There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[an anarchist]

1. Do you know that you are making a category error or a type mismatch?

I'm just asking if there is evidence for God. You said I shouldn't look for evidence for God in the real world aka "empirical world"

2. You also completely have not even understood philosophical terms like "metaphysical"? Are you saying metaphysics is just imaginary things?

You said God is a metaphysical being and that is why we cannot find him through empirical means.
"Metaphysical" means beyond physical the way we are using it in relation to "God". So God is not part of the physical world or real world as a "metaphysical" being. So "imaginary" is an apt description.

 

[firedragon]

I'm just asking if there is evidence for God. You said I shouldn't look for evidence for God in the real world aka "empirical world"

Exactly. So that's a category error. A type mismatch. This is logically flawed, and philosophically absurd. Scientifically flawed and against the philosophy of science. Bad argument in every possible way.

You said God is a metaphysical being and that is why we cannot find him through empirical means.
"Metaphysical" means beyond physical the way we are using it in relation to "God". So God is not part of the physical world or real world as a "metaphysical" being. So "imaginary" is an apt description.

Nope.
metaphysical does not mean imaginary.

Metaphysical is a term used in philosophy to refer to the branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, which deals with questions about the nature of reality, existence, and the fundamental nature of things that go beyond the physical or empirical world. It explores concepts like being, time, space, causality, and the relationship between mind and matter.

While some metaphysical concepts may not be directly observable or measurable in the physical world, that doesn't mean they are imaginary. Instead, they are often abstract or theoretical, dealing with questions that concern the underlying principles or essence of reality.

For example, the concept of being or existence is a metaphysical concept—it addresses what it means for something to exist, which is not necessarily something that can be directly observed or measured, but is a foundational aspect of reality.

In contrast, something imaginary refers to something that is purely a creation of the mind, without a basis in reality, like a fictional character or a daydream.

So, while metaphysical concepts might involve abstract ideas that aren't tied to physical objects, they are not simply imaginary; they are concerned with understanding the deeper or more fundamental aspects of reality.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Exactly. So that's a category error. A type mismatch. This is logically flawed, and philosophically absurd. Scientifically flawed and against the philosophy of science. Bad argument in every possible way.


Nope.
metaphysical does not mean imaginary.

Metaphysical is a term used in philosophy to refer to the branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, which deals with questions about the nature of reality, existence, and the fundamental nature of things that go beyond the physical or empirical world. It explores concepts like being, time, space, causality, and the relationship between mind and matter.

While some metaphysical concepts may not be directly observable or measurable in the physical world, that doesn't mean they are imaginary. Instead, they are often abstract or theoretical, dealing with questions that concern the underlying principles or essence of reality.

For example, the concept of being or existence is a metaphysical concept—it addresses what it means for something to exist, which is not necessarily something that can be directly observed or measured, but is a foundational aspect of reality.

In contrast, something imaginary refers to something that is purely a creation of the mind, without a basis in reality, like a fictional character or a daydream.

So, while metaphysical concepts might involve abstract ideas that aren't tied to physical objects, they are not simply imaginary; they are concerned with understanding the deeper or more fundamental aspects of reality.

All far and well. But are you prepared to understand that for some questions an answer might be that it is unknowable both in the empirical and metaphysical sense?

 

[RestlessSoul]

To elaborate:
People look for God in the real or "empirical" world. "Metaphysical" can mean imaginary or not real. It's just a fancy way of saying it.

No, that's sloppy thinking. Metaphysics deals with those aspects of underlying fundamental reality which cannot be seen or measured, but which are nonetheless necessary to provide an explanation of that reality. Terms and concepts, such as 'real' or 'imaginary', and the distinction between them, are not observable. The question 'What is real'? is a metaphysical question.

 

[an anarchist]

The question 'What is real'? is a metaphysical question.

Well, I'm asking if God is empirically real.

The answer doesn't have to be shrouded in metaphysics. I accept there's no evidence for God, but when people say/imply that perhaps there is metaphysical reasoning for God, I equate the reasoning to "imagination".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, I'm asking if God is empirically real.

The answer doesn't have to be shrouded in metaphysics. I accept there's no evidence for God, but when people say/imply that perhaps there is metaphysical reasoning for God, I equate the reasoning to "imagination".

Well, there is nothing that is empirically real, as you can't observe real. Real just as God is an imagined idea in the mind. You can't point to God and you can't point to real.

 

[an anarchist]

All far and well. But are you prepared to understand that for some questions an answer might be that it is unknowable both in the empirical and metaphysical sense?

Is God unknowable empirically?

In the real world, we observe "God" to be absent and not necessary for us to exist. Seems like an answer to me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is God unknowable empirically?

In the real world, we observe "God" to be absent and not necessary for us to exist. Seems like an answer to me.

You can't observe real. Both God and real are imagined in the mind.

 

[an anarchist]

Well, there is nothing that is empirically real, as you can't observe real. Real just as God is an imagined idea in the mind. You can't point to God and you can't point to real.

I can point to myself and say I am real. We cannot do the same for God.

If you say that I cannot know if I am real then we can leave that conversation at that. Because then we'd have to play semantics about the word real and I don't want to have to argue about the fact that I am real.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I can point to myself and say I am real. We cannot do the same for God.

If you say that I cannot know if I am real then we can leave that conversation at that. Because then we'd have to play semantics about the word real and I don't want to have to argue about the fact that I am real.

Explain how real looks? What are the observable properties of real?

 

[an anarchist]

Explain how real looks? What are the observable properties of real?

If you say that I cannot know if I am real then we can leave that conversation at that. Because then we'd have to play semantics about the word real and I don't want to have to argue about the fact that I am real.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Well, I'm asking if God is empirically real.

The answer doesn't have to be shrouded in metaphysics. I accept there's no evidence for God, but when people say/imply that perhaps there is metaphysical reasoning for God, I equate the reasoning to "imagination".

One of the best metaphysical question I have ever heard was put by a physicist, Stephen Hawking, who asked "What is it that put's the fire in the equations [which describe the universe]?"

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I can point to myself and say I am real. We cannot do the same for God.

If you say that I cannot know if I am real then we can leave that conversation at that. Because then we'd have to play semantics about the word real and I don't want to have to argue about the fact that I am real.

Well, it is not an observable fact that you are real. Just as it is not an observable fact that there is a God.

Now please explain how come we have methodological naturalism and this:

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We wouldn't have that if it was an observable fact that you are real. I can't help it that you don't even know the basic problems in epistemology.

 

[an anarchist]

Well, it is not an observable fact that you are real. Just as it is not an observable fact that there is a God.

Now please explain how come we have methodological naturalism and this:

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We wouldn't have that if it was an observable fact that you are real. I can't help it that you don't even know the basic problems in epistemology.

The existence of epistemology doesn't mean I cannot say with certainty "I am real".

It appears it is you who is misunderstanding epistemology.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The existence of epistemology doesn't mean I cannot say with certainty "I am real".

It appears it is you who is misunderstanding epistemology.

So how do you solve the problem of the evil demon by Descartes in regards to epistemology?
Or how do you know whether you are in a Boltzmann Brain universe or not?

 

[an anarchist]

So how do you solve the problem of the evil demon by Descartes in regards to epistemology?
Or how do you know whether you are in a Boltzmann Brain universe or not?

Both of those concepts I have to Google, so I'll probably do that later.

I've read a bit on epistemology but I'm no expert. I know epistemology is the study of the methodology in which we acquire knowledge.

Descartes said "I think, therefore I am." Makes sense to me!

 

[an anarchist]

Descartes said "I think, therefore I am." Makes sense to me!

I think, I speak, I do all sorts of things in an empirical world!

What about God? Well, He is completely absent in the observable/real/empirical/perhaps only world.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Both of those concepts I have to Google, so I'll probably do that later.

I've read a bit on epistemology but I'm no expert. I know epistemology is the study of the methodology in which we acquire knowledge.

Descartes said "I think, therefore I am." Makes sense to me!

Yeah, but that is not empiricism as per observation. That is rationalism as per thinking about something and not observing it. In effect it is also a form of metaphysics.

 

[an anarchist]

It is effect it is also a form of metaphysics.

Ive got nothing against metaphysics when applied properly. But when people point to metaphysics as evidence for God, I disagree. And that is what is relevant to the OP.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ive got nothing against metaphysics when applied properly. But when people point to metaphysics as evidence for God, I disagree. And that is what is relevant to the OP.

Yeah, but you had to claim that you know that you are real. So you are on for that one or simply admit that you don't know that you are real.