Ignosticism

[romansh]

6 minutes ago, thormas said:

Any sources for him or is it just the basic google? 

Wiki and https://www.theguardian.com/news/2007/sep/18/guardianobituaries.religion

7 minutes ago, thormas said:

Are you saying that Spong defines God in himself?

No

9 minutes ago, thormas said:

This has always been the case and my understanding for decades.

And I thought it was about Sherwin Wine. My bad.

[thormas]

4 minutes ago, romansh said:

Wiki and https://www.theguardian.com/news/2007/sep/18/guardianobituaries.religion

Thanks, will read and I like his first line.

4 minutes ago, romansh said:

And I thought it was about Sherwin Wine. My bad.

The understanding of the difference between God in Himself and God in human experience even predates Sherwin

[romansh]

Can we vaguely stick to the topic … the existence of god and whether we can define god to discuss this meaningfully?

It would appear you have not experienced god, so there seems we cannot have a meaningful discussion there either.

[thormas]

13 minutes ago, romansh said:

Can we vaguely stick to the topic … the existence of god and whether we can define god to discuss this meaningfully?

It would appear you have not experienced god, so there seems we cannot have a meaningful discussion there either.

I'm on topic: we cannot define God but it does not follow that on cannot assert that God is. We can say things about God such as God is the ontological necessity that anything is but that too is a faith statement albeit with some logic.

And my experience or non-experience of that which can't be defined matches yours it seems, correct?

 

[romansh]

5 minutes ago, thormas said:

I'm on topic: we cannot define God but it does not follow that on cannot assert that God is. We can say things about God such as God is the ontological necessity that anything is but that too is a faith statement albeit with some logic.

Err ...  no its a bout meaningful discourse. Merely asserting things is not discourse. You are starting to define god as an ontological necessity here. Here we can meaningfully start to discuss. 

5 minutes ago, thormas said:

And my experience or non-experience of that which can't be defined matches yours it seems, correct?

I don't think I have … but for all I know I could be experiencing God now. We have not defined god or its properties.

Edited March 8, 2020 by romansh

[thormas]

2 hours ago, romansh said:

Err ...  no its a bout meaningful discourse. Merely asserting things is not discourse. You are starting to define god as an ontological necessity here. Here we can meaningfully start to discuss. 

I don't think I have … but for all I know I could be experiencing God now. We have not defined god or its properties.

I have to read what the rabbi has to say. Not sure I agree but will read him and then circle back. 

[thormas]

On 3/8/2020 at 4:45 PM, romansh said:

.......... the existence of god and whether we can define god to discuss this meaningfully?

I read the one piece on Wine and he reminds me a bit of Jewish Gretta Vosper who is a Christian Atheist Pastor in Canada (I believe). 

I do agree with Wine that "no one could prove whether God truly existed" and I do agree with his valuing humanitarianism.

I'll just add some lines from John Macquarie, 'In Search of Deity' regarding the idea of first forming a concept of God and then providing evidence to determine if there is such a reality: "this is much too naive a suggestion. It might be the right way of settling the question about the existence of some object within the world (universe)" and he uses the example of a unicorn then adds. "But the case of God is clearly very different. Even to speak of the 'existence' of God can be very misleading, for if he can be said to 'exist' at all, the mode of existence is quite different from that of any finite being. To say that unicorns exist means that they can be found within the world............but God, by definition, is not an item within the world, so he does not exist in that sense." Interestingly he adds that the world too does not exist in this sense either for the world is not an item discoverable in the world. He adds, "It is an a priori idea implicit in our recognition of any object. In fact the logic of the concept of 'God' and 'world'  is very similar. Both are inclusive concepts for quite unique realities." 

Of course this could suggest a pantheism but that is a topic for later.

Finally, Macquarie says, "...... we cannot ask whether there exists an entity corresponding to the concept (of God)" rather the method is "the concept of God in an interpretative concept, meant to give us a way of understanding and relating to reality as a whole." He goes on to add that in addition to theism the other possible opposing interpretation is atheism but there are others in between (these two), they can be compared however even though "we will not likely get beyond probability, we ought to be able to judge which interpretation is most coherent and best accords with experience."

Macquarie ends up with panentheism but that too is for another day.

 

 

Edited March 10, 2020 by thormas

[Elen1107]

14 minutes ago, thormas said:

I'll just add some lines from John Macquarie, 'In Search of Deity' regarding the idea of first forming a concept of God and then providing evidence to determine if there is such a reality: "this is much too naive a suggestion. It might be the right way of settling the question about the existence of some object within the world (universe)" and he uses the example of a unicorn then adds. "But the case of God is clearly very different. Even to speak of the 'existence' of God can be very misleading, for if he can be said to 'exist' at all, the mode of existence is quite different from that of any finite being. To say that unicorns exist means that they can be found within the world............but God, by definition, is not an item within the world, so he does not exist in that sense." Interestingly he adds that the world too does not exist in this sense either for the world is not an item discoverable in the world. He adds, "It is an a priori idea implicit in our recognition of any object. In fact the logic of the concept of 'God' and 'world'  is very similar. Both are inclusive concepts for quite unique realities." 

There is a difference in the way we think of God and the way we think of unicorns. A unicorn is based on a combination of  things that we know and see in the physical world, a horse, and the horn of a dear and a whale. God is not.

If God is not physical and tactile in the way we understand these things, can the "existence" of God be proved in the way that we generally and perhaps scientifically prove things?

Thanks for reading

[thormas]

50 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

There is a difference in the way we think of God and the way we think of unicorns. A unicorn is based on a combination of  things that we know and see in the physical world, a horse, and the horn of a dear and a whale. God is not.

If God is not physical and tactile in the way we understand these things, can the "existence" of God be proved in the way that we generally and perhaps scientifically prove things?

Seemingly the existence of God cannot be proven or disproved because it is not an item or a thing in the world or the universe. God is the very possibility (and sustaining) of all that is.

[JosephM]

Elen,

I like what Thomas has said above and i would say if you are going to attempt to visualize God it would have to encompass ALL visible and invisible life (energy). While most may say God cannot be proven,  i believe that life is not by chance or accident but by intelligent design. Therefor to me, existence itself is the proof of God. For the things and wonders that are manifest can be plainly seen appearing from that which is unmanifest with God being the potential and sustaining  energy of all in ALL

[Elen1107]

4 hours ago, thormas said:

Seemingly the existence of God cannot be proven or disproved because it is not an item or a thing in the world or the universe. God is the very possibility (and sustaining) of all that is.

 

3 hours ago, JosephM said:

Elen,

I like what Thomas has said above and i would say if you are going to attempt to visualize God it would have to encompass ALL visible and invisible life (energy). While most may say God cannot be proven,  i believe that life is not by chance or accident but by intelligent design. Therefor to me, existence itself is the proof of God. For the things and wonders that are manifest can be plainly seen appearing from that which is unmanifest with God being the potential and sustaining  energy of all in ALL

Ok, here's one for ya;

Scientist are currently talking about something called dark matter and dark energy. I myself might call this invisible matter and invisible energy, cause I don't like the word 'dark', but basically I think that we could be meaning and talking about, about the same thing.

Well, 90-something percent of all energy and matter in the universe seems to be this dark/invisible matter and energy, the larger part of this being energy, (can't remember how much, but the scientists and physicists have gotten this down to pretty precise numbers). 

If 90-something, (it might be like 98% or something like that) of all energy and matter, is something that can only be proven by the math, (I'm thinking that this is the math of quantum physics, which I myself can't do, at least not right yet), is dark or invisible, and this matter and energy is "required", by the math, in ordered for the universe to work, and it can only be proven by the math, and not by any other scientific method.

Could this possibly be saying something about God?

I don't know

Just a thought.

Also, I think that they are saying that 90-something of everything that is inside of us, that is our bodies, is some kind of invisible energy and matter also. If we reduced all the physical and tactile material in our bodies to nothing but just that, it would be about the size of a sugar cube or something similar. Google these things, cause I'm really not sure about the numbers

 

Added edit > Also what they say about this stuff, is that it holds the universe together and that it can create what we call matter, that is visible or detectable matter.

Edited March 10, 2020 by Elen1107
added info

[JosephM]

I have found Quantum theory can be most interesting, the few times i have read about it  but reading it hurts my brain too much. 🙂🙂

I certainly don't know the answer to the question you posed except to say it seems so . I only know of my own personal experiences which doesn't include the words Quantum Physics or Theory nor the math of energy. I'm just not scientifically minded  but Kudos to those who are.

[Elen1107]

"The more we know, the more we know we don't know" 🙂 

(when I said I couldn't do quantum physics math right yet, I was joking. It would surprise me as much as anyone if I could ever do it).

Edited March 10, 2020 by Elen1107
to add two more sentences

[thormas]

2 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

If 90-something, (it might be like 98% or something like that) of all energy and matter, is something that can only be proven by the math, (I'm thinking that this is the math of quantum physics, which I myself can't do, at least not right yet), is dark or invisible, and this matter and energy is "required", by the math, in ordered for the universe to work, and it can only be proven by the math, and not by any other scientific method. Could this possibly be saying something about God?

 

To me, both dark matter and dark energy are still items, or things or realities in and of the universe, whereas God is the very possibility of all matter, all energy, of the universe, of all.

[thormas]

8 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

If God is not physical and tactile in the way we understand these things, can the "existence" of God be proved in the way that we generally and perhaps scientifically prove things?

No, a thing or an object can be proved to exist but God is the possibility of all (objects and things) existing and being sustained in existence.

[romansh]

2 hours ago, thormas said:

No, a thing or an object can be proved to exist ...

Only if you can prove solipsism is false,

Good luck with that.

I am travelling at the moment ... back at the weekend.

[Elen1107]

7 hours ago, thormas said:

To me, both dark matter and dark energy are still items, or things or realities in and of the universe, whereas God is the very possibility of all matter, all energy, of the universe, of all.

Good points

7 hours ago, thormas said:

No, a thing or an object can be proved to exist but God is the possibility of all (objects and things) existing and being sustained in existence.

Again, good and interesting points

[thormas]

10 hours ago, romansh said:

Only if you can prove solipsism is false,

Good luck with that.

I am travelling at the moment ... back at the weekend.

I'll leave that to you as I'm working on God - so I have bigger issues on my plate.

I hope you did see that I read the Rabbi and even provided another source.

 

 

[romansh]

12 hours ago, thormas said:

I'll leave that to you as I'm working on God - so I have bigger issues on my plate.

This I find fairly typical  ... a claim is made, an aspect that makes the claim difficult to substantiate is pointed out, and then some glib remark is made. It would appear there is  sincerity missing in this discussion. Good luck with your plate.

12 hours ago, thormas said:

I hope you did see that I read the Rabbi and even provided another source.

I had not but i looked at just now.

John Macquarie seems to think the scientific process when applied to reality is naive. Oh well. 

I must admit I find his line of thought incredibly dishonest.

[thormas]

44 minutes ago, romansh said:

This I find fairly typical  ... a claim is made, an aspect that makes the claim difficult to substantiate is pointed out, and then some glib remark is made. It would appear there is  sincerity missing in this discussion. Good luck with your plate.

I had not but i looked at just now.

John Macquarie seems to think the scientific process when applied to reality is naive. Oh well. 

I must admit I find his line of thought incredibly dishonest.

Rom,

Good one as I find your response fairly rom-typical. Actually you came up with the Wine and I said I'd read him and I did. Plus I have done some reading because I thought (and was right) there was something off or missed with Wine's (and your approach) when applied to God. So, as I said, don't add more, I'm already working on the topic at hand: God. You have a habit of saying "what about this' and then 'what about that' -  then accusing others of avoiding your new idea or topic. 

As for Macquarie he has done the opposite of your accusation. He understands the scientific process but clearly states it is naive or inadequate when applied, not to 'reality,' but to God. It is inadequate because God is not an item or object 'in or of' the universe. I think perhaps you simply disagree with his 'line of thought' since you have not shown how he is being dishonest or that he is wrong when applying the process to God. 

 

 

[thormas]

44 minutes ago, romansh said:

 

Hey, have you answered my question about you welcoming me and all others on this site or did I miss it again?

[Burl]

3 criteria must be satisfied for something to be validly explored using the scientific method:

1) It must be measurable

2) It must be repeatable

3) It must be observed by an independent observer.

Attempting a scientific observation of god is a fool’s errand.

[Elen1107]

41 minutes ago, Burl said:

3 criteria must be satisfied for something to be validly explored using the scientific method:

1) It must be measurable

2) It must be repeatable

3) It must be observed by an independent observer.

Attempting a scientific observation of god is a fool’s errand.

You may be right, but how have these three criteria not been met?

1) It certainly had been measurable

2) The measurements have been repeated, and many times

3) It certainly has been observed by independent observes. These scientists are as independent and diverse as they come, especially in their theological & non-theological beliefs, if not their scientific and mathematical approaches.

Edited March 12, 2020 by Elen1107
removed 1 word - 2nd edit> added "& non-theological"

[thormas]

39 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

You may be right, but how have these three criteria not been met?

1) It certainly had been measurable

2) The measurements have been repeated, and many times

3) It certainly has been observed by independent observes. These scientists are as independent and diverse as they come, especially in their theological & non-theological beliefs, if not their scientific and mathematical approaches.

If we're talking about the conversation Rom and I are having:

How is God measured, what possible measurement of God are there and what independent (of God?) observer has observed God in himself?

[Burl]

12 minutes ago, thormas said:

If we're talking about the conversation Rom and I are having:

How is God measured, what possible measurement of God are there and what independent (of God?) observer has observed God in himself?

Yes.  Same conversation.  Plus it must have the same result every time.  Repeatability.