The Hiding God.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I seriously do not think "God" is a question at all.

Stop being pedantic . You know as well as I do that anytime the issue of God and evidence for/against God comes up (which is the central thrust of your thread) then the question of God's existence and what is ultimate reality is always implied. You are stalling here.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And why not? What I find fishy is the claim that emotions are unscientific and not subject to investigation.

[b]If someone says they love you, do you ask for proof?
If it is important to me to know whether they are telling the truth then maybe I would.
But everyone here is getting too hung up on proof. I have not asked for proof nor is it part of ...[text shortened]... why can they not be reproduced in a lab? What nonsense. Lab workers have emotions too you know.[/b]

But everyone here is getting too hung up on proof. I have not asked for proof nor is it part of my argument. I am talking about evidence. ---whitey----

But it's the kind of evidence that you are looking for that implies a kind of proof in your eyes. If you were happy for no proof to exist then you would be content with the evidence theists offer. It's precisely because the evidence we talk of does not consistute scientific proof for you that we are having this debate. The scientific approach is to look for proof and it's default position in the absence of proof is skepticism. This may or may not be the way to find truth.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is often stated by theists that for some reason God does not want us to be able to prove his existence using a science experiment.
It is also stated that there is observable evidence for God.
I find these two claims contradictory.
If you claim that you have observed in some way evidence for God then either that evidence is scientific in nature or yo ...[text shortened]... vely creating the evidence themselves.
In other words they do not actually have evidence.

It is a contradiction to say that God doesn't want us to know He exists by scientific experiment while claiming that what exist is evidence for the existence for God.
That's assuming that scientific experiment has within it's sphere the capacity to conduct such an experiment.

By claiming that what exists is evidence for the existence of God assumes one will determine that God exists by means other than scientific method.

What IS that means? I think it's precisely because scientific experiment cannot "prove" the existence of God nor can it explain the origin of the universe, that leaves one with no other better explanation for the existence of life than to attribute it to a creator.

Does that make sense?

Hey, did you miss my post or what?

This is my third attempt!

Originally posted by twhitehead
And why not? What I find fishy is the claim that emotions are unscientific and not subject to investigation.

[b]If someone says they love you, do you ask for proof?
If it is important to me to know whether they are telling the truth then maybe I would.
But everyone here is getting too hung up on proof. I have not asked for proof nor is it part of ...[text shortened]... why can they not be reproduced in a lab? What nonsense. Lab workers have emotions too you know.[/b]

I tend to agree with Bosse. I think your insistence on “scientific” knowledge is a bit narrow (depending on how you define that term).

I might say that propositional statements about God ought to be (potentially) subject to falsification or verification by reason or empiricism. Any statement that is not so subject is a vacuous assertion. Analytic truths are true by definition of their terms; synthetic truths are true by empirical proof.

If P, then Q; P, therefore Q. That is not a statement that requires any empirical validation; it is valid for any P or Q. That is, it is simply illogical to say, for any P or Q, If P, then Q; P, therefore not-Q.

Further, if Kant is right and there are synthetic a priori truths, then they are not subject to scientific proof, since they are the very means of conducting scientific inquiry.

I say: “That painting is beautiful to me.” On what basis will you claim that that statement is not true? By what criteria will you claim that I am mistaken? (Two different questions. This of course is in the realm of aesthetics.)

I decide to write these very words here on the screen. How, by what means, did I make such a decision? Consciousness researchers may one day be able to say; presently they cannot. That “how” remains “hidden” even if what goes on in my brain as I decide can be mapped. Does that warrant any claim that I did not make a decision?

There may be multiple universes that have no connection or contact with one another, such that no information at all can be passed from one to the other. In such a case, science cannot say it is impossible; the hypothesis is simply not empirically testable.

_____________________________________________

We can only know the universe by applying the grammar of our consciousness to the syntax of the universe as we are able to perceive it. I see no reason to suppose that we are the singular species for whom the grammar of our consciousness is exhaustive of the universal syntax. There may well be a domain of mystery—we may even intuit that there is—about which we can say nothing at all.

Such a hypothesis could only be empirically verified by knowing that we know all there is to know about the universe. Short of that, it is technically not falsifiable. That does not make it unreasonable.

That domain of mystery, plus aesthetics, is the whole basis of my own spirituality.

_____________________________________________

There is room for philosophy as well as science; there may even be room for metaphysics (under some definitions, metaphysics may be a given). I do not reject the supernatural (by which I mean extra-natural) category because it lies outside the purview of science (although I think that by definition it does); I reject it because I think it creates more epistemic problems than it resolves. I have pondered, though not really explored, the possibility of a “naturalized theology.”

In sum, although you and I both have taken similar strong stances (“strong atheism” ) vis-à-vis certain God-concepts, I am unprepared to take such a strong stance against any and all God-concepts (e.g., some versions of process theology).

Originally posted by vistesd
I might say that propositional statements about God ought to be (potentially) subject to falsification or verification by reason or empiricism. Any statement that is not so subject is a vacuous assertion. Analytic truths are true by definition of their terms; synthetic truths are true by empirical proof.

Shucks, I need to write this stuff down. (I am delving into Idealist philosophy at the moment; more interesting than I thought!).

The thread title intrigues me -- as I recall 'the Hidden [not hiding] God plays hide and seek' -- and its tale is much older than Jebus. Can you throw any light on the Ancient Nature of the Hidden God?

Originally posted by twhitehead
And that is the type of argument I am challenging. Either you should be able to prove them in a scientific manner or you should discard them as false. The problem is that you actually contradict yourself without realizing it.

Did you just say the premise that "hurting babies is wrong" and should be discarded as false? It doesn't surprise me, twhitehead, that you would think this. But it is exactly this sort of thing that proves the existence of God. There is a universal morality and it can't be explained to me any other way. And I believe most would agree this and a few other things adequately prove His existence.

As for the idea that love is stronger than hate, let me add this thought. Regarding universal morality, folks never worry about getting caught acting good. However, they are concerned about getting caught acting bad. This is evidence that God is not an indifferent god but a good god. If the supreme god were otherwise, we would not be concerned about doing bad things.

My amusement recently has been to discoved that twhitehead feels compelled to evangelize folks on this site to reject God. I thought atheists didn't believe in God, so why the need to evangelize? We evangelize because we are commanded to do so. What's your excuse?

Originally posted by knightmeister
When I say "know" I mean "know" in the same sense as I mean that I "know" my wife or I "know" what chocolate tastes like. Experiential knowing and intuitive knowing is just another way of knowing stuff.

I do not mean "know" for certain as in scientifically proven. But then this is not a problem really because I know them with the same conviction and certainty as I know the sun is in the sky.

I mean "know" in the same sense as I mean that I "know" my wife or I "know" what chocolate tastes like.

Those are two different things. In the first case, it represents aquaintaince, familiarity and mutuality. In the second it represents sense memory.

"Knowing" that love is stronger than hate is neither of these things. There's a clue in that you know a person or [/i] know what something tastes like[/i] but that you know THAT love is stronger than hate. The sentence is constructed differently due to the different meaning of the word.

Originally posted by dinosaurus
Did you just say the premise that "hurting babies is wrong" and should be discarded as false? It doesn't surprise me, twhitehead, that you would think this. But it is exactly this sort of thing that proves the existence of God. There is a universal morality and it can't be explained to me any other way. And I believe most would agree this and a few ot need to evangelize? We evangelize because we are commanded to do so. What's your excuse?

If hurting babies is wrong, why did God order Abraham to sacrifice his son? Why did Abraham do it? The theme in Christianity is obedience, not protecting babies. Christians protect babies not because it's the right thing to do but because they thing God has ordered them to. Presumably these same people would knife their firstborn on a bloody altar if that's what God had ordered them to do. That's the example they are given in their holy book.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Shucks, I need to write this stuff down. (I am delving into Idealist philosophy at the moment; more interesting than I thought!).

The thread title intrigues me -- as I recall 'the Hidden [not hiding] God plays hide and seek' -- and its tale is much older than Jebus. Can you throw any light on the Ancient Nature of the Hidden God?

I have some rabbinical story somewhere; maybe I can find it. Still, in transitions from oral to written traditions, it can be hard to tell how old something is...

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]I mean "know" in the same sense as I mean that I "know" my wife or I "know" what chocolate tastes like.

Those are two different things. In the first case, it represents aquaintaince, familiarity and mutuality. In the second it represents sense memory.

"Knowing" that love is stronger than hate is neither of these things. There's a clue ...[text shortened]... /i]. The sentence is constructed differently due to the different meaning of the word.[/b]

What if love WAS a person?

Originally posted by vistesd
I have some rabbinical story somewhere; maybe I can find it. Still, in transitions from oral to written traditions, it can be hard to tell how old something is...

Whether or not it is really the case, this is interesting:

"But there is one word in particular which is employed not on any special occasion but in every service, not once or twice but after every petition, not as a portion of the prayer but as its summary and its seal. If a stranger stand outside the closed doors of a church while service is going on, there is one word, and probably but one which he would hear distinctly repeated again and again. "Amen," "Amen," "Amen," that is the aspiration which time after time comes rolling forth with the full strength of choir and congregation. That is the word by which the apostle denotes the absolute nature of the Deity as compared with created matter. "In Him all things are Amen." That is the title with which the seer of the apocalypse invokes the advent of his Divine Master at the conclusion of the vision: "Amen, Veni Domine Jesu." That is the title which the Master assumed to Himself, "Amen, I say to you." And that is the title by which the Egyptian priests of old addressed the secret Deity—Amen, that is to say, in Egyptian, "The Hidden One." http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/hhp/hhp05.htm

Originally posted by knightmeister
But it's the kind of evidence that you are looking for that implies a kind of proof in your eyes. If you were happy for no proof to exist then you would be content with the evidence theists offer. It's precisely because the evidence we talk of does not consistute scientific proof for you that we are having this debate. The scientific approach is to lo ...[text shortened]... sition in the absence of proof is skepticism. This may or may not be the way to find truth.

I think the problem is that I have not been able to explain my argument properly. Let my try again.
I am not asking for proof of God.
I am not talking about a scientific experiment in which conclusive proof of God is found.
What I am saying that any evidence of any kind whatsoever, can be looked at in a scientific manner and the scientific way is always to find the simplest and most likely explanation for the evidence. I am claiming that theists simultaneously claim that:
1. their evidence for God is not subject to such scrutiny.
2. their evidence for God is the most likely explanation for the evidence.
That is the contradiction.

To illustrate my point let me give and example.
Person X claims that prayer heals people. We ask person X how he knows. Person X says he has seen it happen many times and that his experience is solid evidence that it happens.
We then do and experiment to determine the effect of prayer on healing.
Person X claims that the effect is not subject to scientific scrutiny and ignores our results.
But this contradicts his own claims about his experience.

Originally posted by twhitehead

We then do and experiment to determine the effect of prayer on healing.

Experiments like these?

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1997/09.11/ThePowerofHeali.html

http://www.physorg.com/news93105311.html

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Describe to me your lab test to check whether I am lying about my feelings about poodles.

Thats a strawman and you know it. If you want to be taken seriously then don't be so disingenuous. You know that emotion can be, and has been, studied scientifically.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Thats a strawman and you know it. If you want to be taken seriously then don't be so disingenuous. You know that emotion can be, and has been, studied scientifically.

I'd call it a straw dog.

The results of scientific studies tend to confirm the biases of the researcher (unless you subscibe to the myth of 'objective' science). Which school of thought do you adhere to when it comes to emotional theory -- the social constructionist or naturalistic?

Darwin forbid I should want to be taken seriously ...