Added: 3 years ago
From: DrixDZanth
Views: 823
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (12)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • The theory of quantum mechanics says no such things. That is one _interpetation_ of what the theory _means_ to us in an phenomenolgical, experiential way. I am reminded of the time Schrodinger was asked what his famous equation meant about life or the world or whatever, and he replied “It's just an equation."

  • I'm trying to comment again. I hope it posts this time. The YouTube gods have not been on my side lately. (Note to self: sacrifice more goats.) I wouldn't say that it's my conclusion that what believers call "God" is any less real because the god concept lacks cognitive content. Rather, because the god concept lacks cognitive content, we can't reach the realness question (i.e., the existential question "Does any god exist?"). It's certainly possible...

  • ...-- though, it seems extremely unlikely -- that a god or gods exist (that "God" is real), but we don't and, it seems, *cannot* know what it is.

    I'm no expert in things like quantum mechanics or any aspect of science, but as I chat with academic colleagues in the sciences about the sorts of issues you raise, it seems to me that they approach them from the perspective that, e.g., understanding the moment "before" the Big Bang is, at least in principle, knowable -- or at least something...

  • ...can be known about it. Coherency is the goal here, not comprehensiveness. Some believers accuse me of demanding a comprehensive account of what they call God. But what I'm after in fact is a positive, coherent account.

    Does that answer or at least get at your question? If not, let me know.

  • Logic is not the basis of metaphysics, and can not be.

    We can only know reality through experiences. Metaphysics is speculation, although it is necessary speculation.

  • Agreed. However, I'm not so sure how this addresses the point of my response.

    I'll reiterate: because seemingly irrational events/things can still be real, how does the conclusion that believer's agnosticism (due to the irrationality of a concept of God) render "God" less real?

  • "I'll reiterate: because seemingly irrational events/things can still be real, how does the conclusion that believer's agnosticism (due to the irrationality of a concept of God) render "God" less real?"

    Rationality is no test for reality. We are not gauranteed that everything real is rational. God can be known through experiences. People how have those kinds of experiences are not agnostics...

  • "Rationality is no test for reality. We are not gauranteed that everything real is rational. " --True, but to communicate reason to beleive in anything would require rationality; otherwise, whatever one presents as a persuasive argument must be of an irrational form.

    To be concised, If reason and rationality isn't employed as a mean to argue then what's the point?

  • What is so special about someone say they have a reason? And, I don't see why you use the word rationality. It is used in the psychological sense to mean that someone who is rational can solve rational problems like the arithmetic that they know. Irrationality is a mental impairment. In mathematics most real numbers are irrational, transcendental irrational numbers.

    Do you mean that only mathematical arguments have a point? Or are you worried that people present arguments while intoxicated?

  • @DrixDZanth Because quantum physics has been able to experimentally demonstrate the implications of its counterintuitive claims to be real and only be explicable by its theories, while theism has done no such thing.

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more