Nowhere357

Okay, I'll take your questions seriously.

Yes.

Other that the exception where I raised my voice - yes.

There are two situations, in my understanding.

1) We observe affects unexplained by current theories. We create a new theory to explain X.

2) A current theory predicts X. We go look for it.

Circular argument successfully avoided, I think.

X is detectable only if it exists. Detectability is a quality of reality. Theists are fond of this point as evidence of atheistic faith, but really, what other options are there? After all, if we cannot in theory detect a thing, of what practical use is it? Mind-numbing philosophical discussions, is the only thing I can think of.

False. It does help if we have an idea of what we're looking for, of course.

False. If we don't know it exists, we can look for the relevant effects. No circularity that I can see.

We see unexplained effects in reality, and theorize to explain them.

(If something affects reality, we can detect it.)

[sarcasm]
Yes, that is helpful. To see is to detect. One way to detect, is to see. So your contribution here is:
"if we can SEE that something affects reality, we can see it."

Or maybe:
"if we can DETECT that something affects reality, we can detect it."

Things are much clearer now. [/sarcasm]

Yelling is definitely out of character for me. It was done in hopes of focusing your attention.

Of course, if you have no intention here of understanding your errors, assuming such exists, it was a waste of time. I apologize to all.

hinduwoman

Yguy it seems to me you saying:
God cannot be conceptualized.
Therefore arguments against his existence are flawed.

But if that is so, arguments for his existence are also flawed. If you cannot conceptualize an object, how can you know it even exists?
If you think that God did miracles and send down a book --- done by a conscious will with a definite purpose --- then you are conceptualizing God.

yguy

Looking for it doesn't tell us whether it exists unless we happen to find it. Back where we started yet again.

I think not.

No, it is a quality of perceived reality.

One would be that a thing need not be detectable to exist.

The question is, what do we mean by detection? If we mean that the thing "sits still" long enough to be measured by state-of-the-art empirical means, such an thing would obviously be of no use to scientists with such a mindset. If God can be detected by a person directly, by looking within, He still wouldn't be any "use", because He is not to be used, but to be valued.

But the effects don't tell you what the cause is. In fact, some in the Sci forum have assured me repeatedly that observed effects, such as the random motion of subatomic particles, don't necessarily have a cause.

No, if something affects reality as we perceive it, we can detect it.

yguy

Which is why I don't argue for His existence, but against those who argue His non-existence.

God is not an object.

I think not, but the point has been argued to death.

theophilus

No, but you are responsible for your own mischaracterization. The Bible contains no "conceptualization" of God; it contains a revelation of God or rather IS a revelation of God.

This whole idea of conceptualizing God is nonsense when speaking of the God of scripture. Christians do not have a concept of God. We have his self-attesting revelaiton in nature, in scripture and in Jesus.

You may want to "conceptualize" some god that you can deny, but it won't be the God of scripture.

theophilus

Perhaps part of your confusion is termonology. Christian theologians speak of the "incomprehensibility" of God. The word is used in its technical sense 'to take in," i.e., to surround. This does not at all mean that we can't know God in a relational sense or understand the revelation which he has given of himself. We simply cannot know him exhaustively - he is infinite in all respects; we are finite in all respects.

Nowhere357

Of course.

Doesn't follow. My argument still stands.

I think so.

(Detectability is a quality of reality.)

Or, it's a perceived quality of reality. Whichever. And this refinement does not affect my argument.

True, but then it of necessity does not affect reality, and so is of no importance to reality. Think it through.

In context here, it means a change in reality. Reality does the detection.

Why would a detected thing be of no use to scientists, and what mindset are you referring to?

Then that would be the use.

Which is why we theorize.

Ah, the warm and fuzzy quantum world. I love it here. Just curious - did you accept the point at the time, or is this a double standard for you?

At any rate, none of these things affect my point. My argument still stands.

Bingo. The idea, you see, is that the difference between reality, and our perception of reality, becomes smaller as we learn.

So my position is unaffected.

What in your opinion is an "object"?

Nowhere357

The Bible contains no "conceptualization" of what now?; it contains a revelation of what now? or rather IS a revelation of what now?.

Or maybe I don't.

Semantics cause a lot of confusion.

Not unlike the Tao, as I've mentioned.

yguy

I have. You're absolutely dead wrong.

This is nonsense. You might as well say God exists because He can detect Himself.

Sorry, I misspoke. That should have been "of use", not "of no use."

Theorizing about God would be really, really stupid.

Nope.

I fail to see how that supports your position.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...5&pagenumber=3

Dr Rick

Something that is undetectable is not the same as something that is undetected; what is undetectable will always be undetected, but that which is undetected is not necessarily undetectable.

Asserting that which is undetectable does not exist is not the same as asserting that which is undetected does not exist.