels of existence: things that are physical; things that are abstractions of the mind; and things that are outside the mind.

An atheist believes in the first two but not the third presumably, if by "outside the mind" you mean God. Or ... well, outside the mind is too strong. How about outside reason? A theist believes in God, and to have a belief is an act of mind. God may be outside the mind but faith is within the mind. And some theists accept that their experience of faith literally is their experience of God.

So this idea of outside the mind I'm finding a little tricky to get hold of. But outside reason makes sense. A theist would agree that although they have belief, it's a belief based on faith and not on reason.

. A theist would agree that although they have belief, it's a belief based on faith and not on reason. — fishfry

They would not agree that faith is a leap in a random direction however. They will make every effort to rationalise the direction, eventually resorting to faulty rationalism!

It occurs to me that philosophers tend to the sense of themselves as possessing at least an approximation of the truth-for-all. They'll settle for having the right method for discovering this truth, so that being rational is good enough, even at the cost of not really knowing anything but the correct method. In any case, philosophy-as-metaphysics looks at times like a religion of truth, a religion of reasonableness.

For this reason, they may, in general, as philosophers, obsess over correctness. That means religion must be understood in terms of propositions, because the only thing sacred is the objective truth ---if you ask a metaphysician. This applies to the forum theist as well as the forum atheist. It's all nails for the hammer. Since they are both invested in the same functioning religion (possessing/presenting the truth), this shared investment is invisible. It doesn't become conspicuous within the disgreement. It is the how concealed in the what. The point is that both can walk away still understanding religion as sub- or super- science respectively.

There are other ways to qualify the term "existence". — creativesoul

What are they? I guess when one steps outside the boundaries of the rational - which seems to be based on the observable and physical - things stop making sense in the rational sense of the word.

The relationship between our minds and the world, according to modern standards of thinking, seems to be: real IFF physical (observable, measurable). But, how do we know the world is only physical? Shouldn't the right attitude be to keep options open for all sorts of things, including a non-physical realm, by which I don't mean just abstractions of mind but things out there - beyond the reach of our senses and instruments?

SIlence. — Banno

He who speaks does not know and he who knows does not speak. I don't know about my relationship with materialism. Is it just too dry a worldview (it doesn't appeal to my mindset) or is it true that it's incomplete (there's more to this world than just matter)?

What I'm hinting at as an 'atheistic' position who finds the same kind of dullness in both assembly atheism and theism that unwittingly understands itself scientistically. — 0rff

What is the right view then? Agnosticism?

So this idea of outside the mind I'm finding a little tricky to get hold of. But outside reason makes sense. A theist would agree that although they have belief, it's a belief based on faith and not on reason. — fishfry

We're always advised to keep an open mind. We're also advised against daydreaming. Somewhere between these two lies the truth.

Faith isn't exclusively religious. All of science suffers from the problem of induction.

What is the right view then? Agnosticism? — TheMadFool

For me, it's the paradigm of the 'right view' itself that deserves looking in to. Is there one right view? Does any view stay fixed? Should it stay fixed?

Also, are these "-isms" really that useful? Can they function as more than the barest introduction? For instance, I can find my most profound realizations mirrored in religious myth and imagery from my believing childhood. The radical image at the centre of Christianity (God in the flesh dying as a criminal by public execution) is covered over or ignored really by understanding religion yet again to be the same kind of religion that had Christ crucified in the first place. In the basic Christian myth is that religion kills God (with a little help from the state).

Yet Christianity eventually became the state religion of that same state. In short, this stuff is (IMV, upon close examination) complex and profound. For instance, one might say that Christ himself was an 'atheist' in a peculiar sense. For me, he's a character who may or may not have actually existed. This idea of Christ exists in an important sense, though, just like the idea of rationality. Human beings live in terms of passionate ideas. So an atheist might be a theist and the reverse depending on how existence in interpreted. But that's what's wrong with these oversimplifying terms. They are just title pages, indeterminate until the book is read. We have to really talk with others to get a sense of what they deeply value.

There are other ways to qualify the term "existence".
— creativesoul

What are they? — TheMadFool

That which exists has an effect/affect.

For me, it's the paradigm of the 'right view' itself that deserves looking in to. — 0rff

Isn't that taking it to the extreme? Perhaps not in philosophy but what about most people who simply want a useful guide to navigate the world?

Can they function as more than the barest introduction? — 0rff

I think you're right. I have a very superficial understanding of the issue I'm raising. But how deep must we dive before we say this is enough? To me philosophy seems a botomless pit - there's no final destination. There are many levels of analysis and I suspect each level, instead of providing answers, raises more questions.

But that's what's wrong with these oversimplifying terms. They are just title pages, indeterminate until the book is read. We have to really talk with others to get a sense of what they deeply value. — 0rff

This is good advice. Thanks.

That which exists has an effect/affect — creativesoul

I once tried to prove god's existence with that. My argument is that god seems to have palpable effects on human lives. Therefore, I said, god exists. Of course the main error in my argument is I have to distinguish between existence of god and belief in god's existence.

Anyway...the cause/effect notion you're suggesting seems to fail because we can only perceive physical effects.

That which exists has an effect/affect
— creativesoul

I once tried to prove god's existence with that. My argument is that god seems to have palpable effects on human lives. Therefore, I said, god exists. Of course the main error in my argument is I have to distinguish between existence of god and belief in god's existence.

Anyway...the cause/effect notion you're suggesting seems to fail because we can only perceive physical effects. — TheMadFool

I don't see the issue. Gravity has efficacy. Thought and belief have efficacy.

I was just thinking about the God-debate. The atheism-theism divide that hasn't been, to me, adequately resolved.

.
I’m going to be specific about the resolution regarding Atheism and Materialism, a few paragraphs farther down, after I reply to a few paragraphs of this post. I’ll discuss each resolution at what seems like the right place in this post that I’m replying to.
.
Yes, it’s a lot of unnecessary, not-valid, inappropriate criticism, mostly from the one particular side, about a definitional matter.
.
I suggest that, as definitional misunderstandings, the issues of Atheism and Materialism are resolvable in principle, but not in practice, because the hard-core, hardline adherents of those positions are psychologically dependent on the feeling of superiority that they derive from their beliefs.
.
I don’t care what Atheists believe. They seem quite confused about what they believe or don’t believe:
.
Invariably, New-Atheists claim Agnosticism (but call it “Atheism”). But then, in the next breath, they’ll espouse Positive-Atheism, usually in insulting attack-language.
.
Anyway, it’s none of my business what they believe, and my only objection to Atheism is the manners of its True-Believers. I don’t feel a need to criticize others’ beliefs (including Fundamentalists, Biblical-Literalists, and Atheists). Maybe some Atheists need to ask themselves why they feel that need.
.
But I suppose there’s some value in trying for that definitional resolution at this forum, because occasionally, in these forums, we hear from an aggressively-critical New-Atheist, who might ease-up with the attacks, given a better understanding of the definitional differences.
.

One key parameter in the debate seems to be the meaning of existence.
.
It seems to me that the meaning of existence differs depending on which side of the debate you're on.

.
Yes, “exist”, “real”, and “is” aren’t metaphysically defined, and a lot of unnecessary argument is the result of different definitions of those words.
.
…though that isn’t the only definitional difference on which these unnecessary disagreements are based.

.

For atheists, existence means something physical - that which can be perceived through the senses and if you want to go the whole nine yards, something measurable.

.
Yes, and the belief that what’s physical, measurable, is all of existence, all of Reality, is the usual definition of Materialism. As you said, it’s just a definitional issue.
.
To try to discuss that with a Materialist is to play a never-ending game of definitional Whack-A-Mole, as the Materialist hops back and forth between meanings, as each is demonstrated to not support him.
.

In contrast to the above, existence for theists goes beyond the physical - beyond our senses and instruments.

.
I’ll just add that there’s another definitional issue that contributes to Atheists’ confusion: The matter of what they mean by “God”. After all, that’s what their criticism of Theism is about.
.
When an Orthodox (Materialist) Atheist recites the standard Atheist Liturgy, he makes statements about God—the God that he believes in as the one to disbelieve in.
.
That of course is the Fundamentalists’, Biblical-Literalists’ God
.
…the One True God, for Fundamentalists, Biblical-Literalists, and Atheists.
.
Reality isn’t describable by facts, and sometimes all one can say is to express an impression. Having looked at the posts here, I looked up negative theology, and found that someone in 9th century Europe was saying what amounts to that. Of course it was being said in India as early as 700 B.C. or so.
.
Given that theology means knowledge about God, negative theology doesn’t seem to allow for much theology. I’ve always considered theology to be a presumptuous subject.
.
I don’t usually use the word or name “God”. …usually only when replying to someone who has recently used that word or name.
.
As I mentioned in previous posts, my metaphysics seems to suggest an impression or implication of openness, looseness and lightness. …and, maybe for that reason, an impression or implication that what-is, is distinctly good.
.
In fact, that impression of the goodness of what is, seems to imply a good intent behind what is.
.
That’s an impression, not an assertion. I don’t debate religion. But, though it’s an impression, it’s an impression that I don’t doubt. So maybe it could be called a factual belief. …but not the kind of logical verbal factual matter that one asserts, debates, tries to convince anyone about, or offers or discusses evidence for.
.
And I’m not saying that metaphysics is necessarily all that leads to that conclusion, but of course this is a philosophy forum.
.
Of course that intent or its possessor isn’t, itself, an element of metaphysics.
.
I agree with those who say that Reality isn’t understandable or describable.
.
Not only are certain words metaphysically-undefined, but I don’t even have my own definite definitions of “is” or “exist”. But, as I use it, “Reality” encompasses more than metaphysical reality, the understandable and discussable reality.
.
Anyway, though more literalist, or doctrine-believing Theists believe differently from me, I think they also believe in the Benevolence that I’ve mentioned above, as the at least nearly known attribute of the God that they speak of. So I tend to perceive the differences as mere denominational, doctrinal differences, and so it seems reasonable to me, to call myself a Theist.
.
To a more literalist or doctrine-believing Theist, I’d say that God isn’t an element of metaphysics, and is quite unknowable and un-discussable.
.
(But I have to admit that when the aggressive door-to-door denominations knock at my door, I tell them that, after many bad experiences with them, I no longer talk to them.)
.
To an Atheist, I’d say that he’s probably only expressing disbelief in the Fundamentalist’s, Biblical-Literalist’s, God. That’s all I discuss with him. If he means more, I’m not interested in the details, or in telling him that his opinions or impressions are wrong. It would be meaningless to get into an argument or debate about impressions. One might just hope that he can resist attacking those who don’t share his opinions.
.

The atheist POV is reasonable because rationally speaking it's a mistake to go beyond the evidence.

.
In physics, physical evidence is needed to support a physical theory. In metaphysics, of course claims need logical support. But the Atheist is someone who wants to apply physical (or sometimes logical) standards outside their area of applicability. The Atheist is the one making the mistake. …a mistake of confusing different topics, and applying standards outside their areas of applicability.
------------------------
Naturalism:
.
On the subject of Atheism, I replied inline, making my main suggestions at what seemed the right point in the post that I’m replying to.
.
About “Naturalism”, I’ll just make my comments without commenting inline:
.
There are some funny things about “Naturalism”, and maybe the funniest is its name.
.
We all know that the usual definition of Materialism is that matter is all of Reality.
.
Metaphysical Physicalism is just a slight re-statement of Materialism that explicitly includes such non-matter things as forces and fields, along with matter.
.
I still call that “Materialism”. I used to say “Physicalism”, until someone corrected me and told me that Physicalism is a science-of-mind position. Because, then, Physicalism has 2 meanings—a metaphysical position and a philosophy-of-mind position, I avoid the word “Physicalism”.
.
“Naturalism” is a funny word, because it amounts to an attempt by a Materialist to establish, as a starting-premise, that the physical world is what’s natural and genuine, the fundamental, primary reality; and that all else is “the supernatural”, not-natural things consisting of violations of physical law, akin to such things as vampires, werewolves, and mummies that chase you.
.
So I’ll use the less biased word “Materialism” instead.
.
To discuss Materialism, it will be necessary to briefly refer to my own metaphysics, which agrees with what Michael Faraday said in 1844. Tippler and Tegmark have said similar things, but I feel that they’ve missed the mark a bit in various ways.
.
One class of things that there definitely, inevitably are, are the abstract objects…the abstract logical facts in particular.
.
The Materialist might try to say that they aren’t real. Fine, because “real” is a flexible undefined word. I don’t claim that abstract logical facts, or systems of them, are objectively real. Only that there are such things. Even a Materialist can’t really deny that. Is there a square root of the number 2? Is it a fact that, if the additive associative axiom of the real numbers is true, then 2 + 2 = 4? (…given the obvious and natural definitions of 1, 2, 3, & 4, based on the multiplicative identity of the real numbers, and addition.)
.
In fact it couldn’t have been otherwise. Could there have not been abstract facts? No.
.
Someone here pointed out that if there were no facts, then it would be a fact that there are no facts, and that would be a fact.
.
Someone else here said that there could obtain a fact that there are no facts other than the fact that there are no facts other than itself.
.
But that would be a special brute-fact, calling for justification.
.
Anyway, an abstract logical fact, or a complex inter-referring system of them, doesn’t and needn’t have reality, existence or meaningfulness other than in its own inter-referring context. It needn’t be real in some larger or global context, and it needn’t have some medium in which to exist.
.
In particular, it’s completely independent of any global context or permission. A global fact that disallows all other facts would be meaningless.
.
I claim that, among the infinitely-many complex systems of inter-referring inevitable abstract logical facts, there’s one whose events and relations exactly matches those of our physical universe. There’s no reason to believe that our physical universe is other than that.
.
I’ve already posted some details about how a set of physical-quantity variable-values, and a physical law consisting of a relation between them are parts of the “if “ premise of an if-then fact.
.
…except that one of those variable-values can be taken as the “then” conclusion of that if-then fact.
.
A mathematical theorem is an if-then fact whose “if “ premise includes, but isn’t limited to, a set of mathematical axioms (geometric or algebraic).
.
But I don’t assert that it isn’t more than that. Maybe this universe superfluously has objective existence too—in addition to being identical in detail to a complex system of inter-referring inevitable abstract logical facts.
.
A claim that that’s so would be unverifiable, unfalsifiable, and a brute-fact. But I don’t claim that it couldn’t be so.
.
So: Is there anything about that that’s controversial? No. I haven’t said anything that someone would disagree with. It’s an uncontroversial metaphysics.
.
In particular, there’s nothing about it that a Materialist would disagree with. But of course he’ll try.
.
He can’t say that there aren’t those abstract logical facts, or a complex inter-referring system of them. He can say that they aren’t real. Fine. I don’t claim that they’re objectively real. Only real in their own inter-referring context.
.
And I don’t deny the Materialist’s claim about his objectively-existent universe and matter. But, if his claim about that is true, it would a superfluous brute-fact. …the subject of an unverifiable and unfalsifiable proposition.
.
If you want to observe some frantic hopping back and forth between meanings, then watch a Materialist trying to wiggle out of that.
.
By the way, because whatever we know about the physical world is via our own individual experience, then I suggest that it’s most natural, and makes the most sense, to speak of a complex system of inter-referring abstract logical facts that is our individual life-experience possibility-story.

Because of that individual-experience emphasis, then my metaphysics doesn't emphasize mathematics as much as MUH does. Of course much or most of our experience isn't about mathematical physical laws.

If I tell you that there's a traffic roundabout at the intersection of 34th & Vine, that also means that if you go to 34th & Vine, you'll encounter a traffic roundabout.

Facts about our world are equivalent to if-then facts.

We're used to declarative grammar, because it's convenient. We've come to unduly believe our grammar. I suggest that conditional grammar better describes our world.

A world of "if", rather than a world of "is".

Instead of one world of "is", infinitely-many worlds of "if".

.Using already-existing metaphysical terms, that metaphysics could be called Eliminative Ontic Structural Anti-Realism (EOSAR).
.
I wanted to call it Skepticism, because—forgive me—it seems to me that complete rejection and avoidance of assumptions is skeptical. …and that an ancient Greek epistemological position doesn’t have a monopoly on a common noun as a name.
.
But I’d be willing to settle for Uncontroversy as a brief name for that metaphysics, because it’s entirely uncontroversial.
.

So, here Iam, torn between being open to possibilities (theism) and being rational (shaping my world view with reason).

What should I do?

Atheism isn't rational. It's pseudo-rational.

Theism needn't mean dogmatic, or doctrinaire or Biblical Literalist Theism.

If you get the impression of good intent behind what is, then you're a Theist.

What should I do? — TheMadFool

Nothing?

Gravity has efficacy. Thought and belief have efficacy. — creativesoul

Take god and gravity. Even if everyone stopped believing in gravity it would still exist - objects would fall to the ground, the planets would move around the sun.

Compare that to everyone abandoning their belief in god - prayer would cease, religious behavior would disapper. The effects of the belief in god would vanish.

There's a difference between god and gravity. The former is a belief (true/false) but the latter is a fact (true).

Yes, “exist”, “real”, and “is” aren’t metaphysically defined, and a lot of unnecessary argument is the result of different definitions of those words. — Michael Ossipoff

That's what I mean. Existence is one of the issues. Atheists think God has to manifest physically. Of course theists too believe that god intervenes in the world. However, the point is the atheistic insistence on existence being defined physically may be unjustifiably restrictive.

Atheism isn't rational. It's pseudo-rational.

Theism needn't mean dogmatic, or doctrinaire or Biblical Literalist Theism. — Michael Ossipoff

(Y)

Nothing? — Vajk

:D

There's a difference between god and gravity. The former is a belief (true/false) but the latter is a fact (true). — TheMadFool

Yes, religion isn't about anything physical, and isn't about provable facts, or anything to assert or debate..

...the atheistic insistence on existence being defined physically may be unjustifiably restrictive.

Materialism doesn't hold up under examination, and discussions of it result in the Materialist fleeing in a circle, like the Weasel in the nursery-rhyme.

Michael Ossipoff

That's what I mean. Existence is one of the issues. Atheists think God has to manifest physically. Of course theists too believe that god intervenes in the world. However, the point is the atheistic insistence on existence being defined physically may be unjustifiably restrictive. — TheMadFool

A godlike being could exist outside our perceptual capabilities, but what would that mean for us if it did? The reason theists cite examples of a god intervening in the world is because that attempts to show a relational or somewhat involved god. A god who cares about the outcome here on earth. If there is no interaction/intervention we end up being deists. Deism is a fine idea, but it is impotent.

The difference between Theism and Deism is a temporal one. In the larger, meta-metaphysical picture, are you sure that that distinction is meaningful?

Michael Ossipoff

In the larger, meta-metaphysical picture, are you sure that that distinction is meaningful? — Michael Ossipoff

I suppose that depends on which iteration of god we're talking about.

Maybe this universe superfluously has objective existence too—in addition to being identical in detail to a complex system of inter-referring inevitable abstract logical facts. — Michael Ossipoff

How many sets of "inevitable abstract logical facts" are there?

How many sets of "inevitable abstract logical facts" are there? — Jake Tarragon

Infinitely-many.

That's why it's inevitable that there's one that has the same events and relations as our physical universe. ...and why there's no reason to believe that our universe is other than that.

...though one could make an unverifiable and unfalsifiable brute-fact assertion of an objectively-existent physical universe superfluously existing and operating in parallel with that complex logical system.

Michael Ossipoff

That which exists has an effect/affect
— creativesoul

I once tried to prove god's existence with that. My argument is that god seems to have palpable effects on human lives. Therefore, I said, god exists. Of course the main error in my argument is I have to distinguish between existence of god and belief in god's existence.

Anyway...the cause/effect notion you're suggesting seems to fail because we can only perceive physical effects. — TheMadFool

Gravity has efficacy. Thought and belief have efficacy.
— creativesoul

Take god and gravity. Even if everyone stopped believing in gravity it would still exist - objects would fall to the ground, the planets would move around the sun.

Compare that to everyone abandoning their belief in god - prayer would cease, religious behavior would disapper. The effects of the belief in god would vanish.

There's a difference between god and gravity. The former is a belief (true/false) but the latter is a fact (true). — TheMadFool

Your attempt to prove the existence of God via holding that that which exists has an effect/affect has no bearing upon what I've written. The objection(s) to the argument you offered don't hold water, just so ya know. I do not and would not argue for the existence of God. However, it could be done rather easily using this notion of existence. Back to the point...

Gravity doesn't appear in physical form. It exists. We know that because of it's effects. That which exists has an effect/affect. The same is true of thought and belief. You've posed no problem for that.

Infinitely-many. — Michael Ossipoff

I would be inclined to say just one. Who decides on the subsets?

I would be inclined to say just one [inter-refer. Who decides on the subsets? — Jake Tarragon

Alright yes, I took another look at your post that I was referring to, and you said sets of inevitable abstract logical facts.

...whereas I was talking about systems of inter-referring abstract logical facts.

Most of the infinity of logical facts aren't in the same inter-referring system.

...but if it could be argued that they are, that would be an interesting surprise, because it would be different from what I've assumed.

But, as for sets of them, the fact that we can divide them into sets as we choose--Doesn't that mean that there are infinitely many sets of them, equal to the number of combinations that can be formed from those infinitely-many abstract logical facts?

...even though one of those combinations consists of all of them?

Michael Ossipoff

A godlike being could exist outside our perceptual capabilities, but what would that mean for us if it did? The reason theists cite examples of a god intervening in the world is because that attempts to show a relational or somewhat involved god. A god who cares about the outcome here on earth. If there is no interaction/intervention we end up being deists. Deism is a fine idea, but it is impotent. — ProbablyTrue

You're right...God simply doesn't fit in our world, at least not the interventionist God of Judaism, Islam and Christianity. This has led the faithful into a gymnasium where they must do mental acrobatics to try and fix the many inconsistencies of religion. End result...God is reduced to a cartoon.

"In the larger, meta-metaphysical picture, are you sure that that distinction is meaningful?" — Michael Ossipoff


I suppose that depends on which iteration of god we're talking about. — ProbablyTrue

What does that mean?

Which "iteration" are you talking about?

But yes, if Biblical Literalism is an "iteration", and if it's the one that you're talking about, then there is a meaningful distinction between Theism and Deism, and Theism is what you're talking about.

Michael Ossipoff

A godlike being could exist outside our perceptual capabilities

.
There are Theists who believe that God is a being. There are Theists who believe every statement in the Bible.
.
Is one of those your “iteration”?
.

…, but what would that mean for us if it did?

.
You could check out the discussion, links and quotes in this thread, and in the Hegel's Philosophy of Religion thread.
.
Your question is like asking what it would mean to you if all of Reality isn’t observable and measurable…what it would mean to you if Materialism doesn’t obtain.
.
Speaking for myself, I have no idea what that would mean for you, except that presumably it would inspire, for you, a bit more modesty.
.
Incidentally, Materialism can’t be defended.
.
I rarely refer to the name “God”, but evidently Atheism-advocates at a philosophy forum talk about God a lot.
.
I stay out of Theism vs Atheism discussions. It certainly isn’t a debate-topic.
.
In this instance, I didn’t mean to participate in such a discussion. I just misunderstood the nature of this thread.
.

The reason theists cite examples of a god intervening in the world is because that attempts to show a relational or somewhat involved god. A god who cares about the outcome here on earth. If there is no interaction/intervention we end up being deists.

.
So that’s what you’ve ended up being.


.

You're right...God simply doesn't fit in our world, at least not the interventionist God of Judaism, Islam and Christianity. This has led the faithful into a gymnasium where they must do mental acrobatics to try and fix the many inconsistencies of religion.

.
So you believe that everything said by Theists who aren’t Biblical-Literalists is just a desperate attempt to justify and rationalize things said by traditional Literalists. Far be it for me to want to change your belief, which is entirely your business.
.
As I and others have mentioned, Atheists (including the New-Atheists, who, with inconsistency they seem unaware of, often claim Agnosticism) are over-eager, in their denial of others’ positions about which, in general, they haven’t a clue. …a denial of the God of Biblical-Litertalism, applied blanket-style, to every possible meaning with which the term God might be used by anyone.
.
So, Atheism is a most peculiar belief-position. …a blanket denial whose object is unspecified, and unknown to that position’s adherents.
.
Anyway, I have no interest in getting into that issue, but I just wanted to comment briefly, having accidentally entered a thread about an issue that I don’t usually get involved in discussing.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Being an atheist doesn't mean you cant be spiritual and believe in a spiritual world or realm. I'm not a believer in any religion in the world but i do believe that our existence is far more than a physical existence. i believe we are able to go beyond our physical body and that there may be some kind of life after death. it is possible to believe in these concepts without referring to God in any religion.