• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Thank you for answering the OP concisely.

I made this thread over two years ago when I was leaving theism.

Reasons such as yours help illustrate to me that I should not believe in God as there is no reasonable basis that anyone has it seems.
ok, we have different viewpoints obviously. I did not believe in God until I met those that I respected insofar as their way of worship. I did not always feel that way. I studied the Bible with them for two years until I decided this was the best way of life for me. One of the reasons why I did not believe in God was because of all the conflicting beliefs there are in the world of religion. It was at a time that I looked for God and finally prayed after many years of non-belief. I believe He answered me. And is still guiding me. That's all I can say right now.
 

Madsaac

Active Member
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.

Doesn't it just end up being what you think 'real' means?

What is your definition of real? If it includes metaphysics, then good

If someone's definition of 'real' includes their god, then god exists.

As far as I'm concerned, metaphysics has a lot of maybes, or possibilities, things that can't be observed or measured so real isn't a huge part of metaphysics.
 

Madsaac

Active Member
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.

Yes this is true.

So because metaphysical concepts may not be observable or measurable, it is harder to call them 'real'

Do you think they are still real, even though you can't measure or observe them?

I hope one day down the track we will be able to observe and measure them but now its just speculation.............just like god
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
What is your definition of real?

Well, here is an usage example of real first and then I will give my explanation of how I understand the word "real" to work.

Now I am going to ask you to imagine a pond, a small piece of water. That which you imagine, is not real, but it is real that you can imagine. In the pond are 2 ducks, a real duck and a not real duck, since it is a decoy duck. But it is a real decoy duck.

Real is a word, that borrows the context it is in and "wears" that as for what is real. It functions a bit like truth, not but quite.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Perhaps they can be labeled as such.

But it serves to underline that the philosophical
study of metaphysics contributes nothing.
zero data. Or idea what to do with data from real physics.
Or chemistry.


You've failed to grasp the significance of that. :D


Empirical data means nothing, and contributes nothing to the sum of knowledge, until it is interpreted.

And if the last 500 years of science has taught us anything, it is that reality is seldom what it appears to be.
 

Madsaac

Active Member
Well, here is an usage example of real first and then I will give my explanation of how I understand the word "real" to work.

Now I am going to ask you to imagine a pond, a small piece of water. That which you imagine, is not real, but it is real that you can imagine. In the pond are 2 ducks, a real duck and a not real duck, since it is a decoy duck. But it is a real decoy duck.

Real is a word, that borrows the context it is in and "wears" that as for what is real. It functions a bit like truth, not but quite.

I think you are saying 'real' can be somewhat abstract, a 'feeling' that something is true or real

What about these meanings
- having objective independent existence
- occurring or existing in actuality
- not artificial, fraudulent, or illusory
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
I think you are saying 'real' can be somewhat abstract, a 'feeling' that something is true or real

What about these meanings
- having objective independent existence
- occurring or existing in actuality
- not artificial, fraudulent, or illusory

Yeah, but if you make that into a norm, then that you make it into a norm, is not true or real, as it is you subjectively making that norm.

That is an old problem in philosophy nobody have solved to far. Making real, true, objective norms for how to act as humans.
 

Madsaac

Active Member
Yeah, but if you make that into a norm, then that you make it into a norm, is not true or real, as it is you subjectively making that norm.

That is an old problem in philosophy nobody have solved to far. Making real, true, objective norms for how to act as humans.

I'm not making into a subjective norm, the linguistic experts did, and don't you think we should put our trust in these experts?

And haven't humans already made objectives norms on behaviour. For example, wouldn't 90% of us on this forum agree on the correct way to act?
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
I'm not making into a subjective norm, the linguistic experts did, and don't you think we should put our trust in these experts?

And haven't humans already made objectives norms on behaviour. For example, wouldn't 90% of us on this forum agree on the correct way to act?

Well, in the strong sense a norm - something that is usual, typical, or standard - isn't objective as having reality independent of the mind, as usual, typical, or standard are evaluations done in the mind(s) subjectively even if done by many people.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Doesn't it just end up being what you think 'real' means?

What is your definition of real? If it includes metaphysics, then good

If someone's definition of 'real' includes their god, then god exists.

As far as I'm concerned, metaphysics has a lot of maybes, or possibilities, things that can't be observed or measured so real isn't a huge part of metaphysics.


It's fair to say that philosophy - of which metaphysics is a branch - provides very little in the way of certainty. It's more about asking the right questions, than it is about obtaining definite answers. But isn't that how we learn, by asking questions? The real enemy of learning isn't ignorance, it's believing we know, when we really don't.

As for what is real in the material, let's let Nobel Prize winning physicist Niels Bohr answer that;

“Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.”

For myself, I experience reality comprised equally of mind, body and spirit. Physicalism alone cannot account for the world; it can't, for a start, account for the mind. And the mind alone, is prone to self deception, egotism, solipsism and despair. Ultimately, nothing makes sense and no balance can be achieved without spirit, but the spirit cannot be apprehended with a microscope.
 

AppieB

Active Member
We can talk about religion all you like. Nothing will make me doubt. Nothing you say, nothing you do, nothing anyone says or does will make me doubt that God is real and that He loves me. Which is actually pretty amazing.
It also is pretty irrational. If you acknowledge that nothing would convince you otherwise, no evidence, no proof, no reason whatsoever, then you have set yourself up to never be able to change your belief if it would be false.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Empirical data means nothing, and contributes nothing to the sum of knowledge, until it is interpreted.

And if the last 500 years of science has taught us anything, it is that reality is seldom what it appears to be.
Raw data has been processed
and acted on since before trilobies
got skilled at it. We doubt they employed
" metaphysics" tho the Galapgos tortoise
has a sort of philosophical air to it, so
perhaps.

In the event the need to interpret data is hardly
fresh news

Does "metaphysics" lend a hand at interpreting raw data?

I think the topic of interpretation is simply irrelevant.

Though it does appear to underline that "metaphysics"
contributes zero.

Unless there's something you are holding back?

No data, zero understanding.
 
Last edited:

Audie

Veteran Member
It also is pretty irrational. If you acknowledge that nothing would convince you otherwise, no evidence, no proof, no reason whatsoever, then you have set yourself up to never be able to change your belief if it would be false.
It's irrational and the very definition of intellectual
dishonesty.
What a thing to be proud of!
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
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.
So to sum up: while you don't - somehow - consider God imaginary, you do think that God is "an abstract idea that isn't tied to a physical object."

... correct?

This stance would imply that every empirical claim about God is false; do you agree? I mean, a God like that wouldn't - couldn't - dictate holy books, carry out miracles, create universes, or oversee afterlives.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
It's fair to say that philosophy - of which metaphysics is a branch - provides very little in the way of certainty. It's more about asking the right questions, than it is about obtaining definite answers. But isn't that how we learn, by asking questions? The real enemy of learning isn't ignorance, it's believing we know, when we really don't.

As for what is real in the material, let's let Nobel Prize winning physicist Niels Bohr answer that;

“Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.”

For myself, I experience reality comprised equally of mind, body and spirit. Physicalism alone cannot account for the world; it can't, for a start, account for the mind. And the mind alone, is prone to self deception, egotism, solipsism and despair. Ultimately, nothing makes sense and no balance can be achieved without spirit, but the spirit cannot be apprehended with a microscope.
' Spirit". Shouldn't you figure out if this really exists before making such extravagant things for it?

Or is that a question for "metaphysics" to avoid.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
It also is pretty irrational. If you acknowledge that nothing would convince you otherwise, no evidence, no proof, no reason whatsoever, then you have set yourself up to never be able to change your belief if it would be false.
I don't agree with you.
 
Top