Why do many Americans believe in God?

[Beer w/Straw]

I can do no more than assure you that I do know my own arguments. I am also aware of what the term is considered synonymous with, and depending upon the subject of discussion I would possibly use one of the others. But since the discussion here seems to be one regarding the nature of being (specifically of God), and with the issue of natural vs supernatural, I went with "metaphysical naturalism". It seemed to be more apt.
Do you have issue with the position taken, other than your dislike of the specific term I used?

Semantics? If you mean that your issue is simply about the choice of words I used rather than the meaning then yes, I'd agree, but then semantics is about the meaning of words. You yourself note the synonymity of the terms, so then how can you say it is just a matter of semantics?

And why do you consider the term to be equivocal, given that you seem to know exactly what it refers to? Do you consider "scientific materialism" to be similarly ambiguous a term?

To me, the word metaphysics is synonymous with bullshit. I admit to not thoroughly reading all the muck in this thread. Hence, I may have lumped you with some others. I don't think any form of logical argument is effective against neurosis.

 

[Yazata]

...

Metaphysical naturalist... cannot be a natural one due to the nature of nature itself; do you guys even understand - as in able to express - your own arguments

Sarkus is referring to the technical distinction between metaphysical and methodological naturalism.

Metaphysical naturalism is the belief that everything that exists is 'natural' and belongs to the world of 'nature'. In this view the only kinds of entities that exist are those acknowledged by the natural sciences. This view is called ontological or metaphysical naturalism because it is expressing opinions on what kind of things do and don't ultimately exist.

Methodological naturalism is most often applied to the natural sciences and holds that when science has a question about the natural world, it should seek the answer through natural means, empirically, by observing, experimenting and by causally interacting with the world around us. This methodological prescription is usually justified simply from how the 'natural sciences' are defined. It rules out science using things like religious scriptures or mystical revelations as sources of scientific information. This is a view about scientific practice, about how scientists should conduct their inquiries, as opposed to trying to rule on what the boundaries of existence are.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I might add that I'm not giving this thread my full attention as I'm watching the adjacent TV at the same time playing youtube.

Didn't believe this thread was worth my full attention.

:EDIT:

Oh, it was 19 videos about anonymous operations streaming on the TV lol

 

[Sarkus]

To me, the word metaphysics is synonymous with bullshit.

Then I think you misunderstand what metaphysics actually means, and do it a gross disservice in doing so.

I admit to not thoroughly reading all the muck in this thread.

Your misunderstanding has nothing to do, it seems, with the content of this thread, muck or otherwise; you simply don't seem to understand the term as used.
To quote wiki, as a reasonable explanation:
"The metaphysicist attempts to clarify the fundamental notions by which people understand the world, e.g. existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and probability. A central branch of metaphysics is ontology.... Another central branch of metaphysics is cosmology, the study of the origin, fundamental structure, nature, and dynamics of the universe. Some include epistemology as another central focus... but others question this."

Yes, "bullshit" indeed.

What the metaphysicist comes up with by way of explanation, however... that's where the fun starts.

Hence, I may have lumped you with some others. I don't think any form of logical argument is effective against neurosis.

No problem.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Secondly, if everything ceased to be then even the Supreme Cause of ALL Causes surely disappears as well. You have nothing left. Zip. Nada. Nout. One less than one, the square-root of naff-all, etc.

If God's nature was the same as His effect, you would be correct. But that isn't the case.
His nature lies at the heart of our reason to believe or not believe.

To claim otherwise would seem either be a case of special pleading - and I'm sure you wouldn't want to be criticised of that - or in the odd position that you're claiming God doesn't actually exist in the first place... because that is the only other way your claim would seem to hold true: If God is nothing (doesn't exist) then once all that exists ceases to be, all you have left is nothing... I.e. God.

I don't believe in God as a material being, and I don't know anyone that does. Unless they fashion their own version of what God is.
The God that many American's believe in, is a pure, Supreme, Absolute, Spiritual being.
So if we are to answer the OP questions, that must be a given.

But then if God is also defined as the Supreme Cause of ALL Causes then you're also claiming that, since everything sprang from God, everything did indeed come from nothing.

Something comes from nothing is supernatural concept. God could be nothing, but that would be another aspect to His being. Our understanding of nothing, which can only be in relation to something, would be a reflection of His nothingness.

jan.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Then I think you misunderstand what metaphysics actually means, and do it a gross disservice in doing so...

I may be totally wrong, in which case I'll apologize.

Didn't Immanuel Kant reject metaphysics and say to the effect that philosophy/law would do much better to have something like a mathematics, in the same way math is used to judge physical theories?

 

[Sarkus]

If God's nature was the same as His effect, you would be correct. But that isn't the case.
His nature lies at the heart of our reason to believe or not believe.

What does that have to do with what I said? To repeat: if everything ceased to be then even the Supreme Cause of ALL Causes surely disappears as well. You have nothing left. Zip. Nada. Nout. One less than one, the square-root of naff-all, etc.
What does God's nature have to do with the price of eggs if there is no God to have a nature?

I don't believe in God as a material being, and I don't know anyone that does. Unless they fashion their own version of what God is.
The God that many American's believe in, is a pure, Supreme, Absolute, Spiritual being.
So if we are to answer the OP questions, that must be a given.

I mentioned nothing about God being a material being or not, so lease don't raise such a strawman, and again - what does this have to do with what I said?
Do you believe that God exists? If so then to answer your question (?) of what would remain if everything "ceased to be" - God would cease to exist - whether God is material or not, spiritual or not, Supreme or not, Absolute or not.

Something comes from nothing is supernatural concept. God could be nothing, but that would be another aspect to His being.

How can something that is nothing (i.e. does not exist) have an aspect?

Our understanding of nothing, which can only be in relation to something, would be a reflection of His nothingness.

If God exists, as you believe, then God is part and parcel, if not the entirety of, everything. If Everything ceases to be, God ceases to be. Something that isn't can not have any aspects.

You have simply argued yourself into a logical contradiction, Jan, and your efforts to ignore it, to instead raise strawmen, is laughably ridiculous.

 

[Jan Ardena]

What does that have to do with what I said? To repeat: if everything ceased to be then even the Supreme Cause of ALL Causes surely disappears as well. You have nothing left. Zip. Nada. Nout. One less than one, the square-root of naff-all, etc.
What does God's nature have to do with the price of eggs if there is no God to have a nature?
I mentioned nothing about God being a material being or not, so lease don't raise such a strawman, and again - what does this have to do with what I said?
Do you believe that God exists? If so then your question (?) of what would remain if everything "ceased to be" - God would cease to exist - whether God is material or not, spiritual or not, Supreme or not, Absolute or not. If God exists, as you believe, then God is part and parcel, if not the entirety of, everything.
You have simply argued yourself into a logical contradiction, Jan, and your efforts to ignore it, to instead raise strawmen, is laughably ridiculous.

If God is pure spirit, there is no cease to be.

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

If God is pure spirit, there is no cease to be.

Why not? Does pure spirit exist or not? If it does then it is able to "cease to be". If it doesn't exist then end of story anyway.

As said - logical contradiction on your part, Jan. It's a pity you can't see it and you're continuing to argue seemingly just for the sake of it.

 

[C C]

Didn't Immanuel Kant reject metaphysics and say to the effect that philosophy/law would do much better to have something like a mathematics, in the same way math is used to judge physical theories?

You might be thinking more of David Hume, who was an historical influence on later brands of positivism (which rejected metaphysics): "If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: For it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."

And his rejection (in a realist vein) of abstract or metempirical substances / principles like matter and mind for bundles of impressions (qualities) and their phenomenal sequences (amounting to panphenomenalism): "He may, perhaps, perceive something simple and continu’d, which he calls himself; tho’ I am certain there is no such principle in me... But setting aside some metaphysicians of this kind, I may venture to affirm of the rest of mankind, that they are nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movement."

Whereas Kant did hold that the perceived or natural world was regulated by prior in rank principles (a kind of "internal metaphysics" -- which he talked about in later publishings -- which theoretical physics explored, that was consigned to a rehabilitated version of theoretical philosophy). But "metaphysics" sometimes also references affairs of an ultimate reality rather than just first principles in broad contexts. Kant moved the former preoccupation from the division of theoretical / speculative philosophy (wherein "transcendent realm" hypotheses had been treated more seriously in the past as if they could be proved) to practical philosophy, where they were merely justified by arguments rather than the added pretense of being verifiable. The emphasis was placed on moral, rights, will and other human concerns in that practical context, too, rather than continued, futile speculations about the ontological character of Plato's supersensible domain.

"But as will be shown, reason has, in respect of its practical employment, the right to postulate what in the field of mere speculation it can have no kind of right to assume without sufficient proof. For while all such assumptions do violence to [the principle of] completeness of speculation, that is a principle with which the practical interest is not at all concerned. In the practical sphere reason has rights of possession, of which it does not require to offer proof, and of which, in fact, it could not supply proof. The burden of proof accordingly rests upon the opponent. But since the latter knows just as little of the object under question, in trying to prove its non-existence, as does the former in maintaining its reality, it is evident that the former, who is asserting something as a practically necessary supposition, is at an advantage (melior est conditio possidentis). For he is at liberty to employ, as it were in self-defence, on behalf of his own good cause, the very same weapons that his opponent employs against that cause, that is, hypotheses. These are not intended to strengthen the proof of his position, but only to show that the opposing party has much too little understanding of the matter in dispute to allow of his flattering himself that he has the advantage in respect of speculative insight. Hypotheses are therefore, in the domain of pure reason, permissible only as weapons of war, and only for the purpose of defending a right, not in order to establish it. But the opposing party we must always look for in ourselves. For speculative reason in its transcendental employment is in itself dialectical; the objections which we have to fear lie in ourselves. We must seek them out, just as we would do in the case of claims that, while old, have never become superannuated, in order that by annulling them we may establish a permanent peace." --CPR

"Hence the division of philosophy falls properly into two parts, quite distinct in their principles -a theoretical, as philosophy of nature, and a practical, as philosophy of morals (for this is what the practical legislation of reason by the concept of freedom is called)" --Critique of Judgement

 

[Jan Ardena]

Why not? Does pure spirit exist or not? If it does then it is able to "cease to be". If it doesn't exist then end of story anyway.

Existence is a part of our perception. Something can only exist, as we perceive it, in time and space. Time and space act according to material laws. Material laws ultimately come from The Supreme Cause of ALL Causes, God. God is not subject to His effects. It would be impossible for the laws of nature to operate without God. God necessarily exists.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

The laws of nature do not operate at all. They are descriptions of relationships.

 

[Sarkus]

Existence is a part of our perception. Something can only exist, as we perceive it, in time and space. Time and space act according to material laws. Material laws ultimately come from The Supreme Cause of ALL Causes, God. God is not subject to His effects. It would be impossible for the laws of nature to operate without God. God necessarily exists.

Other than circular reasoning, you are still arguing a strawman. I didn't mention anything about "only exist, as we perceive it, in time and space". You mentioned "cease to be". For something to "cease to be" it simply has to be able "to be". And if it "ceases to be" it thus ceases to exist - thus defining "exist" in the context of this exchange as "being" and "not exist" as "ceasing to be".

Your continuing efforts to squirm your way out of your logical contradiction do you no credit at all but rather just shows how you type before thinking, how you throw out comments without actually thinking about what you're saying, requiring you to come up with such drivel as you're now doing.
Stick to what is said, please. You ask others to do that with what you write so have the decency to do likewise, and don't put words into peoples' mouths only to argue the strawman you set up.

 

[DaveC426913]

How do they justify their claim of insufficient evidence.

Because, included in your definition of God, are things there is no objective evidence for:
"... outside the laws of nature ..."
"... life force ..."
"... breathed life into a body ..."
"... living soul."

With no objective evidence for any of the above, there is no reason to go looking for an explanation for them.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Other than circular reasoning, you are still arguing a strawman. I didn't mention anything about "only exist, as we perceive it, in time and space". You mentioned "cease to be". For something to "cease to be" it simply has to be able "to be". And if it "ceases to be" it thus ceases to exist - thus defining "exist" in the context of this exchange as "being" and "not exist" as "ceasing to be".

And I'm saying that existence is a perception that we perceive in this material world.
The material world could not have brought itself into being. The cause of the material world cannot, therefore, be material.
If the cause cannot be material, it must be immaterial, the opposite to material, by nature.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Because, included in your definition of God, are things there is no objective evidence for:
"... outside the laws of nature ..."
"... life force ..."
"... breathed life into a body ..."
"... living soul.
"... breathed life into a body ..."
"... living soul.""

If there were objective evidence my argument would go down the tube.

With no objective evidence for any of the above, there is no reason to go looking for an explanation for them.

Is that true, or do you believe it to be so?
If it's true. Can you justify it (anyway you like)?

jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

If there were objective evidence my argument would go down the tube.

Right. Which leaves subjective evidence. i.e. your personal experiences. Which is fine.

Hopefully, no one here is bent on convincing you that your experiences are false.

 

[DaveC426913]

Is that true

Is what true? You mean any of those things?
Yes. There is no objective evidence for any of them.
If there were, I would be happy to examine it, or have some independent party examine it. It is important to have an open mind that changes with new input.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Right. Which leaves subjective evidence. i.e. your personal experiences. Which is fine.

Everything we perceive is subjectively comprehended. Without that, we cannot make sense of the world.
Your claim of no objective evidence of God, is no less subjective than my claims. Which one makes more sense?
That's the question.

Is what true? You mean any of those things?
Yes. There is no objective evidence for any of them.
If there were, I would be happy to examine it, or have some independent party examine it. It is important to have an open mind that changes with new input.

What is the source of this knowledge claim?

jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

Everything we perceive is subjectively comprehended. Without that, we cannot make sense of the world.

No. That is not what subjective versus objective means.

What is the source of this knowledge claim?

There is no knowledge claim there. There is the claim of a lack of evidence. If you know of objective evidence, please share with the world.

But you have already answered that:

If there were objective evidence my argument would go down the tube.

Since you agree there isn't, then there is nothing for anyone to explain.