Materialism

[bdw000]

If all (current) scientific instruments (including our physical bodies) are DESIGNED to detect only above a certain threshold of "matter density," then to claim that the psychic realm (what I call "non-physical") does not exist because our science cannot detect it is sort of like saying that since you cannot hear the color of the tree over there, it has no color. You are pretending that your instruments can detect something they were not designed to detect.

The thing is BDW,all "evidence" relates to sensory data. One can only experience existence through the senses. So one cannot posit the existence of something one has not experienced "evidence" for. I also think undetectable is a better fit for your concept you described,as opposed to "unphysical".Even low density matter is "physical".

So one cannot posit the existence of something one has not experienced "evidence" for

But many people claim to be able to experience the "non-physical." That's my point: they ARE "experiencing" something. Too many people make the claim for me to be able to dismiss it.

I also think undetectable is a better fit for your concept you described,as opposed to "unphysical".Even low density matter is "physical"

I see what you are saying, and yet, the word "undetectable" needs to be qualifed every time it is used. We don't say that X-rays are undetectable, we say that they are undetectable by the human eye. Which is sort of my point.

Even low density matter is "physical"

That is my point exactly.

You have picked up on the fact that I am simply suggesting a label that might be more useful. It's not an "either/or" issue, it's a "more or less" issue. At least, that is a POSSIBILITY that I admit. I am not saying that I KNOW it is so.

Also the phenomenon [ESP etc.]you mentioned would still have to be causally related to the identity of the entities possessing them.

Also, I am not saying that anything that anyone else SAYS should be taken as proof. Until you can perceive for yourself, it's just what someone else says. All a "non-perceiver" will ever have is the data that lots of people say the nonphysical exists. But that is data to keep in mind (for me).

[Plasmatic]

Also, I am not saying that anything that anyone else SAYS should be taken as proof. Until you can perceive for yourself, it's just what someone else says. All a "non-perceiver" will ever have is the data that lots of people say the nonphysical exists. But that is data to keep in mind (for me).

Sure ,I get you on this. I was just making a little inguistic distinction for the most part.

[altonhare]

Also, I am not saying that anything that anyone else SAYS should be taken as proof. Until you can perceive for yourself, it's just what someone else says. All a "non-perceiver" will ever have is the data that lots of people say the nonphysical exists. But that is data to keep in mind (for me).

Sure ,I get you on this. I was just making a little inguistic distinction for the most part.

This is why I get particular about language. We are expressing our ideas in words, so the words we use are absolutely critical.

"Non-physical" does not, in any way mean the same as "difficult to detect". In fact, they have nothing to do with each other whatsoever. I have no problem with claims of ESP or other events people often call "supernatural". But these events surely involved objects that exist, i.e. what is physical. They were acting in accordance with their identities just like everything else that exists does. Just because the reports "sound weird" is meaningless. "Sounds weird" indicates it is outside our previous experience.

[webolife]

Ran across an interesting description of the different possibilities for "god":

GOD: Finite
1. Material
a. Impersonal -- eg. money, things idols, materialism
b. Personal -- eg. emperor, Rastafarianism, american "idol"
2. Immaterial
a. Impersonal -- eg. the "fates", various philosophies
b. Personal -- eg. the mythological gods, demons, ancestors
GOD: Infinite
1. Material
a. Impersonal -- eg. the universe, matter, nature
b. Personal --eg. Mother Earth/Gaea, Mormonism
2. Immaterial
a. Impersonal -- eg. monism, Buddhism, Hinduism
b. Personal -- the GOD of the Bible

[webolife]

Adherence to any of these models for "god" fits my definition of faith.
Therefore I assert, like a broken record, that there is no scientific endeavor, or any human endeavor, that is separable from its faith base. There is no real objectivity, except when a person is seeing from the absolute perspective of the Truth.
Anyone claiming to have true objectivity is making him/herself a "god", not unlike the finite personal variety above.

[altonhare]

Adherence to any of these models for "god" fits my definition of faith.
Therefore I assert, like a broken record, that there is no scientific endeavor, or any human endeavor, that is separable from its faith base. There is no real objectivity, except when a person is seeing from the absolute perspective of the Truth.
Anyone claiming to have true objectivity is making him/herself a "god", not unlike the finite personal variety above.

It has nothing to do with faith. The word "God" either refers to either an object or a concept by definition. Definitions are not a matter of right, wrong, or faith. Definitions are purely to communicate consistently and clearly.

[webolife]

OK, so I've defined several "gods"... which one do you believe?

[Grey Cloud]

Adherence to any of these models for "god" fits my definition of faith.
Therefore I assert, like a broken record, that there is no scientific endeavor, or any human endeavor, that is separable from its faith base. There is no real objectivity, except when a person is seeing from the absolute perspective of the Truth.
Anyone claiming to have true objectivity is making him/herself a "god", not unlike the finite personal variety above.

It has nothing to do with faith. The word "God" either refers to either an object or a concept by definition. Definitions are not a matter of right, wrong, or faith. Definitions are purely to communicate consistently and clearly.

Hi Alton,
I don't see what the problem is with Webolife's comment. As I read it, he is saying that the 'faith' lies in one's belief that one has chosen the correct model/definition. Every adherent to each of the above definitions will have faith in their choice being the correct one. Only access to Truth with reveal which, if any, was the correct (objectively) choice. Truth is accessible and none of the above definitions match mine (believe me ).

[altonhare]

OK, so I've defined several "gods"... which one do you believe?

Please point to each one so I know, exactly, what you're talking about.

[altonhare]

Adherence to any of these models for "god" fits my definition of faith.
Therefore I assert, like a broken record, that there is no scientific endeavor, or any human endeavor, that is separable from its faith base. There is no real objectivity, except when a person is seeing from the absolute perspective of the Truth.
Anyone claiming to have true objectivity is making him/herself a "god", not unlike the finite personal variety above.

It has nothing to do with faith. The word "God" either refers to either an object or a concept by definition. Definitions are not a matter of right, wrong, or faith. Definitions are purely to communicate consistently and clearly.

Hi Alton,
I don't see what the problem is with Webolife's comment. As I read it, he is saying that the 'faith' lies in one's belief that one has chosen the correct model/definition. Every adherent to each of the above definitions will have faith in their choice being the correct one. Only access to Truth with reveal which, if any, was the correct (objectively) choice. Truth is accessible and none of the above definitions match mine (believe me ).

First, definitions have nothing to do with correct or incorrect. A definition is chosen and used *only* for consistent and clear communication. That's it. There is no faith, belief, or even right/wrong here. A definition is no more wrong than a hunk of clay is "wrong". It is what it is.

Second, a model (by which I assume you mean a hypothesis and theory) is just one explanation. It also is not right or wrong. Objectively, all we have is one possible explanation. If you believe it or not you could be Right or Wrong. So there is no faith involved because one does not have faith that they have "chosen the right explanation". Either they have or they haven't.

Third, a most importantly, it is illogical and irrational to "believe" in the existence of X (where X may be God in web's comment). In science we point to X, or ask you to assume X exists for the purposes of the ensuing discussion. Web's question is illogical. He lists 4 "God variants". What is he referring to? Where are they?

[webolife]

If your belief system doesn't resemble one of the several [more than 4] variants I "pointed to" above, [as GC indicated his is not on the list...GC, inform me what's missing?] then you may be claiming perhaps you have no beliefs? Or you are saying your beliefs do not stipulate any form of God [true atheism]? If so, then you make yourself a "god" by becoming your sole referent for truth or understanding, right or wrong... but this would qualify you as a finite personal god... then I would simply ask you to look in the mirror.

[altonhare]

If your belief system doesn't resemble one of the several [more than 4] variants I "pointed to" above, [as GC indicated his is not on the list...GC, inform me what's missing?] then you may be claiming perhaps you have no beliefs? Or you are saying your beliefs do not stipulate any form of God [true atheism]? If so, then you make yourself a "god" by becoming your sole referent for truth or understanding, right or wrong... but this would qualify you as a finite personal god... then I would simply ask you to look in the mirror.

Before we go further we need to clarify exactly what you mean by faith, belief, and God.

[Plasmatic]

Before we go further we need to clarify exactly what you mean by faith, belief, and God

Bingo. If Web would define "faith" and "belief" in no uncertain terms this discussion would be basically over. [well at least alot easier to address his statements! ]

[Plasmatic]

b. Personal -- the GOD of the Bible

Oh, you mean Saturn!

[Grey Cloud]

b. Personal -- the GOD of the Bible

Oh, you mean Saturn!

Hi Plasmatic,
Nice of you to state an article of faith.