a non-physical thing

swarm

Registered Senior Member
atheists are always asking for physical evidence of a non-physical thing.

I think this is a key point which causes a lot of difficulty where it need not if we can come to a simple and reasonable acceptance of the normal meaning of the words used.

Non physical things have no physical evidence and therefor cannot be said to exist.

The nature of an existent thing qua thing is that it has physical extension and therefor there is physical evidence of its existence. No physical evidence = no physical existence. So gos is not a thing in and of itself.

Now we generally admit a secondary form of existence, that of identifiable patterns or distinct organizations of things. For example, the pattern we call the Mona Lisa is recognizable as a distinct entity independent of the substrate which forms the pattern, be it paint or elections or ink.

In this case the concepts of god, while vague and varied from group to group, are distinguishable as a particular set of concepts. I don't think an atheist would take exception to god existing as a concept which finds instances in the various believers and writings.

Now the actual point of contention is whether or not this concept of god has any extension outside the beliefs of those who form it.

When a believer says there god is "real" that is the essence of the claim they are making. They are saying that in spite of not having any actual physical extension or existence, their god has some extraordinary existence outside their concept of it.

It is hardly a remarkable request on the part of the atheist to be shown proof of this existence more substantial that "I just believe" or "its in my book of Jewish myths."

Mere concepts are a dime a dozen and human history is littered with myths of gods which turned out just to be stories. If you want to convince a rational person or lay claim to being rational yourself, you need proof that your concept of god points to an actual god.

Anything less is a waste of time no matter how you feel or believe.
 
Mere concepts are a dime a dozen and human history is littered with myths of gods which turned out just to be stories. If you want to convince a rational person or lay claim to being rational yourself, you need proof that your concept of god points to an actual god.


There were societies that worshiped the Sun, frogs, idols, volcanoes and many other physical things which can be "seen". Does that make them any more necessary to humanity?
 
I think this is a key point which causes a lot of difficulty where it need not if we can come to a simple and reasonable acceptance of the normal meaning of the words used.

Non physical things have no physical evidence and therefor cannot be said to exist.
assuming that "physical" things (as you put it) are the only elements of "reality" (aka - wear your "I luv empiricism" t-shirt please)
The nature of an existent thing qua thing is that it has physical extension and therefor there is physical evidence of its existence. No physical evidence = no physical existence. So gos is not a thing in and of itself.
yet empiricism is only capable of tacit definitions for some funny reason

:scratchin:
Now we generally admit a secondary form of existence, that of identifiable patterns or distinct organizations of things. For example, the pattern we call the Mona Lisa is recognizable as a distinct entity independent of the substrate which forms the pattern, be it paint or elections or ink.

In this case the concepts of god, while vague and varied from group to group, are distinguishable as a particular set of concepts. I don't think an atheist would take exception to god existing as a concept which finds instances in the various believers and writings.
the next question is the relationship between god and the "reality of god"

... much like there is a relationship between the mona lisa and a "real" woman
Now the actual point of contention is whether or not this concept of god has any extension outside the beliefs of those who form it.
precisely

When a believer says there god is "real" that is the essence of the claim they are making. They are saying that in spite of not having any actual physical extension or existence, their god has some extraordinary existence outside their concept of it.
or alternatively, when an atheist says "in spite of not having any actual physical extension or existence" that is the essence of the claim they are making
It is hardly a remarkable request on the part of the atheist to be shown proof of this existence more substantial that "I just believe" or "its in my book of Jewish myths."
It becomes remarkable when they falter at the position of applying themselves.

IOW the epistemological paradox of atheism is "I demand to know but I don't want to apply myself".
There is no epistemological model that works like that ....
Mere concepts are a dime a dozen and human history is littered with myths of gods which turned out just to be stories.
similarly there are many misconstrued ideas of science too .... they are not however called upon to determine the validity of the discipline however.

If you want to convince a rational person or lay claim to being rational yourself, you need proof that your concept of god points to an actual god.
If a person balks at the point of application yet still insists on the demand, they are not rational
:shrug:

Anything less is a waste of time no matter how you feel or believe.
On the contrary, anything less than abiding by the model of how any "knowable" claim is determined as thus is a waste of time.

(aka highschool drop out vs physicist on the topic of an electron)
 
“ Originally Posted by Lori_7
atheists are always asking for physical evidence of a non-physical thing. ”


I never asked for physical evidence of a non-physical thing.
I simply ask for evidence.
It's a strawman anyway. If you have evidence, show it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think this is a key point which causes a lot of difficulty where it need not if we can come to a simple and reasonable acceptance of the normal meaning of the words used.

Non physical things have no physical evidence and therefor cannot be said to exist.

The nature of an existent thing qua thing is that it has physical extension and therefor there is physical evidence of its existence. No physical evidence = no physical existence. So gos is not a thing in and of itself.

Now we generally admit a secondary form of existence, that of identifiable patterns or distinct organizations of things. For example, the pattern we call the Mona Lisa is recognizable as a distinct entity independent of the substrate which forms the pattern, be it paint or elections or ink.

In this case the concepts of god, while vague and varied from group to group, are distinguishable as a particular set of concepts. I don't think an atheist would take exception to god existing as a concept which finds instances in the various believers and writings.

Now the actual point of contention is whether or not this concept of god has any extension outside the beliefs of those who form it.

When a believer says there god is "real" that is the essence of the claim they are making. They are saying that in spite of not having any actual physical extension or existence, their god has some extraordinary existence outside their concept of it.

It is hardly a remarkable request on the part of the atheist to be shown proof of this existence more substantial that "I just believe" or "its in my book of Jewish myths."

Mere concepts are a dime a dozen and human history is littered with myths of gods which turned out just to be stories. If you want to convince a rational person or lay claim to being rational yourself, you need proof that your concept of god points to an actual god.

Anything less is a waste of time no matter how you feel or believe.

First of all this post about made me cry.

Secondly I think that this is a personal matter. And that its more than I understand. But I know that it is each of our responsibiity to enlighten ourselves and that ability resides in our intentions.
 
Secondly I think that this is a personal matter.

Think that all you'd like, but you'll still be wrong. swarm is completely correct.
The ontological status of a non-physical thing is formally decidable.
Yes, regardless of what one likes to think.
 
There were societies that worshiped the Sun, frogs, idols, volcanoes and many other physical things which can be "seen". Does that make them any more necessary to humanity?

I can think of few things more necessary to humanity than the sun, but I'm not sure I'm getting what your question is.

Are you suggesting that if there is a physical object involved and that object is worshipped as a god, that then the object is a god?

I would say that time and time again, the "god" parts of the object have proven to be fanciful and the sun-god is found just to be a sun. This is most easily seen in idols and other "sacred" objects which turn out just to be objects.
 
assuming that "physical" things (as you put it) are the only elements of "reality"

All you have to do is stop being a snide jerk for one moment and produce one of these non physical objects you intimate you have access to instead of the copious excuses you seem to specialize in.

But as you well know, you have nothing.
 
Non physical things have no physical evidence and therefor cannot be said to exist.

How do you define non-physical? I believe the smallest indivisible part of us is not physical. I also believe the essence of consciousness is not physical.
 
First of all this post about made me cry.

I know. A really good post always kind of chokes me up too.

Secondly I think that this is a personal matter. And that its more than I understand. But I know that it is each of our responsibiity to enlighten ourselves and that ability resides in our intentions.

It stops being personal as soon as you start to make claims about it to another.

Luckily enlightenment is something which requires no gods.
 
How do you define non-physical? I believe the smallest indivisible part of us is not physical. I also believe the essence of consciousness is not physical.

That's why you're wrong, you see. Well, you don't see. Oh well
 
How do you define non-physical?

Not matter, energy, space or time.


I believe the smallest indivisible part of us is not physical. I also believe the essence of consciousness is not physical.

You also believe in invisible sky friends...so what? I've already granted you all the personal concepts you care to believe in, as concepts. Believe to your heart's content in fairies, unicorns, genies, dijin, wishes, prayers, miricles, what have you.

All I ask is you produce the something actual if you claim those concepts reference something actual. Show me the real god if you say your god is real.

But we both know you can't. If your god was real most the imans, priests and rabbis on the planet would be fried to a crispy crunch. Don't bother with the standard excuses. You know that as well as I do. There are some truly sick and twisted people drawn to the "power of god."

But if you think you can do so, then do it.
 
I don't think anyone's trying to measure something formless with physical methods. I think what's being asked for is evidence. This could be, subject (a) tells subject (b) how to pray so subject (a) experiences the effects of prayer according to the method given, again and again. conclusive formless evidence, not sporadic subjective experience.
 
I don't think anyone's trying to measure something formless with physical methods. I think what's being asked for is evidence. This could be, subject (a) tells subject (b) how to pray so subject (a) experiences the effects of prayer according to the method given, again and again. conclusive formless evidence, not sporadic subjective experience.

Prayer would be a start at something super natural, but it doesn't give you any gods, per se. Unfortunately despite the oft quoted claim that there was a study giving some evidence for prayer, the study was found to be badly flawed and no study since, and there have been a number, has found prayer to actually do anything.

And they are setting the bar really low at just statistically measurable.

But personally I'm more interested in unequivocal evidence of a deity since that is the claim bandied about.
 
I know. A really good post always kind of chokes me up too.



It stops being personal as soon as you start to make claims about it to another.

Luckily enlightenment is something which requires no gods.

It is a good post, and claims are made here because this is a religious discussion forum. What I would like to know is what specific physical evidence of a spiritual thing would you suggest could be offered, particularly on a discussion forum? The only physical evidence that I have of the spiritual is what its accomplished in me, my life and myself in the physical realm. I do this with testimony here, but every moment of my life is shaped by what I've experienced and what I've learned. So the only physical thing I can offer is myself. I suggest, based on my own knowledge, that if you would like your own evidence in your own self, that you offer yourself as well, and what I'm suggesting and testifying to here is also substantiated in scripture.
 
-=-

Why do you think that shows there is a god???



I don't think anyone's trying to measure something formless with physical methods. I think what's being asked for is evidence. This could be, subject (a) tells subject (b) how to pray so subject (a) experiences the effects of prayer according to the method given, again and again. conclusive formless evidence, not sporadic subjective experience.



IF 1 tried that & it worked, it wouldn't prove gods exist.
 
“ Originally Posted by Lori_7
atheists are always asking for physical evidence of a non-physical thing. ”


I never asked for physical evidence of a non-physical thing.
I simply ask for evidence.
It's a strawman anyway. If you have evidence, show it.

I do show it. You just can't posess it, or recognize it, or even understand it because it is not your own.
 
Have our senses evolved to notice non physical things? There doesn't seem to be a reason for that to have happened so I'm thinking no. If there are non physical things then we have no way to detect them. This could open a door for theists' god to exist as non physical but at the same time it closes any avenue open to us to sense it.
 
Back
Top