God, Santa, and The Tooth Fairy
December 6, 2021 at 10:41 pm
(This post was last modified: December 7, 2021 at 12:57 am by LadyForCamus.)
I can understand a conception of god that inherently disqualifies god from the category of ‘magical, imaginary things,’ i.e. the tooth fairy, Santa Clause, etc. (thank you @Neo-Scholastic for harping on the subject often enough that it finally tickled my thinker), and I’m happy to be charitable toward any argument that attempts to make such a distinction. What I’m having a hard time with is:
How can we rationally square that god is simultaneously not of the world, yet tangible in such a way that makes comparing god to magic and fantasy a category error? If a theist proposes that god is being erroneously lumped in with a particular stripe of concepts that he/she/it, de facto, doesn’t belong with, then I would say it’s the theist’s responsibility to lay out a pathway to grounding god in reality that actualizes god without leaving him/her/it susceptible to the same evidentiary standards used for any other real, material thing.
I realize there’s a possible false dichotomy here: ‘either a god is detectable via methodological naturalism, or god doesn’t exist.’ It may very well be the case that there are things which exist, that are also beyond our ability to investigate. But if carving out a unique, third set that contains god and only god, isn’t special pleading; that such a category is, in fact, part of the fabric of reality; then I’d say it’s still a faith-based position at best, considering it can’t be investigated or objectively verified/falsified.
Theists: Is there a reasonable method or path to grounding the god-proposition in reality that is both reliable and tangible in a way that metaphysical arguments, alone, cannot be, yet absolves god…reasonably…from the demands of material evidence?
(Secret option number #3 - “nothing about this rambling thread makes any sense, Lady. Please stay out of the philosophy section,” is also a perfectly valid response. 😛)
How can we rationally square that god is simultaneously not of the world, yet tangible in such a way that makes comparing god to magic and fantasy a category error? If a theist proposes that god is being erroneously lumped in with a particular stripe of concepts that he/she/it, de facto, doesn’t belong with, then I would say it’s the theist’s responsibility to lay out a pathway to grounding god in reality that actualizes god without leaving him/her/it susceptible to the same evidentiary standards used for any other real, material thing.
I realize there’s a possible false dichotomy here: ‘either a god is detectable via methodological naturalism, or god doesn’t exist.’ It may very well be the case that there are things which exist, that are also beyond our ability to investigate. But if carving out a unique, third set that contains god and only god, isn’t special pleading; that such a category is, in fact, part of the fabric of reality; then I’d say it’s still a faith-based position at best, considering it can’t be investigated or objectively verified/falsified.
Theists: Is there a reasonable method or path to grounding the god-proposition in reality that is both reliable and tangible in a way that metaphysical arguments, alone, cannot be, yet absolves god…reasonably…from the demands of material evidence?
(Secret option number #3 - “nothing about this rambling thread makes any sense, Lady. Please stay out of the philosophy section,” is also a perfectly valid response. 😛)
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
