It seems precise enough to me. It is the Reality beyond which nothing else exists.
Oh, so you just mean, “Reality.” Well of course, I’m happy to concede that reality exists!
Let’s put it another way. Do you consider that the quanta of physical energy is derived from anything? (You will probably answer “I don’t know”!)
It makes you metaphysically open-minded whereas atheism imposes strict limits on your interpretation of reality.
Why can’t I say you are metaphysically closed-minded? Aka gullible. Is it a virtue to regard science as the sole means of explaining reality? Let’s put it to the test. Do you believe physical energy is the sole type of energy? Of course you do. But how can you possibly
know?
The only limit that Atheism imposes is the requirement for evidence.
Here again it seems that the only possible evidence is that which
you define as evidence. Yet in a court of law there is much acceptable evidence that is not scientific but personal. Intangible motives, decisions and purposes that you would rule out on principle are taken into account and serve as a basis for determining innocence or guilt…
Physical reality is the only reality which we can show empirically to exist, therefore physical evidence is the only evidence which we should accept.
This proves the point I have just made. Have you read Two Dogmas of Empiricism?
Anything else is subjective, therefore doesn’t count as evidence.
That really is a dogmatic statement. What on earth leads you to that conclusion? If many people have the **same **subjective experiences is that not objective evidence?
It is the best available explanation, superior to an eternal universe or an uncaused universe.
No, it’s not an explanation at all. It explains nothing, it just closes down the question.
On the contrary. It opens up opportunities for further investigation into spiritual reality. Science doesn’t take us very far into the exploration of the things that really matter. Do you conduct your life according to scientific principles? :
We all believe we are persons who are thinking and making decisions. That is an objective fact which is a basis of the inference to the existence and nature of God.
It may be a basis of some people’s inference, but that inference is nothing more than speculation because there is no evidence to substantiate it.
Do you believe it is an objective fact that we are persons who are thinking and making decisions? Does that count as objective evidence for anything? Do you believe in the principle of sufficient reason? That the cause must be proportioned to the effect?
There is no evidence for the existence of God.
Please explain precisely what is the evidence that you
as a person exist?
Then how do you explain the origin of intents?
It’s probably evolutionary, but I don’t know.
Is there any limit to the number of things you don’t know beyond which atheism becomes an untenable theory?
Now, I’m aware that you see “not knowing something” as a terrible flaw, but it’s preferable to believing the wrong thing, particularly when that belief leads you to stop trying to find the right answer.
How do you determine what is the right answer to the origin of intents?
My belief is that a rational Being is the source of rationality. It is still time that you gave an alternative explanation. Otherwise admit that physicalism is at present an grossly inadequate explanation of reality.
I’ve never said that physicalism is currently able to provide an comprehensive explanation of everything. Again, I point out that a fear of ignorance and a resultant fabrication of an unsubstantiative answer, is a far larger flaw than mere ignorance alone.
How far can ignorance extend before it becomes wilful obstinacy to accept an explanation to which you are strongly and deeply opposed?
That sums up the position of the atheist perfectly. It is better not to know rather than consider the possibility that physicalism is false and that theism explains the existence of intentional and rational activity.
I’ll consider the possibility, but the fact remains that there are no facts to consider so my consideration is necessarily short.
Do you regard a fact as tangible or intangible? How is it related to physical reality? You cannot escape from your assumption that the only facts to consider are physical facts. (Open-minded?) Yet,ironically, facts are intangible. That alone is enough to disprove physicalism.
Without evidence of metaphysics, there is no reason to believe it exists.
Don’t you think physicalism is a metaphysical theory?
Add to this the fact that your answer doesn’t actually explain anything, and you can see why most rational people don’t spend much time attempting to investigate that which is uninvestigable.
What exactly does **your **answer explain about the most important aspects of human beings? As far as I can make out it amounts to a series of "I don’t know"s. Your answers to my questions consists for the most part of repeated statements like “Your answer doesn’t explain anything” which you regard as a weakness. Yet you regard your inability to answer my questions as a strength. Can’t you see that this is a case of selective thinking?
In short, the atheist position is by far the stronger, because it deals with fact not fiction.
This is a most remarkable statement if you consider it objectively. It amounts to saying that atheism is true beyond a shadow of doubt: “it deals with fact not fiction”. The facts are the same for both the theist and the atheist. They differ in their interpretation of the facts.
You may not like that truth, but that doesn’t make it false.
You may not like the truth that God exists but that does not make it false. Can you see how pointless it is to make such remarks? How can it possibly advance your argument?
