Can one use the immaterial nature of God to argue that he is superfluous and then consider him unlikely as per Occam’s razor?
The argument would look like this:
God is a purely immaterial entity
In order for God to create physical effects, something in God’s mind must inevitably translate to phy...
This question looks a lot like "Whaddya all think of my creative thinking", given the apparent lack of own effort to research existing philosophy, and much effort in explaining your ideas.
My DV is for the repetitive nature of these personal "immaterial" God arguments. As if each minor iteration might somehow reveal fresh insight that will allow you to once and for all disprove God. As the philosopher Yoda might say, believe, or believe not... Because this horse is dead.
@keshlam I suppose someone else flagged it, but either way, we had the same comment, and yours wasn’t removed, mine was. Anyways, I think this argument is pretty good, and since you haven’t shown why it is bad, I’m not sure how your comment (or any of the other comments so far) are relevant since none of them actually showed anything wrong with the argument
Your argument is that there is a lack of explanation on one point and therefore you don't believe it's possible. The only thing that would satisfy you, I think, would be proof; you can dismiss anything else with disbelief and have done so. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
@keshlam no, my argument is that an immaterial mind causing a physical effect means that the mind is superfluous to the physical effect (since he is immaterial). I’m not sure why you can’t understand this and why you instead seem to think I’m making an “absence of proof is not proof of absence” claim
Yes, the mind is arguably superfluous for physical effects. But you seem to want to take it to the extra step and say that that implies non-existence, and that is unsupported. If that isn't your goal, I don't know why you asked the question. There are a great many things in this reality that are superfluous yet still exist, or may exist though we haven't seen them yet.
@keshlam no, the goal is to argue that A is superfluous to B, and thus, per Occam’s razor, argue against A being needed and thus not existing. It is not supposed to be a definitive proof of A not existing. That’s the same logic we use to discount the existence of tiny fairies existing inside my body as well. To call that a “lazy” or a “silly” argument is remarkably dishonest
@keshlam “I don’t think goblins exist. There’s no evidence of them.” “Actually, you start with the presupposition that goblins don’t exist. Not everyone grants the presupposition. Ergo, no conclusion is drawn except by people who agree with you.“ see how ridiculous that sounds?
You have said you cannot imagine how a non-physical being could interact with the physical. That's correct. You can't imagine it. Others can. Being that there is no evidence to support either conclusion, all you have done is express an opinion. You are entitled to draw whatever conclusions you like from it, but don't expect everyone to accept your opinion. Same facts, different assumptions, different results.
People couldn't imagine black holes. People couldn't imagine spooky action at a distance. They were justified in those beliefs, until they weren't.
@keshlam it’s not just about whether someone can imagine it. It’s about the evidence for a theory. Comparing spooky action at a distance to a purely immaterial disembodied all powerful being is ludicrous
For me to point out there’s no evidence for a theory doesn’t mean “but you haven’t disproven it” is a good response. By that logic, you should also remain agnostic to the theory that a demon is controlling you right now. Why aren’t you if you can’t disprove it?
If you find it ludicrous, that's your opinion. Not everyone agrees. Given that your intent seems to be to reach the people who disagree, you're failing.
Demon is just a word for a supernatural being in someone else's pantheon. I DON'T know that one isn't controlling me right now. I don't believe it, but I can't disprove it.
All you've done is repeat your disbelief in other words. Again. Repeatedly. Why are you so defensive about this? Or why do you feel you need to attack it?
I'm also agnostic about whether you're really missing the point or just desperate for interaction.
Discussion on question by Syed: Have …
Discussion on question by Syed: Have …