That's the ancient problem of change. Can a vase change into spoon? Is the spoon then a transformed vase?

So if tomorrow we call the sun "horse," it won't change that bright ball in the sky. — Xtrix

That bright ball in the sky is a ball in the sky only when adopting a certain perspective. Changing the perspective changes the perception and thing perceived. To one person I am a kind and gentle person, while in the eyes of someone else I'm an arrogant bastard. Am I still the same in both cases?

The interesting theological questions don't lay in the explicative or moral domain of existence. The interesting theological questions concern the motives of God or their means of communication with their creation.

The term woman, is short for wonder man.

Sean Carroll:
"Quantum mechanics says that an electron can be in a superposition of all possible locations. There’s no such thing as the position of an electron. But when you observe the electron, you see it in one location. This is the fundamental mystery of quantum mechanics. Its description when no one is looking is different from what you see."

That last sentence is his metaphysics. According to a different metaphysics (or interpretation) the electron always has a well-defined place and momentum. The electron has an accompanying pilot wave. In Copenhagen it was once decided though (to the dislike of Einstein) that the more parsimonous path of chance should be followed. Had they decided to take the pilot wave course, then the QM books wouldn't have looked much different but there would be no talk about interpretation. MWI would probably not have been invented. In principle experiment can decide if they're there.

The MWI no fantasy...? Then where is the evidence? Maybe there are hidden variables...

But feel free to believe it! If you feel good with it...

You see? Also cosmologists use things there is no evidence for. Like theists do.

No, just the opposite — Jackson

Then where is the direct evidence? I can just as well state that our universe inflated in a stationary 4D space with the right properties.

don't know what you mean by "gaps." — Jackson

Like in god of the gaps. A fantasy used to explain something you haven't a good explanation for yet.

Cosmic inflation is indirect evidence. — T Clark

So you can say that the universe is indirect evidence of God. Cosmic inflation is no indirect evidence BTW. But this is not the place to go into technicalities.

Not a fantasy for him. Empirical. — Jackson

It's a fantasy of the gaps. Where is his evidence?

CalTech (now Johns Hopkins) physicist Sean Carroll believes in the multiverse. It is not fake science. — Jackson

Because he uses it it's no fake science? Scientists use fantasies too. There is no evidence to support many worlds.

I disagree. — T Clark

That's fine by me. If you consider it science, feel free. I think it's a wild unfounded fantasy on equal footing with a god of the gaps. A fantasy inspired by lack of a better theory. There is no evidence for many or parallel worlds.

Why shouldn't it? — Manuel

Yes indeed. I wrote "we can know" which had to be "we can't know". So, why you think we don't have the necessary equipment? I think we get a pretty good view on nature. Even the smallest can be visualized.

I think the inner nature of nature (pardon the redundancy) will remain a secret, beyond our understanding. But, that's idiosyncratic. — Manuel

Why do you think we can know the innermost fundaments of nature. Why should nature hold secrets?

Without dialectics and dialogue no perspective can be seen. Localized interactions are an a priori to get a focus on reality and perceive depth. Without them, reality stays a fuzzy, out of focus, superposition of potential possibilities without depth.

Because I haven't found any use in believing that the supernatural or gods exist, then I don't. — Harry Hindu

What could be the use, apart from moral or closing gaps? Do you understand why people believe?

Possible worlds are metaphysical entities while the multiverse is, at least purportedly, science — T Clark

The multiverse is new age pseudo science on the same level as the god of the gaps to explain unexplained phenomena. "Purportedly" is a sophistry way to put it.

Chalmer and Deutsch have some pretty weird thoughts on the subject. Fact is that a simulated simulation process like happens in a brain is no real simulation.

Yes. Language is a living organism. It's connected to other organisms and can act like a chameleon, a virus, a delphin, a lion, monkey, or even a humanoid. It can be used to express, impress, conceptualize, and beast of words can have a broad scala of moods and intentions, coloring words in the whole spectrum of the rainbow. Depending on the situation, language can be aggressive, red-green, and competitively harsh, while on other occasions the same words can be used pastel pink and turquoise, friendly, caring and loving. Words can dance or follow strict order, even math can be used like this.

This is the position I am closest to. I would go further and say actions and concepts are also languages that have meaning, like words. — PhilosophyRunner

Concepts certainly have meaning. The concept of energy, art, politics, cooking, etc. Are concepts abstractions, or are there concepts for non-abstract happenings or features of reality. A tree is no concept. Is an elementary particle?

I can remember I was trying to recollect the name of Lakatos. I entered a page and the name popped up. I hadn't yet consciously read the page. But his name was at the bottom.

The great thing of language is that it allows to set the mind free, static as the words might seem. Language lives and new words or ways to express them come into focus or go out from focus. Language can be as free as ideas.

Orwell wrote a great essay about the misuse of language: Politics and English Language

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is no more respected as it once was. There's been a ton of writing and empirical work on this hypothesis. Most people no longer think strong versions of it are true (i.e. it seems like people's thoughts are not deeply constrained by their native language). But weaker versions of it are still, I think, being debated.

Is there a world without perspective of creatures lookin at the world? I think so. It contains all perspectives at once. Potentially.

Does art have meaning? — PhilosophyRunner

Art is a language like words. Language is meaningful, unless you write a poem for the sake of words.

Is that all that language does is ‘say’ what ‘is’? Doesn’t language PRODUCE what is rather than merely express an already extant ‘it’? — Joshs

No. That's not how it normally works. Ideas form, language follows. It sets ideas free.

I think the issue most people have with such statements is that ‘this domain’ is ‘existence’ and that there is no ‘outside’. — I like sushi

The point is that many people think there is an extramundane realm. And that realm can give meaning to our existence, which without that outerwordly region, called heaven, and God in it, would be meaningless and empty. We would be what science describes only. Like Dawkins puts it: "vessels of selfish genes or memes, programmed to pass them on", or, like I read once, products of chance events, evolving into ensembles or configurations of dead particles. A rather depressing view. I think Dawkins and other new atheists, can't really understand the meaning God can give to life.

We could make this argument for any imagined thing, including elves, leprechauns, and dragons. — Harry Hindu

These are no gods though. Dragons could in principle be found in the Earthly domain. God(s) exist outside of this domain, so their existence can't be proved. Dawkins's claim that he's 99.9% sure that god(s) don't exist is a ridiculous, if not ludicrous claim. You can't assign a probability to the existence of god(s) if they exist.

Bukowski's Post Office. Pirandello's Kaos. Gomorrah. Life of a Day. Farewell to Reason. Constructing quarks. Florinda Donner's cheat.

You view would seem to be at odds with the church fathers. — Banno

Yes. Because it is at odds with the fathers. They, in general, have little understanding of the sciences closing in at the fundamentals, the bearing structure of creation. Had they the knowledge, they could rightfully justified pronounce in joy a first clear evidence of the Holy God in the heavens. Of course I'm exaggerating here but in principle they could.

A yes. Barking Barugh Baruch AKA as The Howling Dutchman. Unduly launching God to let Him land smoothly in the unchangeable, eternal, omnipotent, and omnipresent laws of Nature, providing Leibniz with the raw divine material for his pre-established harmony to inject his immortal divine soul into. A strong duo-package, liberating mankind from the tightening constraints of God.

"Religion" stems from the Latin "religare". Which means "to bind". "Religio" is a bond, an obligation. Which evolved into "living under monastic vows".

In principle, one can be religious about anything. You can feel obliged to God, the State, the School System, or your mother in law.

"Curiously, for a people so religiously minded, the Greeks had no word for religion itself; the nearest terms were eusebeia (“piety”) and threskeia (“cult”)."

Curiously indeed! Olympus was crowded. Didn't they worship or felt obliged? Was it a cult for them? Piety?

Is religion a modern phenomenon, concept, idea, practice? Is it connected with god(?) uniquely? Like I said, it can be used non-theistically. Wikipedia agrees:

Religion is usually defined as a social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, beliefs, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that generally relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements; however, there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion.

From the Online Ethymology Dictionary:

This noun of action was derived by Cicero from relegere "go through again" (in reading or in thought), from re- "again" (see re-) + legere "read" (see lecture (n.)). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (Servius, Lactantius, Augustine) and the interpretation of many modern writers connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via the notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." In that case, the re- would be intensive. Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens.

In English, the meaning "particular system of faith in the worship of a divine being or beings" is by c. 1300; the sense of "recognition of and allegiance in manner of life (perceived as justly due) to a higher, unseen power or powers" is from 1530s.

There is more to it... A manner of life, morals, being careful of creation, or a bond with God, it can be associated with religion, but when I think of religion, the first think that pops up in my mind are visions of churches, mosques, rituals, religious culture, power hierarchies (God being just an instrument to maintain it), candles, choirs, Christmas, fastening, Carnevale, saints, the pope, Khomeini, praying, Sundays, temples, offerings, hell and heaven, Olympus, damnation, good and bad, Christ (in Rio), Buddha, Mohammed in Mecca dancing the Hajj , crosses on tops of high mountains, holy books, rising seas, Armageddon, the ark, ten commandments, Bismillah, Beelzebub, boats beneath fire, crusades, missionaries, in the name of... etcetera. And not so much of the nature of God, theodicees, apologetics, the reasons for creation, the meaning of life, or science.

Faith is believing despite the evidence — Banno

On the contrary. Faith is believing because of the evidence. Not because the evidence points directly at a presence, but because there is no evidence for àn ultimate scientific explanation. So the evidence is lack of scientific explanation. No doubt you call that a god of the gaps but as long as science offers no explanation it's only God who offers an explanation. And by its nature, science can't offer such.

I can see why the new atheists, headed by the great leaders like Dawkins, Harris, Dennet, Hofstadter, Pinker, and more of the spotless minds, don't like "the concept of god(s)" as the rather haughty call it. It's their fear of something that they can't understand to be really there, making them search for rational means to exclude "the concept" by reference to procedures they embrace.