As example, space. Space is the largest part of reality by far, encompassing all, defining all, and permeating all to the most intimate level. The very biggest thing in reality, and yet we experience space as an empty void, a nothing.Steve3007 wrote: Most believers, as I understand it, would say that the evidence of the activities of this entity is all around us. The entity itself, unlike Spiderman, has no identifiable form.
Here's an example of that.If God is the creator of the entire Universe then we have no reason to believe that any of our logic applies at all.
Using the space example above, all we need to do is be open minded to the notion that space might somehow be intelligent, and we have found God.
But what does "intelligent" mean? The concept of intelligence was invented by a single semi-suicidal species only recently living in caves on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies. It's a useful concept for the purpose it was created, comparing humans to other humans, and humans to animals on the planet Earth. But the scope of that concept, the references which it depends on, are extremely local and immeasurably tiny in comparison to space. In fact, we currently have exactly zero evidence that the phenomena we call "intelligence" exists anywhere else in all of reality.
We assume our human concept of intelligence is automatically relevant to the subject of gods, because we aren't intelligent enough to realize that there is no proof of this at all, and that the odds are that a concept derived from so little data is unlikely to be a universal phenomena. As example, what are the odds that any entity which could create galaxies would do so by a method that would be in any way recognizable to us?
Such a discussion is not meaningless if one is serious enough about it and pursues it with sufficient diligence to realize for oneself (not just agreeing with somebody else) that it is meaningless. Because such an insight might open the door to...So all discussion of any kind about such an entity is meaningless.
We are great philosophers and so we assume that everything important can be analyzed. What if that assumption is wrong? What if reason/logic/philosophy is a very useful process for very many things, but not therefore automatically the best method for every inquiry?If you believe, you believe. It is just a linguistically empty feeling which cannot in any way be analyzed.
Can we reason our way to falling in love? Not really. We can reason ourselves in that direction, but at some point falling in love requires a leap in to another realm. See how obvious it is that reason has it's limits?
Are we suffering from tool bias? That is, are we willing to pursue such an inquiry only so long as it involves our favorite tool, logical analysis? If we have to choose, what's our bottom line, what's our priority? The inquiry, or the process of philosophy? I'm not suggesting there is a right or wrong answer to that, only that it would be wise for anyone to know what their answer is. If we are only willing to pursue an inquiry by a means we personally prefer, then we shouldn't be surprised if such inflexibility results in some inquiries failing.
Let's return to the space example above. Space might be defined as that which unites all things. As philosophers, we are trying to understand the ultimate unifying agent with thought, an inherently divisive electro-chemical information medium.
We are trying to grasp unity by a process of division.
Not very logical.
-- Updated June 17th, 2016, 9:16 am to add the following --
It's true. As an incurable typoholic addicted to the glorious sound of my own magnificent booming bloviating honking honky voice, I am your prisoner, your captive, your bitch.Steve3007 wrote:Ormond! I thought you'd escaped from this place. I see you've been re-captured by the old Spiderman trick.