Originally posted by whodeyYou really assert that if you are not currently observing your house, it is equally likely as not that it is being trampled by an elephant?
Yes. You see, we all walk in a certain degree of faith. The question then becomes,, "Faith in what?" This is necessary because you are not the totality of reality. If you were the totality of reality, you would know what is happening to your house.
Is this truly how you go about your life?
Originally posted by whodeyCan you make sense, for example, of the idea of a being who exists outside of space and time but is also omnipresent in the physical universe?
Yes and no. You will never fully understand the totality of reality, but you can come to know it. What we do understand are peices of it or a better way of putting it, what the totality of reality chooses to reveal to you that you are capable of understanding. You are then faced with the option of placing faith in it or not.
Can you begin to explain it to me?
Originally posted by whodeyAs I said, I think most atheists don't believe they can grasp the totality of reality, so they already recognize this. I thought you were saying that it would be untenable to be an atheist and not to believe that you can grasp the totality of reality. That's what I was disagreeing with.
I never said that the theist can grasp the totality of reality. After all, it is untenable. I would hope that the atheist would also recognize this. That is what I find untenable.
Originally posted by dottewellYou would be placing your faith in your observations. If you saw houses in your neighborhood being destroyed, you would have less faith in the assumption that it is not being destroyed. Either way you don't have 100% certainty and must answer yes or no to the question, do you think your house is being destroyed?
Or maybe the question becomes: Which is more likely?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesOf coause not. I am merely showing that we all walk in faith. The question then becomes, "Faith in what?"
You really assert that if you are not currently observing your house, it is equally likely as not that it is being trampled by an elephant?
Is this truly how you go about your life?
Originally posted by dottewellTo be outside of space and time is to be in another deminsion, no? Can you or I explain this other deminsion? No. This is because we have no point of reference. Likewise, we have no point of reference to being omnipresent except being in one place at one time. This is why the idea of being omnipresent seems absurd. You could ask me what it is like being a hormonal pregnant woman and I would be clueless because I am a male. However, I would have some point of reference being of the same race and having emotions myself. I would be better apt to answer such a question than I would asking about another deminsion. We do have some understanding of space and time, however, and have some point of reference for understanding time because we are a part of it. By the very definition of time, time must have a begining. Therefore the only conclusion can be that it was created via Big Bang, ect. This of coarse is unless you think everything came from nothing.
Can you make sense, for example, of the idea of a being who exists outside of space and time but is also omnipresent in the physical universe?
Can you begin to explain it to me?
Originally posted by whodeyTo be outside space and time is to not exist. The only thing we have no reference point to is some "thing" that doesnt instantiate anything inside our universe. Picture a being looking into our space-time , all it would see is beams of light extending to infinity in all directions. There would be no entry point into our space-time by such a being so as far as our universe is concerned, such a being is irrelevant.
To be outside of space and time is to be in another deminsion, no? Can you or I explain this other deminsion? No. This is because we have no point of reference. Likewise, we have no point of reference to being omnipresent except being in one place at one time. This is why the idea of being omnipresent seems absurd. You could ask me what it is like being ...[text shortened]... was created via Big Bang, ect. This of coarse is unless you think everything came from nothing.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWhat I said was that I do not expect to see my house destroyed based on my belief that my house should be safe. This is based soley on evidence from past observation about the totality of reality in how I perceive it to be. Howeveer, this assumption is only based on faith on my perception of totality of reality.
So when he asked if both views stand on equally solid ground, you should have answered No instead of Yes, correct?
Originally posted by whodeyThis is epistemic seppuku.
What I said was that I do not expect to see my house destroyed based on my belief that my house should be safe. This is based soley on evidence from past observation about the totality of reality in how I perceive it to be. Howeveer, this assumption is only based on faith on my perception of totality of reality.
Originally posted by frogstompThere would be no entry point into space and time?
To be outside space and time is to not exist. The only thing we have no reference point to is some "thing" that doesnt instantiate anything inside our universe. Picture a being looking into our space-time , all it would see is beams of light extending to infinity in all directions. There would be no entry point into our space-time by such a being so as far as our universe is concerned, such a being is irrelevant.
This is all pure speculation. Again, as I said before, we have no point of reference to relate to such a deminsion. As a result, it is futile to speculate about such a deminsion. For me, this is where the totality of reality is beyond human comprehension and therefore requires faith. Your position can either be that matter exploded into existence or it is infinite. If it is infinite, then what do you do about the deminsion of time in which it exists? Time by its very definition demands a starting point. No matter your view, you accept a position based on belief. You or I were not there and most is speculative based on evidence we know about and can relate to. The totality of reality is beyond you or me. The theist accepts this and admits that his view is based on beleif, however, the atheist seems to think it can all be comprehended and belief never enters the picture.