Did you just assert the general existence of "higher things?" Well this is certainly proof of a strong, Primate imagination. — JerseyFlight

I'm not sure what your question is asking. I am asserting the reality of art, music, religion...
When I say primitive I am not referring to primates, I am referring to basic things. These are the things that lend themselves to 'proof'. Can you restate your question?

Can you restate your question? — EnPassant

I think it was meant to be rhetorical. I mean, you are free to prove the existence of "higher things," if you can? I'm all ears.

I think it was meant to be rhetorical. I mean, you are free to prove the existence of "higher things," if you can? I'm all ears. — JerseyFlight

There is no need to prove the reality of these things. Art is really there. So is music, religion, consciousness. The question is not whether these things are real, the question is 'what do they mean?'

Art is really there. So is music, religion, consciousness. — EnPassant

I agree, these things do exist. You ask, what do they mean? This is a strange question, because you seem to be assuming some extra-dimension to which they correspond? They proceed from man and will die with man.

I agree, these things do exist. You ask, what do they mean? This is a strange question, because you seem to be assuming some extra-dimension to which they correspond? — JerseyFlight

I am saying the reality of these things cannot be hammered into the limited confines of scientific knowledge. Science can not explain these things so we have to find a better way of coming to terms with them.

Why, the Trinity is no problem at all. Pater, et filius et Spiritus Sanctus are merely three divine persons all having the same substance. The persons are distinct, but not the substance. The persons answer the question who is God, but the substance determines what is God.

So, God the Son is the Jesus person; God the Holy Spirit is the dove person (a very special dove, though) and God the Father is the person with the white beard. That's who they are. But what they are is God. — Ciceronianus the White

So is the Holy Spirit and Jesus our father or not?

Did you just assert the general existence of "higher things?" Well this is certainly proof of a strong, Primate imagination. — JerseyFlight

Freud argued thusly

Back to the question at hand, scientists argue that there is infinite time in a black hole. That's a mind-blowing idea. Reality is far more complicated than the simplistic notions espoused in the OP

I am saying the reality of these things cannot be hammered into the limited confines of scientific knowledge. Science can not explain these things so we have to find a better way of coming to terms with them. — EnPassant

Allow me to take a bit of a different approach here. You strike me as honest and sincere, at least as much as any of us can lay claim to it, and I respect this. It's truly a hard truth that, not only are we contingent creatures, but that our so-called "higher forms" are also contingent. Can you see that it frightens us and depresses us to realize they are not "higher," that they are not "eternal," that they do not correspond to any transcendent realm? It is important to see this because it's the psychological motivation behind our drive to prove their transcendence, and this motivation stops us from comprehending reality. But we must comprehend it, we must learn the courage to look its terror in the eyes and resist it! This is the only way to stop manufacturing delusions and start cultivating quality. Run toward the negative, learn to go through it, that it is the secret to transforming thought into a great power!

It is important to see this because it's the psychological motivation behind our drive to prove their transcendence, and this motivation stops us from comprehending reality. — JerseyFlight

Strange ponderings but I think correct

agree, these things do exist. You ask, what do they mean? This is a strange question, because you seem to be assuming some extra-dimension to which they correspond? They proceed from man and will die with man. — JerseyFlight

We're talking about the nature of existence. In other words, Metaphysics. Are you not familiar with that?

Can you see that it frightens us and depresses us to realize they are not "higher," that they are not "eternal," that they do not correspond to any transcendent realm — JerseyFlight

Are you sure? Consider relatively. At the speed of light, time stops and becomes eternal and timeless. Your point?

The

Light is not grace. We are asking for proof of a supernatural order. So you know what that means?

That's one of Aquinas's argument. "One world, therefore one God" basically. I don't find it convincing at all, especially considering that the Trinity muddles the whole question (is the Son our father too?) — Gregory

I agree that the Trinity doctrine is a muddled rationale derived from theological attempts to make sense of a few unrelated biblical passages. It may also be a polytheistic carryover from the religions of pagan Rome. I wasn't basing my comment on Aquinas' arguments, but on my own reasoning, which is based on a non-religious concept of a First Cause. One world, one Cause. :smile:

. It's truly a hard truth that, not only are we contingent creatures, but that our so-called "higher forms" are also contingent — JerseyFlight

If we knew of nothing that wasn't contingent, then we wouldn't know of anything contingent. Ships move relative to light-houses, but if light-houses also moved, then there would be no way of navigating.

The 'timeless truths' of Christian Platonism were simply what were then considered the immutable facts of geometry, logic, and reason. They were thought not subject to change, because they were grasped directly by nous, not by the senses, which can always deceive. Individual particulars were simply the instances of these immutable Ideas, which don't exist anywhere in the domain of phenomena, but are the implicitly perfect forms to which they strive.

Of course, none of that can be proven by empiricism, although one wonders if empiricism would ever have got started were it not in some sense true.

They were thought not subject to change, because they were grasped directly by nous, not by the senses, which can always deceive. — Wayfarer

This reminds me of Plantinga's sophistry. 1) There's such a thing as a Holy Spirit that exists. 2) This magical being gives you a direct knowledge of God. 3) Therefore it is rational to have belief in God. Nonsense. Holy spirit, Fairy spirit, Tree spirit. What's most shocking is that people have taken his Holy Spirit assertions serious.

I think they are arguing against psychologism

https://www.google.com/search?q=psychologism+mathematics&rlz=1C1OKWM_enUS867US867&oq=psychologism+&aqs=chrome.7.69i57j0l7.9833j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

This reminds me of Plantinga's sophistry — JerseyFlight

What it reminds you of, is your business.

What you're saying is: be brave enough to be a nihilist:

Can you see that it frightens us and depresses us to realize they are not "higher," that they are not "eternal," that they do not correspond to any transcendent realm? It is important to see this because it's the psychological motivation behind our drive to prove their transcendence, and this motivation stops us from comprehending reality. — JerseyFlight

Comprehending anything, as distinct from merely reacting to it, requires that we can identify what about it is of what kind, how to measure it, what it means, and so on. WIthin the flux of sensations, the rational mind identifies and relies on these elements to even form sentences or argue. That is what 'reason' comprises.

So if you look back to the Greeks, they realised that the intellect (nous) worked this way. This is what enabled them to devise logic and lay down the foundations of science.

I think it's likely that you have no idea of what 'transcendent' means, beyond that it means 'something I don't believe in'. But if you understand how reason itself operates within the domain of thought and language, then you would see that reason itself is 'transcendent' in that it provides the means to arrive at general ideas about all manner of subjects - which is the sense that the term 'transcendental' is used by Kant.

What you're saying is: be brave enough to be a nihilist — Wayfarer

Not even close. I am no Nihilist, one must be religious in order to be a Nihilist.

So if you look back to the Greeks, they realised that the intellect (nous) worked this way. This is what enabled them to devise logic and lay down the foundations of science. — Wayfarer

The Liar paradox thread on this forum might throw a monkey wrench into this. Not sure

But if you understand how reason itself operates within the domain of thought and language, then you would see that reason itself is 'transcendent' in that it provides the means to arrive at general ideas about all manner of subjects — Wayfarer

It's a fine tool, so are shovels, just don't start attaching God to these tools and we won't have a problem.

Why, the Trinity is no problem at all. Pater, et filius et Spiritus Sanctus are merely three divine persons all having the same substance. The persons are distinct, but not the substance. The persons answer the question who is God, but the substance determines what is God. — Ciceronianus the White

Right. As I recall, this apologetic "mystery" didn't begin to make sense to me until I stumbled upon a copy of Abbot's Flatland in a Public Library when I was in 7th or 8th grade.

Pater = 1-d (the all).
Filius = 3-d (the flesh).
Spiritus = 2-d (the word).

Years later in high school, on the verge of my apostasy, I'd updated and expanded my metaphor (of Abbots metaphor) to something like

Pater = 1-d (every where/when/soul),
Logos = 2-d (revealed scripture e.g. "gospel"),
Filius = 3-d ("the incarnation") and
Spiritus = 4-d (time, eschaton, sōtēria),

and then realized that these dimensions are merely demarcations (metrics) of space - any (i.e. empty) space - which, pressing the metaphor to its breaking point, corresponds to equating ousia with void. The "Our Nada who art in Nada ... " prayer from Hemingway's short story struck my then 15/16 year old self as very funny (which I even recited under my breath during Mass until I graduated and quit altar boy service), just a couple years before becoming acquainted with notions like 'vacuum energy', gnostic 'kenoma' & buddhist 'emptiness'. The "what" is nothing empty, therefore the "persons" are fictions; and 40 years on, I can't quarrel with my teenage self on this point.

Did you just assert the general existence of "higher things?" Well this is certainly proof of a strong, Primate imagination. — JerseyFlight

Hypothetically If it is beneficial for there to be a god or gods than he could use the phrase "higher things". Any time an argument takes place it is sometimes necessary to take minor short cuts. I don't think his argument was proving there was a god or gods, but his argument was stating that it would be hard to prove with science that there is or is not a god(s).

his argument was stating that it would be hard to prove with science that there is or is not a god(s). — turkeyMan

Well, this is quite accurate now isn't it? After all, everything depends on how you define the being or beings you claim exist? It's a fun little game for theologians, but hardly an exercise for serious thinkers.

Well, this is quite accurate now isn't it? After all, everything depends on how you define the being or beings you claim exist. It's a fun little game for theologians, but hardly an exercise for serious thinkers. — JerseyFlight

I think you are trying to find an adequate argument with what he was saying where there is one. What do you mean by serious thinkers? What is it that makes you a serious thinker?

EnPassant

"As I see it, science is concerned with primitive realities. Matter is primitive and so is much of mathematics. It is naive to think that the science of the primitive could answer questions concerning higher things: art, religion, consciousness, God, creativity, emotion, music, literature... these things are far beyond science. Trying to reduce these things to scientific 'proofs' is like trying to reduce oil painting to the chemistry of pigments or reduce music to an analysis of the sine wave."
EmPassant
This is an interesting point of view. Not that I agree with it but it's interesting to see a different perspective and wonder why someone would hold such an opinion. I don't see science and mathematics to be primitive but rather to be solid and reliable tools to understand everything. I see art, music, literature, and emotion as being soft, malleable, unreliable, and thus rather useless tools if one wants to know anything with any confidence. (the other items mentioned do not belong) These soft things are all susceptible to subjective interpretation and thus mainly useful as sources of pleasure. I do agree that none of the things listed above as "higher things" are subject to any proofs. These all obviously exist (for respect let's not include God) just as water exists and the Moon exists. To assert that art, music and literature are higher in any way than science and mathematics is merely a personal opinion to which anyone is entitled to have or not to have. As to primitive, I think archeology would indicate that art preceded mathematics and thus is more primitive based on the depictions on the walls of caves. I do not recall seeing any numbers written on the oldest cave paintings. Science, on the other hand, may have come before art as someone needed to identify a pigment. Of course the pigment may have just been observed without any truly scientific thought process.

It's a fine tool, so are shovels, just don't start attaching God to these tools and we won't have a problem. — JerseyFlight

I don't recall saying anything about 'God'.

Anyway - with respect to the OP, I don't think that belief in God is in any way shape or form a scientific hypothesis, because there's no way of proving or disproving it by science. It might be a rational belief, but not an hypothesis. But the caveat is that science is not all-knowing.

Science itself doesn't explain 'the order of nature'. In the same sense, it doesn't explain the nature of numbers or mathematical reasoning. It assumes both things, and is on pretty safe ground in so doing. Natural theology might argue that the intelligibility of nature points to a higher intelligence; again, a reasonable argument, in my view, but not something that science can either prove nor disprove, so, not an hypothesis, as such.

and then realized that these dimensions are merely demarcations (metrics) of space - any (i.e. empty) space - which, pressing the metaphor to its breaking point, corresponds to equating ousia with void. — 180 Proof

That is nihilist reading. Space itself is used (for instance) in Buddhism as a metaphor for Nirvana, in that it's said to be unconditioned. But Nirvana is not nothing, nor mere nonexistence or non-being (as Western intepreters since Neitszche have been fond of saying.) It's 'beyond' in the sense of 'incomprehensible to the discursive intellect' but from other perspectives it's also comparable to the 'pleroma' i.e. the source of all being (which I think you refer to misspelt?)

What nihilists forget is the role of the observing intelligence in creating the dimensions of space and time (pace Schopenhauer: 'Everything objective, extended, active, and hence everything material, is regarded by materialism as so solid a basis for its explanations that a reduction to this (especially if it should ultimately result in thrust and counter-thrust) can leave nothing to be desired. All this is something that is given only very indirectly and conditionally, and is therefore only relatively present, for it has passed through the machinery and fabrication of the brain, and hence has entered the forms of time, space, and causality, by virtue of which it is first of all presented as extended in space and operating in time. ')

TheMadFool

“You correctly pointed to the fact that science evolves - its theories adapt as more and more disparate observations are made. Part of this adaptive process probably involves making new assumptions. Do you see a point in the distant future when one of these new assumptions is "there's a God"?” The Mad Fool

The word assumption is not quite correct. Science advances as a result of new observations that do not fit within existing paradigms or new theories that better, more inclusively, explain the observations or processes of interest. One tries to avoid making assumptions. I also don’t like the work “evolves” in this context because I like to think of it as a combination of chance and natural selection, although the word, evolution is widely used synonymously with simple change regardless of the process. To answer your question: no. Science as understood today is not merely knowledge of any kind but limited to the material world.

“The way you've approached the issue is just one of the many ways available - you've taken the path of miracles where you rely on the scientifically inexplicable as evidence for God. However, if you look at the scientific community the way some of them strengthen their belief in God is through discovering, understanding the laws which govern the universe i.e. the scientist's route to God is built of the scientifically explicable.” TheMadFool

Indeed, the “truly” scientifically inexplicable is prima facie evidence for the existence of God. I understand that some argue for the direct action by God in producing life on Earth based on extremely complex systems whose components have no apparent function (e.g. the ATP synthase rotary motor). Even the formation of the first living cell from non-living matter seems totally impossible without some help. In a way one could label those as miraculous. I do not subscribe to that because it is possible, however unlikely, that these did form spontaneously. Other events, such as the birth of the universe, the getting water out of solid rock, generating bread from nothing, are truly scientifically impossible.

I referred to kenoma (emptiness) and purposefully not "pleroma" (fullness) - besides, the latter refers only to a 'platonic heaven' of all forms (à la Meinong's Jungle). Space, however, is always empty - emptiness - an abstraction, a non-referent. Like "god". I've never been a "nihilist" as you insinuate, Wayf, or no more one than those who contemplate śūnyatā or the atomist's void or absurdists like Nietzsche, Zapffe or Camus.

There is no evidence Jesus did any miracles because (and here comes my extreme sceptical claim) you can't translate ancient texts. Jesus may or may not have existed! My argument is that language changes every generation. Text 2000 years old are far far too old to translate. If future generations read our books, they would see for example us say "I got the impression.." and connect " impression" with making an impression on something, like stamping something. They would then argue, like biblical "scholars" do, "since physical impressions cause a definite mark, by 'got an impression ' it must mean he received something definite". The opposite of what was meant. I have a legion of these examples.