What Is Your Definition of "God"?

[MasterKung]

i believe in God, he's defined as omnipotent, oniscient...whatever. that's come across so many times, it will be easier if i just said i agree with the people who already said it. (omni-words are hard to spell )
really what i want to say is that its fun asking intelligent people religious questions, i didnt read all the posts because, well, there are a lot of them, but for the most part i like what i hear. in case you didnt figure it out I am new to this forum, and I am amazed, there's discussion about religion without heated debate and childish name calling.
Have you ever asked a fully religious person about what he believes in, he regurgitates what he's been told, or what he's learned, when you ask a man of science about God he tells you things that actually make you want to believe, and then supports himself with whatever idea would be most effective. Its great.
Ok, I am done ranting, i just think an internet forum like this, empty of imbeciles, is refreshing.

 

[amp]

Welcome to PF MasterKung

I feel the need to add that though 'God' is all those Omni-words there are things that it won't do and at least one thing it can't do which creates a paradox of sorts since the omni thing posits nothing being impossible for 'God'. "God' has volition and does its own will as far as that goes and it limits itself in the moral sense to only being good in a way we still don't get. It cannot be less than what it is-the impossibility. Yet,it creates and sustains and cannot diminish.

 

[himanshu121]

Jesus once took a little boy beside him and said: If anyone should cause even one little child to lose faith in the Almighty, you shall have to pay for it. Do not let even one of these get lost. If a man has a hundred sheep and one gets lost, he leaves ninety-nine sheep and goes in search of the lost one. Similarly, not even one of these little ones is to leave the chosen path.

I believe those who don't believe GOD should try meditating and try to be one with the supreme being . You guys will definitely find the difference b/w the tranquility thus achieved.

 

[Rader]

God is wisdom

God is wisdom, which we do not have, otherwise we would be the God.

 

[UltraPi1]

ONE

 

[Loren Booda]

NEO

 

[Danae Legrow]

God is the lover of our souls, and he will love you forever. He will never let you down and will always be your friend. He loves you on days you hate the world, on days you get an F on a test or midterm, he loves you when your happy, angry, sad, he loves you always. he will forgive you if you ask him. he is our creator.

 

[KALI]

Hi, I see god as a process, a way to relate our spiritual selves, not a devine being overseeing our conduct. Whatever gods or godesses one needs to identify with this I'm all for.
Ingat ka,

 

[Canute]

Perhaps God is just a muddled externalisation of what we really are.

 

[Janitor]

Danae,

Your insistence that God loves all humans is probably a majority view among Christians. As a youth I spent many thousands of hours in a church that taught that way.

Your post above doesn't identify your denomination. But I wonder, what are your thoughts on Calvinism, which has it that God loves only the "elect," and that he passes by those who were not predestined to salvation?

 

[Danae Legrow]

Janitor---

i really do not have a specific denomination. i go to a non-denominational church, and yes, i do believe that God loves everyone. And no, i do not believe he loves only the elect. this is how i see it- God gave us a free will correct? Well, we can use that to choose wether or not to follow God. If you choose to reject God, that does not change his love for you. We can aregue Armenianism and Calvinism from here until the ned of time, but greater thinkers than I have still not solved the difference between the two. (armenianism being (in it's most simplistic form) total free will, and Calvinism being (in it's most simplistic form) you have no decision if you are on of the elect.) Yet i have not read into calvinism all that much. i am only 16. Yet my parents have discussed it (and argued) about it quite a bit. my mother helped me with explaining this. my mother leans more toward clavinism than my father does. My father looks at it this way: he looks at salvation like someone giving you an amazing gift. You have the choice, or the free will, to take this gift. God knows if you will take this gift or not. So you have the free will to choose, yet God knows in the end who is going to choose this "gift." This is how i feel. God does not elect people. that would make him seem like a dictator. with the little knowledge i have on this topic, i believe what my father believes. you have a choice. to accept or decline. God knows what your decision will be.

 

[Janitor]

Thanks for the thoughtful answer.

On another issue, one of our presidents did an act which, from the point of mainstream Christianity, would be considered sinful. (I had better not mention the name of the president, since Zero already probably considers me a right-wing blue-collar fundamentalist Republican ) I remember hearing discussions stemming from that news story on the issue of whether a Christian, once saved, is saved for the rest of his or her life, regardless of how he or she behaves. An editorial I read at that time speculated that this particular president believed that this was the case, so that he was "safe" (in the afterlife sense) in doing whatever brought him pleasure.

 

[Danae Legrow]

you got my mom into it now...

"An editorial I read at that time speculated that this particular president believed that this was the case, so that he was "safe" (in the afterlife sense) in doing whatever brought him pleasure."

my mom wants to put in her two cents...

A true conversion experience changes a person. One's daily sin(s) become more and more obvious to the truly converted individual. One does not wish to sin because of the realization that sin hurts not only one's own soul, but it affects (and hurts) all of those people that one comes into contact with everyday. Not only did this president selfishly pursue his own pleasures, he wounded his wife, his child, his cabinet, his political party, and our country. Does this sound like the behavior of a truly converted person? While the phrase, "Once saved, always saved," may be true, (and I stress the "may" part of my statement), I would say that his behavior demonstrates that he did not have a true conversion experience. But better thinkers than I have been debating this issue for centuries . . . We should work out our own faith with fear and trembling.

 

[Janitor]

The church I attended as a kid very definitely believed in the possibility that a saved person could "backslide" right into an unsaved state. I can remember a sermon preached there (decades ago!) on the topic of a gospel songwriter named D.O. Teasley (spelling?). The minister maintained that though Teasley was truly Christian during the part of his life when he was writing gospel songs, he backslid toward the end of his life and became a street bum, and died in a gutter, unsaved.

 

[Danae Legrow]

And this is Danae's dad...

You said, "The minister maintained that though Teasley was truly Christian during the part of his life when he was writing gospel songs, he backslid toward the end of his life and became a street bum, and died in a gutter, unsaved." I would say that all that minister ever really knew for sure was that this Teasley person died a street bum in a gutter. I would say that only God knows the true state of one's soul at any time in one's life. The gospel of Luke talks about the thief who was crucified with Jesus being saved in the final hours of his (the thief's) life. When this thief died, he was done in in the single, worst, most embarrassing way possible. Anyone watching would have "known" that there was an individual who was going to spend the rest of eternity separated from God, yet Jesus said that this particular thief was going to Heaven (Paradise - Greek for Heaven).

As far as being one of " the elect" goes, I heard it best described like this: I would ask someone, "Do you want to be saved?" If they answer yes, then they are one of the elect. If they answer no, then they are not one of the elect. They have no recourse for argument because if they wish to be saved, they may be and they then become one of the elect. God loves everyone and wants a personal relationship with each of us, but He will not force you to spend eternity in Heaven with Him after you pass away. If you spend your life diligently showing Him that you want nothing to do with Him, He will honor that decision after you die

 

[Rader]

Roman Catholics

The traditional teaching of Roman Catholics, from the time of Christ until the Second Vatican Council 1966, was that, there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. This was the dogmatic teaching until Ecumenism and liberalism changed this viewpoint. The words of Christ were changed from the orginal translation from him saying at the "Last Supper" that his blood was shed for "many" the new word was "all" to accommodate Ecumenism .

In case anyone does not know what Ecumenism means, it is the intent to unify all religions.

These were Jesus Christ origanal words at the "last Supper" translated from Hebreo to Latin.

HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET ATERNI TESTAMENTI:
MYSTERIUM FIDEI: QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM.

PRO MULTIS mean for many.

Not necessary Kerrie. I will just lock my tongue. I was just defining a point that maybe you do not understand about Catholicism, which difines to Catholics what God is.

 

[Janitor]

Thank you to Rader and Danae's father as well.

I would say that only God knows the true state of one's soul at any time in one's life.

I believe that idea was also preached in the church that I attended. There was quite a high turnover rate of pastors there, for reasons I won't go into, and there was a range of styles among the pastors, from fire & brimstone to more laid back preaching. Theoretically, the ministers and Sunday school teachers should have all been basing their teaching on the same doctrinal principles, but it didn't necessarily work out that way in practice.

 

[Kerrie]

i would hate to lock this topic over religious discussion...the intent of this sticky is have everyone share their own concept of what god is, not to discuss religous ideas.

 

[Janitor]

I plead guilty! I hope this post is more in line with what is wanted.

own concept of what god is

If I were to grant that there really does exist a personal God, one puzzling and hurtful aspect of Him/Her/It is that God is not a reliable answerer of petitionary prayers to reduce human suffering. For instance, no matter how many believers in any particular deity pray to that deity: "Please cause all babies born from this day forward to be born without an appendix, so that they will never be stricken by acute appendicitis, which can lead to peritonitis, a painful and sometimes fatal medical problem," there will be only stony silence from God in response.

 

[StarThrower]

In this thread, I would like to know what your definition of "God" is, if it is a being, a force, if it is equivalent to Mother Nature, to science, etc...

There is no god.

Hence a definition of god is correct, only when the assumption of the existence of god leads to an infinite number of contradictions.

Kind regards,

StarThrower

 

[Danae Legrow]

prove it

starthrower... prove to me that there is no god.

 

[Canute]

There is no god.

Hence a definition of god is correct, only when the assumption of the existence of god leads to an infinite number of contradictions.

Kind regards,

StarThrower

You can't say that God doesn't exist without defining Him and then say that there is possibly a correct definition of Him, it isn't logical. However I agree that most definitions are illogical.

Bear in mind though that a large proportion of scientists are theists, and they manage to define God in such a way that He does not contradict science at least. Not all concepts of Gods are as unsubtle as the Sunday School Christian version, even for many Christians. Try Spinoza or Meister Eckhart for instance.

I suppose an anlogy would be atoms. We once conceived of them as little solar systems. Clearly those sort of atoms were a product of our imagination. However we do not now say they don't exist. We have reconceptualised and redefined them in line with our observations and deductions.

 

[Canute]

i would hate to lock this topic over religious discussion...the intent of this sticky is have everyone share their own concept of what god is, not to discuss religous ideas.

Point taken. Mind you it's difficult to separate the different issues.

Personally I don't believe that there is anything that can sensibly be called 'God'. However if I had to pick a definition that makes sense I'd go for Spinoza's or that of the Christian Gnostics.

For Spinoza 'Nothing exists external to God, and certainly not man's understanding of him'. Also "God is one, that is, only one substance can be granted in the universe." I also go along with Jesus on this one, the Kingdom of Heaven is within, there is not some external God 'out there'. We are it. But as Plato said we tend to forget this and become trapped in our cave of perceptions and conceptions.

 

[Moonbear]

God is a term used to explain things people cannot understand when they refuse to accept that not everything about our physical world can be understood all at once. Just because we don't know an answer to something now doesn't mean we won't find an answer. We laugh now at the beliefs of the ancient Romans and Greeks with their numerous mythological gods to explain things we now know are perfectly explainable, yet still want to hang onto our own mythology to explain many things still remaining to be answered.

 

[Loren Booda]

Moonbear,

Your definition of God might well apply to a T. O. E. (Theory of Everything).

Oh! Great Big TOE!

 

[Canute]

God is a term used to explain things people cannot understand when they refuse to accept that not everything about our physical world can be understood all at once. Just because we don't know an answer to something now doesn't mean we won't find an answer. We laugh now at the beliefs of the ancient Romans and Greeks with their numerous mythological gods to explain things we now know are perfectly explainable, yet still want to hang onto our own mythology to explain many things still remaining to be answered.

You miss the real point here. Science is not going to answer metaphysical questions ever. Not in a billion years. This is just a fact, nothing to do with my opinion. I suspect one day we'll look back the current scientific view much as you do the Roman pantheon of Gods. Either that or we'll have to stay ignorant forever. If we stick to the scientific method of explaining the world then people will be arguing about the existence of God until the universe ends.

 

[StarThrower]

starthrower... prove to me that there is no god.

You wouldn't understand the proof, it is too complex for your mind to follow.

Regards,

Star

 

[Moonbear]

You miss the real point here. Science is not going to answer metaphysical questions ever. Not in a billion years. This is just a fact, nothing to do with my opinion. I suspect one day we'll look back the current scientific view much as you do the Roman pantheon of Gods. Either that or we'll have to stay ignorant forever. If we stick to the scientific method of explaining the world then people will be arguing about the existence of God until the universe ends.

Metaphysical is on a sliding scale. Something only appears to be metaphysical until a physical explanation is found. Different people are comfortable with different degrees of uncertainty. I'm comfortable with knowing there are a lot of things I don't know, can't explain, and don't understand. I'm also comfortable with knowing there are many things nobody knows, nobody can explain and nobody understands. And I'm also comfortable knowing that many of these things will not be explained in my lifetime. However, that is not sufficient for me to believe there are no answers to those questions within the physical world. Other people cannot fathom there can be an explanation for these things, or that there are things that happen according to the laws of nature and not for a greater purpose. Those people are not comfortable with uncertainty, so need to believe in a god to explain the things they don't understand. If that is what they need to believe to get through life, that's fine. I'm not arguing against people who believe in god, in fact, I wasn't arguing anything, just stating my own personal view of what god is, according to the topic of the thread. So, quite frankly, I didn't miss any point because there was no point to begin with.

 

[Canute]

Metaphysical is on a sliding scale. Something only appears to be metaphysical until a physical explanation is found.

This is a misunderstanding of what metaphysics is. Metaphysics is where science puts unanswerable questions, not questions it's going to answer later.

Different people are comfortable with different degrees of uncertainty. I'm comfortable with knowing there are a lot of things I don't know, can't explain, and don't understand. I'm also comfortable with knowing there are many things nobody knows, nobody can explain and nobody understands.

Ok, but you speak for yourself.

And I'm also comfortable knowing that many of these things will not be explained in my lifetime. However, that is not sufficient for me to believe there are no answers to those questions within the physical world.

But we know that there are many questions that cannot be answered by study of the physical world. We've known that for millenia, and it's not even a contentious issue within science.

Those people are not comfortable with uncertainty, so need to believe in a god to explain the things they don't understand.

I don't know how you arrive at that conclusion.

If that is what they need to believe to get through life, that's fine.

What matters is what's true. It's just as easy to say what you say here about people who hold the scientific view.

I'm not arguing against people who believe in god, in fact, I wasn't arguing anything,

You said God was a crutch for the weak. That sounds like an argument to me.

 

[Danae Legrow]

You wouldn't understand the proof, it is too complex for your mind to follow.

Regards,

Star

try me...

 

[sage]

canute said
But we know that there are many questions that cannot be answered by study of the physical world. We've known that for millenia, and it's not even a contentious issue within science.

examples please.

 

[Canute]

canute said
But we know that there are many questions that cannot be answered by study of the physical world. We've known that for millenia, and it's not even a contentious issue within science. examples please.

All metaphysical questions are examples, since they are defined as beyond science's ability to answer. For instances would include the questions of why there is something rather than nothing, what is 'essence', what 'caused' or 'preceeded' the Big Bang, whether freewill exists, whether consciousness is causal etc.

A specific example would be the in principle inability of science to explain what matter is. In his autobiography ‘The Making of a Philosopher’ Roger McGinn simply and clearly outlines a number of the problems caused by the presence of unanswerable questions within the Western tradition of philosophy.

He describes how he was baffled in his youth by the ancient ‘problem of attributes’, and relates his attempt to reduce an old fashioned red letterbox, somewhere in Brighton if I remember rightly, to its essence by taking away all of its peceivable aspects and conceivable attributes one by one.

His conclusion was that doing this forces one to choose between a paradoxical conclusion and an insoluble logical problem, for one is forced to conclude that letter boxes, indeed all physical phenomena, have no essence underlying their external attributes, for essence can not possibly have attributes if ex hypothesis you have taken them all away. In this case, and in some very real way, the universe does not exist and is merely an illusion. There is nothing at the heart of everything.

The problem is a metaphysical one, not solvable scientifically even though it concerns the nature of matter.

 

[Moonbear]

This is a misunderstanding of what metaphysics is. Metaphysics is where science puts unanswerable questions, not questions it's going to answer later.

But how do you know a question is unanswerable? My contention is that there are no unanswerable questions, just ones that we do not yet know how to answer.

Ok, but you speak for yourself.

Exactly! I was speaking for myself, my own opinions. That's all the poll asked. It didn't ask for us to judge the opinions of others.

But we know that there are many questions that cannot be answered by study of the physical world. We've known that for millenia, and it's not even a contentious issue within science.

It's not a contentious issue within science because scientists agree that there is a physical explanation to all observable phenomena, even if that explanation remains to be determined.

You said God was a crutch for the weak. That sounds like an argument to me.

Those are your words, not mine. I never argued any such thing.

 

[Canute]

But how do you know a question is unanswerable? My contention is that there are no unanswerable questions, just ones that we do not yet know how to answer.

This is not the case unfortunately. Metaphysical questions are unanswerable by science in principle. Such questions are defined as being beyond science, which is why there is such a thing a 'metaphysics' in the first place.

Exactly! I was speaking for myself, my own opinions. That's all the poll asked. It didn't ask for us to judge the opinions of others.

Quite right. I was just noting that what you said may not be true.

It's not a contentious issue within science because scientists agree that there is a physical explanation to all observable phenomena, even if that explanation remains to be determined.

Strange as it may seem scientists who think about philosophy conclude the science cannot explain everything. Consider this, if everything observable has a scientific explanation then where does the explanation start and end? It cannot be with a physical sunstance because then that substance would need explaining and so on ad infinitum. This is why science cannot go all the way back to t=0 or explain what matter's made of etc.

 

[sage]

why there is something rather than nothing?
define the terms something and nothing.
what is 'essence'? i have never heard of the term before. please elaborate.
what 'caused' or 'preceeded' the Big Bang, ?
perhaps big bang was created when an eleven dimensional brane interacted with another of its kind. maybe the question is meaningless as time can only be defined in the context of the big bang.quite possible as it seems time maybe only an approximation of some time independant quantum effects on the Planck scale, just as notions of space are. these answeres maybe wrong.but that does not mean the question can never be answered by science in future.
what matter is?
i shall add a few more questions.
what is time?
what is space?
what is force?
what is charge?...
what kind of an explanation do you need. personally i believe these are names given to some observable phenomena of our universe. then the properties that they have under various circumstances should constitute an answer . thus charge becomes a property of a group of entities by virtue of which their motions interact with each other in a certain manner(attract or repel). similarly one can in principle answer the other questions. that such an answer to "what matter is" have not yet been totally elucidated does not mean it cannot be answered in future. it is a valid SCIENTIFIC QUESTION REQUIRING A VALID SCIENTIFIC ANSWER.
whether freewill exists?
you shall have do define what do you mean by free will. the brain(yourself) has at any momment a wide no. of choices from which it(you) chooses that which seems to it(you) the most suitable one given its(yours) past experiances.whether you think this is freewill is ultimately upto you.
quotation-"His conclusion was that doing this forces one to choose between a paradoxical conclusion and an insoluble logical problem, for one is forced to conclude that letter boxes, indeed all physical phenomena, have no essence underlying their external attributes, for essence can not possibly have attributes if ex hypothesis you have taken them all away. In this case, and in some very real way, the universe does not exist and is merely an illusion. There is nothing at the heart of everything"

very very very very very vague logic with an equally vague and meaningless conclusion.i have nothing against philosophy but i HAVE COMPLETELY LOST THE PLOT HERE.

 

[Rader]

"The Why of it all"

It is my assumption, and it is a great big one, that the very reason why we attempt to answer and do answer questions, is to find the cause of it all. What sense does it make to try and answer questions, with no reason for them being placed, for us to find.

 

[Moonbear]

This is not the case unfortunately. Metaphysical questions are unanswerable by science in principle. Such questions are defined as being beyond science, which is why there is such a thing a 'metaphysics' in the first place.

You can define the term metaphysics any way you want. The challenge is to demonstrate that the questions you are assigning into that categorical definition actually belong there. You're imposing the limitations of our current knowledge of the physical world upon predictions of what limitations will exist in the future. This talk of "essences" actually sounds more like you're imposing the limitations of centuries ago, when the 4 elements were defined as earth, wind, fire and water and our bodies were made up of essences.

Quite right. I was just noting that what you said may not be true.

But it was true. The only truth I claimed in my original statement was that it was my opinion. Do you intend to suggest I do not know my own opinion?

Strange as it may seem scientists who think about philosophy conclude the science cannot explain everything. Consider this, if everything observable has a scientific explanation then where does the explanation start and end? It cannot be with a physical sunstance because then that substance would need explaining and so on ad infinitum. This is why science cannot go all the way back to t=0 or explain what matter's made of etc.

Actually, scientists who think about philosophy conclude that philosophers either 1) ask imprecise questions, or 2) don't know enough about science to support their arguments, or 3) start every argument with a set of assumptions that may or may not be true, which are selected only for the convenience of making their argument possible.

Where does the explanation start and end? I don't know yet, we haven't gotten there. It doesn't mean there won't be a discovery that provides the key to explaining everything. You say that science cannot explain what matter is made of. The problem in asking what matter is made of is that the definition of matter is very broad, so the question really is too imprecise. Perhaps you're more interested in what makes up a neutrino? What gives them their properties? Centuries ago, even the idea of discovering the atom was unfathomable. To suggest that seemingly solid and unmoving objects are made up of lots of smaller, constantly moving components probably would have gotten someone burned at the stake for heresy. For a very long time, science seemed content that the atom was the smallest physical structure, the most basic component of all matter. Then electrons, protons and neutrons were discovered. Now even smaller components have been discovered, such as neutrinos. Indeed, how can you predict that someone in a lab somewhere won't have a mishap and accidentally discover a way for new matter to arise de novo. I would avoid the terms something and nothing because they are incredibly imprecise and may be misleading. Afterall, they have been defined according to one another. Nothing is the absence of something. However, in the process of discovery, "nothing" may very well be found to be something.

 

[Canute]

why there is something rather than nothing?
define the terms something and nothing.
what is 'essence'? i have never heard of the term before. please elaborate.
what 'caused' or 'preceeded' the Big Bang, ?
perhaps big bang was created when an eleven dimensional brane interacted with another of its kind. maybe the question is meaningless as time can only be defined in the context of the big bang.quite possible as it seems time maybe only an approximation of some time independant quantum effects on the Planck scale, just as notions of space are. these answeres maybe wrong.but that does not mean the question can never be answered by science in future.

These are not scientific questions. Questions of ultimate orgins and the nature of essence are metaphysical questions (according to scientists).

... that such an answer to "what matter is" have not yet been totally elucidated does not mean it cannot be answered in future. it is a valid SCIENTIFIC QUESTION REQUIRING A VALID SCIENTIFIC ANSWER.

'What is matter' is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one. This isn't my opinion, it follows from the unfalsifiablity of idealism and the undecidability of the problem of attributes.

whether freewill exists? you shall have do define what do you mean by free will.

Science declares that freewill is an illusion. In fact there is no scientific evidence either way. It's a metaphysical question, defined as such by science (not by me). Similarly with materialism for instance, which is another metaphysical theory untestable by science.

quotation-"His conclusion was that doing this forces one to choose between a paradoxical conclusion and an insoluble logical problem, for one is forced to conclude that letter boxes, indeed all physical phenomena, have no essence underlying their external attributes, for essence can not possibly have attributes if ex hypothesis you have taken them all away. In this case, and in some very real way, the universe does not exist and is merely an illusion. There is nothing at the heart of everything"

very very very very very vague logic with an equally vague and meaningless conclusion.i have nothing against philosophy but i HAVE COMPLETELY LOST THE PLOT HERE.

It's worth reading the book, McGinn is one of the clearest writers around on these topics.

 

[Canute]

You can define the term metaphysics any way you want.

I disagree, only confusion would result. The normal definition makes it the study of what lies beyond or after science, usually including the nature of reality, being and knowing.

The challenge is to demonstrate that the questions you are assigning into that categorical definition actually belong there. You're imposing the limitations of our current knowledge of the physical world upon predictions of what limitations will exist in the future. This talk of "essences" actually sounds more like you're imposing the limitations of centuries ago, when the 4 elements were defined as earth, wind, fire and water and our bodies were made up of essences.

I'm not imposing anything, honest. The question of essence is a metaphysical question and it always will be. I couldn't alter this fact if I wanted to.

But it was true. The only truth I claimed in my original statement was that it was my opinion. Do you intend to suggest I do not know my own opinion?

But is it your own opinion, or is it true? Here you say it's both.

Actually, scientists who think about philosophy conclude that philosophers either 1) ask imprecise questions, or 2) don't know enough about science to support their arguments, or 3) start every argument with a set of assumptions that may or may not be true, which are selected only for the convenience of making their argument possible.

Scientists who do not think about philosophy think this. Philsophy is not some optional discipline that can be avoided. It isn't possible to do science without philosophising, or vice versa.

Where does the explanation start and end? I don't know yet, we haven't gotten there. It doesn't mean there won't be a discovery that provides the key to explaining everything. You say that science cannot explain what matter is made of. The problem in asking what matter is made of is that the definition of matter is very broad, so the question really is too imprecise.

I don't see why. Also, I thought you were saying that it could be answered.

Perhaps you're more interested in what makes up a neutrino? What gives them their properties? Centuries ago, even the idea of discovering the atom was unfathomable. To suggest that seemingly solid and unmoving objects are made up of lots of smaller, constantly moving components probably would have gotten someone burned at the stake for heresy.

I think it was obvious from the start, certainly from the Greeks onwards.

For a very long time, science seemed content that the atom was the smallest physical structure, the most basic component of all matter. Then electrons, protons and neutrons were discovered. Now even smaller components have been discovered, such as neutrinos. Indeed, how can you predict that someone in a lab somewhere won't have a mishap and accidentally discover a way for new matter to arise de novo.

Atoms, neutrinos, quarks, superstrings, vibrating branes in 28 dimensions, it's turtles all the way, as Terry Pratchett would say, either that or ex nihilo creation. If you try to explain matter by reduction then you get an infinite regression and no end to the explanation. This is the problem.

 

[deda]

God is nothing.
I mean nothing as if it was a thing.
Every thing comes from nothing and returns to nothing.
Nothing is all together.

God is all; All is nothing; Nothing is God!

Nothing got nothing to change, because and therefore, nothing is constant!

 

[sage]

canute said
"Atoms, neutrinos, quarks, superstrings, vibrating branes in 28
dimensions, it's turtles all the way, as Terry Pratchett would say,
either that or ex nihilo creation. If you try to explain matter by
reduction then you get an infinite regression and no end to the
explanation. This is the problem."

the turtles end at Planck length.it has to for obvious reasons. what is happening at plack length is the central problem of physics and there are various theories competing with each other offering different views of Planck scale phenomenon. future will tell us which of them will succeed. but that is not the point. the point is thesequestions are scientific questions and not metaphysical ones(in fact there are no metaphysical questions).

canute said
"
These are not scientific questions. Questions of ultimate orgins and
the nature of essence are metaphysical questions (according to
scientists). "


once again what is essence? why are the questions metaphysical? what is
wrong with the explanation i have given, are those exlanations not scientific?
which theory says that science cannot answer them? i do not care if some
scientists believe that the questions are metaphysical,what i care about is
whether science has justified such a belief.there is a difference between
scientists and science the former being a human being all of whose opinions
cannot have basis in proofs or observations and hence cannot be scientific.
so canute you must justify your assertion before i accept it.

canute said
"What is matter' is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one.
This isn't my opinion, it follows from the unfalsifiablity of
idealism and the undecidability of the problem of attributes"

a bit more elaboration will be welcome.

canute said
"In fact there is no
scientific evidence either way. It's a metaphysical question,
defined as such by science (not by me)."

i am going to dispute your claim vehemently. having read 2-3 scientific
books on free will, consciousness etc. i am not prepared to accept your claim
that science has declared free will as beyond its bound.knowing nothing what
so ever about materialism i am going to pass this on to anyone more knowledgeable
about this.

regarding macginn, i will try to find the book. a brief note on what you
have understood from it will be welcome in the meantime.

 

[Canute]

canute said ...snip

the turtles end at Planck length.it has to for obvious reasons.

What do you mean by obvious reasons?

what is happening at plack length is the central problem of physics

A fact that I take to slightly support my suggestion that science has to turn to metaphysics at some point in explaining matter.

and there are various theories competing with each other offering different views of Planck scale phenomenon. future will tell us which of them will succeed. but that is not the point. the point is thesequestions are scientific questions and not metaphysical ones(in fact there are no metaphysical questions).

I think you'll find it's not easy to imagine a complete scientific explanation of matter. As soon as you say that it's made out of 'x' you can ask what 'x' is made out of.

I sort of agree about metaphysical questions but not completely. It seems clear that such questions have incorrect assumptions built into them, as a logical positivist would argue, and that this is why thay are unanswerable. However the question then becomes one of which of these assumptions are false, which amounts to an equivalent metaphysical question.

For instance the question of idealism/materialism is undecidable. The question is not obviously meaningless so it must therefore embody a false assumption. But where is it?

once again what is essence? why are the questions metaphysical? what is wrong with the explanation i have given, are those exlanations not scientific?

Essence is what things are made out of, the 'ultimate substrate' of everything. It is beyond scientific investigation and thus is deemed a 'metaphysical substance'. Kant called it the 'noumenal', the 'thing in itself', others call it the 'absolute' or 'ultimate reality' etc. Plato said it was what lay outside his allegorical cave.

which theory says that science cannot answer them?

There's no theory, it is simply entailed by the (modern) definition of science that metaphysics exists, and that metaphysical questions are unanswerable by science.

i do not care if some scientists believe that the questions are metaphysical,what i care about is whether science has justified such a belief.there is a difference between scientists and science the former being a human being all of whose opinions cannot have basis in proofs or observations and hence cannot be scientific. so canute you must justify your assertion before i accept it.

I'm only agreeing with nearly everyone else. Perhaps 'Objectivists' deny the existence of metaphysics, but I'm not sure even they do.

canute said
"What is matter' is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one.
This isn't my opinion, it follows from the unfalsifiablity of
idealism and the undecidability of the problem of attributes"

a bit more elaboration will be welcome.

You'd be better reading a decent general book on philosophy, but in a nutshell - if idealism is unfalsifiable then we cannot prove that matter is fundamental. We therefore cannot complete any scientific 'ontological' explanation of it. The problem of attributes is slightly different. It entails that whatever matter is made of, in the final reductionist analysis, it must be something with no external attributes. Such a substance is clearly beyond scientific investigation. Both problems are the really the same. (This relates to the scientific 'problem of consciousness' and the 'hard problem', but I won't go there).

i am going to dispute your claim vehemently. having read 2-3 scientific books on free will, consciousness etc. i am not prepared to accept your claim that science has declared free will as beyond its bound.knowing nothing what so ever about materialism i am going to pass this on to anyone more knowledgeable about this.

Science hasn't declared it beyond science, and I don't suppose it ever will. However there are logical reasons for supposing it is. Some of them are here:

http://jamaica.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/papers/montreal.html

regarding macginn, i will try to find the book. a brief note on what you have understood from it will be welcome in the meantime.

It's really an autobiography focsusing on his intellectual development, so does not go into anything deeply. However its simplicity is what makes it worth reading. Some writers have the knack of simplifying (unlike yours truly).

 

[Kerrie]

i think this thread has gone long enough, it doesn't seem that we are defining "god" in a philosophical manner too much.