God, Agnosticism, Metaphysics, Empiricism

Quoting Agent Smith

(Some) topics up for discussion:

1. Metaphysics.
2. Empiricism.
3. God.
4. Agnosticism's justifications (The problem of evil disproves the OOO God hypothesis).
5. The relationships between all of the above.

1. necessary contingent facts (unbounded immanence)
2. naturalism
3. empty name
4. n/a (see #3)
5. Deus, sive natura

G'nite, Smith. Zzzzz

The historical - cultural context of the biblical text you quoted has nothing to do with metaphysics. In that context the relationship with God was personal, social, existential, non philosophical. If I ask a friend to give me evidence of his friendship, or seriousness, or loyalty, I am not doing metaphysics, I am acting in a context of human relationship. Otherwise even a dog sniffing something to get evidence of what it is becomes a dog who has a metaphysical mentality.

Quoting Angelo Cannata

The historical - cultural context of the biblical text you quoted has nothing to do with metaphysics

I included metaphysics in the OP for good reasons. Some claim metaphysics is not open to empirical testing i.e. you can't verify/falsify them via experience and yet, we have the so-called problem of evil (divine predicates incompatible with observation).

Metaphysics, contrary to what some say, has to cohere with reality i.e. has to be subjected to empirical testing.

Quoting 180 Proof

1. necessary contingent facts (unbounded immanence)
2. naturalism
3. empty name
4. n/a (see #3)
5. Deus, sive natura

G'nite, Smith. Zzzzz

:up: Sweet dreams.

Quoting Agent Smith

Some claim metaphysics is not open to empirical testing i.e. you can't verify/falsify them via experience and yet, we have the so-called problem of evil (divine predicates incompatible with observation).

That’s why the problem of evil is not a metaphysical one: you cannot prove metaphysically that either good or evil exist, because they depend entirely on subjective evaluations.

Quoting Agent Smith

God falls under metaphysics, even a novice is aware of this simple fact.

Do not put the LORD your God to the test as you did at Massah.
— Deuteronomy 6:16

Wellllll. I think the idea of that test was more about faith in the relationship with God, not in God's existence. They had seen miracles but were now grumbling at Massah. The issue was more, can you trust God, given what God has already done for you. Or do you think he will abandon you?Quoting Agent Smith

Test, another name for experiment. To put it simply God is not amenable to scientific inquiry, experimentation's not allowed/prohibited. God isn't an empirical claim.

Some theists would say that. Others wouldn't. Many if observed over time would make empirical claims about God, prayer, angels, the presence of Jesus and more and that's just within Christianity. At other times they might well agree with you and then go back on implicit positions already taken.

(which is common to people secular and religious, actually. Follow the way a person over a week talks about themselves and all the implications about free will, identity, what parts of the self are me and what are not me and you will find all sorts of implicit positions, many of which don't fit well together. )

I don't think problem of evil challenges work as proofs, for a variety of reasons, or tests. Nor to the counterparts on the theist side.

I see them more as good things for theists to mull. I mean, if you are not disturbed by the problem of evil, you must have done some disturbing mental gymnastics.

(as an aside there is no reason for a theist to accept all the omni adjectives, that's the invention of medieval theologians, taking certain expressive passages in the Bible as literal and more or less mathematical - implying infinite and no impeded by logic or the self ((of God)))

Quoting Angelo Cannata

That’s why the problem of evil is not a metaphysical one: you cannot prove metaphysically that either good or evil exist, because they depend entirely on subjective evaluations.

The problem of evil straddles both the world of metaphysics & the world of empiricism. Evil is defined well enough to be recognized by everyone. Also why would you question the wisdom of many theologians & non-theologians who admit that there is a problem (evil) and have devised other solutions, solutions that explain the existence of evil rather than deny evil exists?

Quoting Bylaw

faith

Which is to say Jesus couldn't/no one can prove God's existence.

Then we come to testing, the prohibition of experimentation i.e. we're not allowed to falsify the god hypothesis.

This is a double bind: No proof of & barred from any disproof of God! Looks like someone doesn't want us to think!

Quoting Bylaw

prayer

True, Wikipedia has a page on research i.e. experiments done on (the effectiveness of) prayer. So some religious claims can be tested.

Quoting Agent Smith

why would you question the wisdom of many theologians & non-theologians

Wow! At this point, the only thing I can do is to bow to the immense wisdom of those high level people. As they say in an Italian comedy “with my face under their feet, without even asking them to keep still”.

Quoting Angelo Cannata

Wow! At this point, the only thing I can do is to bow to the immense wisdom of those high level people. As they say in an Italian comedy “with my face under their feet, without even asking them to keep still”.

Spare me the sarcasm, please. Anyway I really don't want to get into a discussion on the problem of evil; its relevance, insofar as the OP is concerned, is limited to its implications on the empirical nature of god claims keeping in my mind that some here are of the view that metaphysical claims, god being one such, are nonempirical.

Also up for discussion is the decidedly antiscientific nature of Jesus' claim not to test the LORD! First, Jesus offers no proof; why else would he make such a big deal of faith? Second, he blocks any attempts to disprove god by banning tests aka experiments. Curious, very curious!

Quoting 180 Proof

Deus, sive natura

Not a god one would want to worship, oui monsieur? Respect? An altogether different story!

Quoting Agent Smith

faith
— Bylaw

Which is to say Jesus couldn't/no one can prove God's existence.

faith as in trust in. I am not denying epistemological issues, just that the massah quote is about having trust in God, not belief in God's existence.

Quoting Agent Smith

prayer
— Bylaw

True, Wikipedia has a page on research i.e. experiments done on (the effectiveness of) prayer. So some religious claims can be tested.

And people feel the presence of God and so on. Not all empirical things can necessarily be tested (now). IOW people don't just believe in a transcendant deity, even the Abrahamists. Most of them talk about experiencing things

Quoting Bylaw

faith as in trust in. I am not denying epistemological issues, just that the massah quote is about having trust in God, not belief in God's existence.

You can't trust in something that doesn't exist.

Reply to Agent Smith But you can distrust something that exists and that's what Moses was talking about in relation to Massah. Stop distrusting your God who has already done so much. He was not saying 'Don't test for the existence of God.

prayer
— Bylaw

True, Wikipedia has a page on research i.e. experiments done on (the effectiveness of) prayer. So some religious claims can be tested.
— Agent Smith
And people feel the presence of God and so on. My point with the list is that there are many empirical aspects to religious beliefs, even Abrahamic ones with transcendance in the list of qualities of God. Perhaps not all empirical facets could be tested for, but they are empirical (claims) nonentheless. So, yes the efffectiveness of prayer can be tested. And I suppose all the ghost testing machines could be dragged out to test people in prayer. They could compare their readings for those who felt Mary, Allah, Jesus, God present with those who did not feel that or a non-theist control group thinking about peanut butter.

Quoting Bylaw

test

So, it's not that we're being debarred from testing for God's existence/nonexistence; we're only being asked not test our trust in Him. :chin:

So I can conduct an experiment to falsify the god hypothesis! The problem of evil is one such experiment and it disproves God's existence! How do I trust something that doesn't exist?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting ArielAssante

The devil says, hey Jesus if what you say is true throw yourself off this cliff and God will save you. This is not about experimentation.

:chin: This challenge by the devil seems to be a test of faith! The devil is seeking proof of fides. Odd! :brow:

Reply to Agent Smith Amor intellectualis dei.

Quoting Agent Smith

You can't trust in something that doesn't exist.

This is why I describe "faith" as make believe – believing the unbelievable (often in order to defend the indefensible) – false hope.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to 180 Proof

Ok. What do you suppose is going on with how the devil (vide ArielAssante's post) on how the devil seems to be conducting what is in essence an experiment to determine whether Jesus has faith in God? The message is clear - God is wholly or largely a question of faith and reason is either irrelevant or secondary to religion.

Quoting ArielAssante

temptation

Temptation, yes, but to what end if not to test Jesus' beliefs (in God) for which he had no solid proof and hence, the whole story is about the devil experimenting on Jesus' convictions sans the necessary proofs i.e. Satan wishes to check whether Jesus' faith is great enough for the task at hand which is to be thoroughly abandoned (torture + crucifixion, a tautology that isn't a tautology) and still believe in God.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to Agent Smith I haven't, not that I'm inclined to read the "argument" you mention. I try not to splash around in somrbody else's mythological (superstitious) bathwater.

:mask:

Quoting 180 Proof

I haven't, not I'm inclined to read, the "argument" you mention. I try not to splash around in somrbody else's mythological (superstitious) bathwater.

:ok:

Reply to ArielAssante Yep!

Quoting 180 Proof

Amor intellectualis dei.

:fire:

Holistic approach. There's an excellent reason why we can reason and emote. It's an old cliché that the former hasta be isolated and guarded against the latter. If the limbic system shuts down the prefrontal cortex, let it! If it got humans this far, it's a plus, not a minus, oui monsieur?

Reply to Agent Smith "Feets is good", they say, "but wheels is gooder." :smirk:

Quoting 180 Proof

I try not to splash around in somrbody else's mythological (superstitious) bathwater.

It's gotta be tough, superstitious bathwater is what makes the world go round.

Quoting 180 Proof

"Feets is good", they say, "but wheels is gooder." :smirk:

I don't follow. What do you mean?

Reply to Agent Smith I was alluding to emotions (limbic system) and reason (prefrontal cortex), respectively.

Quoting 180 Proof

I was alluding to emotions (limbic system) and reason (prefrontal cortex), respectively

I see. So, you mean to say reason is better than emotions. I concur - the former seems to be a means of sussing out genuine reasons to be happy/sad/angry/jealous/etc. For example, according to Buddhism, a religion that values rationality highly, we experience sorrow because we're ignorant of some fundamental facts of our world e.g. anicca (impermanence).

Reply to Agent Smith :up: Spinoza's "bondage".

Quoting 180 Proof

Spinoza's "bondage".

There's this paradigm, quite ancient, that reason (mind) is at war with emotion (heart) which seems to have dropped out of favor in modern psychology (re EQ/emotional quotient). There's a precedent in the Chinese concept of Xin (heart-mind).

I prefer not to write off emotions as a hindrance/obstacle, but prefer now to, as and when possible, feel for genuine reasons. This way of thinking is also as old as the mountains e.g. don't cry over spilt milk. Easier said than done though, si señor?