Why do theologians, philosophers and scientists seemingly all fail to see that the "exists vs. not exist" paradigm the God debate is built upon bears little resemblance to the overwhelming vast majority of reality, space, which does not fit neatly in to either "exists" or "doesn't exist" categories??

There are many intelligent people in the God debate, on both sides. Aren't you weary of recycling the same old arguments over and over again for centuries? Instead of challenging some position within the God debate, wouldn't be more interesting to challenge the God debate itself? Wouldn't that also be more productive?

If the God debate is built upon unexamined false assumptions, if the question itself is fatally flawed, doesn't that mean that the competing answers dance of last 500 years has been largely wasted effort? Shouldn't such a possibility concern us?

What color is the sound of an oboe? A bad question, incapable of generating a useful answer, right? Do we really want to spend the next 500 years doing this...

Joe: The color is blue.
Bob: No, the color is red.
Joe: Sorry, definitely blue.
Bob: Are you crazy, it's red, Red, RED!!!!

Isn't it time to shift the focus of investigation from the competing answers to the question being asked?

"What do you say about the fact that all claims for an interventionist deity have been falsified by science?"

"Why do you put philosophy above science in understanding reality?"

https://understandrealitythroughscience.blogspot.com/2019/07/a-letter-to-christian-apologists_18.html

Yes, science can address these things.
1. Morality is a complex subject, but I will try to break it down as simply as I can here. Human beings evolved a sense of empathy. That empathy is what leads to morality. So by expanding human empathy, we can calculate our moral senses. This is not an easy thing to do and it may not be something we as a species can do with percision today, but it is something with in the scientific domain.
2. The science method has peer review and a process for filtering out individual biases. Through science we have created tools to measure certain experiences. We can absolutely figure out if our experiences corespond to the world around us. Is that world "reality" or a mere simlulation of some other reality? That we cannot answer right now, but it is something within the realm of science.
3. Through the scientific method, we are able to learn from our mistakes. We are able to create things that work. The proof is in the pudding, as they say. My point here is that our rational faculties are reliable in so far as they provide provable results that work. When they don't, we use those falures to adjust the process. To put it another way, we know that our computer science technology works because you and I are using it right now to communicate. Is that, "Truth?" I think it is. But you can play with the definition of words all you like. After all, all of Philosophy is just Wittgenstein's Fly in the Bottle.
4. Yes, and the answer is no, btw.
5. "The Purpose of Life, is a Life of Purpose." - Wittgenstein again. Purpose is an existential problem. It isn't about the world around us. It is about our attempt to find meaning. Carl Sagan famously wrote about "The Pale Blue Dot" and Neil deGrasse Tyson has talked about how science gives his life meaning. But if you are asking if science can tell us objectively what the purpose of life is, then then answer is yes. There is no objective purpose to life. Life is what we make it.
6. The meaning of love is biological. Last I checked, biology is a science. Do you really want me to explain the birds and the bees to you?
7. Consciousness is again a human construct. It's just the way our brians process information. So can science tell us more about how our brians process information? Yes!
8. Right now, we are able to see back in time to less than a second after the Big Bang. Do you think science will not be able to see and understand more in time? Or do you think that's it and we should just pack up our telescopes because we have learned all that is possible to learn? Yes, it is very likely that human beings will learn more about the origin of the universe. We will learn this through science, not through praying.

Yes, it is a guarentee that the scientific method is capable of finding these answers. The question is whether human beings will be able to discover what those answers are. Any unanswered question about the world around us is by definition within the reach of scientific discovery. i don't "believe" this; I think this based on the definition of science and history of scientific discoveries thus far. Will science allow me to communicate with someone halfway around the world in an instant? Yes, it can do that right now. Will it be able to cure Polio? Yes, it did that. Is there a scientific cure for Cancer? Yes, but human beings have yet to discover what it is. I know this because of the long track record of science.

"I hear religious believers tell me that science has it's limitations, but I am not sure what you are actually saying. Science is a method for understanding the world around us. I don't really know what limitations science has as a method for understanding the world around us. I don't really see it. Can you provide an example? There is no guarantee that scientists will find answers, but there is a guarantee that there are scientific answers."

Thanks for the comment! Sure. Here are some things that the scientific method is incapable of adjudicating:

- Whether a particular action is morally good or bad
- Whether our sensory experiences correspond to reality
- Whether our rational faculties reliably lead us to the truth
- Whether God exists
- The purpose of life (or whether there is an objective purpose)
- The meaning of love
- The reality of consciousness (what it is and where it comes from)
- The soul (whether it exists)
- The origin of the universe (why is there something rather than nothing)

Those are just a handful of questions, off the top of my head, to which the scientific method simply can't provide answers.

Also, you suggested that you can "guarantee that there are scientific answers" to, presumably, any unanswered questions today. You suggest even though we might not know the answers, you're confident that, in principle, science can provide them.

How do you know this? Why do you believe that?

Hi Dangerous Talk,

"The force is strong in this one." - Darth Vader

I think your point is, for you, faith is irrelevant. One either chooses to follow a deity or not. I would assume you have examined this issue thoroughly, thought about it, and concluded there is no God. Fair enough.

My point - which I think you disagree with and/or are uninterested in - is, if God unequivocally revealed himself, there would be no such thing as faith - it would just be obvious. My belief is, God did reveal himself in a way that requires faith. Just sharing my opinion.

[There obviously is a scientific answer to this question, but we just haven't discovered what that answer is yet and we may never discover that answer.]

How can there obviously be an answer, if it may never be discovered? Respectfully, I would say you are assuming there is a scientific answer. There is no rule that says science can explain everything, though perhaps you believe that.

[I hear religious believers tell me that science has it's limitations, but I am not sure what you are actually saying. Science is a method for understanding the world around us. I don't really know what limitations science has as a method for understanding the world around us. I don't really see it. Can you provide an example?]

I think we are in general agreement here. I am saying science can only detect the physical domain. It cannot detect the spiritual domain - that is a limitation of science. I would assume from your perspective, there is no such thing as a spiritual domain. Fair enough. Perhaps a day will come where you become aware of the spiritual domain and you will see things differently. I personally find the study of near death experiences quite fascinating, such as people being aware of things in other locations while their brains are verified scientifically shut down and similarly people born blind seeing during their episode.

Thanks for hearing me out. I wish you all the best going forward.

"Amazing, everything you just said is wrong." - Luke Skywalker

Look dude, I have really tried to explain this multiple times in multiple different ways and it just doesn't seem to register with you. I don't really know what else to say, but I will try one more time. Whether God reveals himself or not makes no difference on the faith question. It is irrelevant. The question would be whether or not we decide to follow the deity described in the Bible based on blind trust of said deity. Whether that deity exists or not isn't relevant. He could show his existence and I still might not follow him... just like Kim Jong Un has shown he exists and I still have decided not to follow him. So my point here is that God presenting clear evidence of his existence doesn't nothing for the faith argument. One could still choose to follow God or not follow God based on the faith of God's character rather than God's existence. This would actually make more logical sense.

Claiming that there is "circumstantial evidence" actually undermines your original argument and could be said for pretty much anything. Did you know there is circumstantial evidence where one can reason out to a certain degree that Darth Vader exists, but in the end, some faith is required.

Science studies physical things, and therefore cannot determine whether there is anything like The Force - it's the wrong tool for the job, so to speak.

For the record, Philosophy isn't about answers. If you think it is, then you don't know anything about Philosophy. Science and Philosophy work hand in hand. They are not competing modes of understanding the world.

You asked how the first single celled organism formed and then claimed that science has no answer. That is not correct. That is a a question that only science can answer. But just because human beings don't currently know the scientific answer doesn't mean that there is no scientific answer. There obviously is a scientific answer to this question, but we just haven't discovered what that answer is yet and we may never discover that answer. But that doesn't mean that there is no scientific answer. Just because I don't happen to know the answer to a complex math equation doesn't mean that Math cannot answer that equation. It absolutely can. I just haven't discovered how yet.

Scientists speculate on answers to questions that there absolutely are scientific answers for. Just because scientists speculate doesn't mean that there isn't an absolute scientific answer which may or may not be discovered.

I hear religious believers tell me that science has it's limitations, but I am not sure what you are actually saying. Science is a method for understanding the world around us. I don't really know what limitations science has as a method for understanding the world around us. I don't really see it. Can you provide an example? There is no guarantee that scientists will find answers, but there is a guarantee that there are scientific answers.

I also object to your final paragraph. Let me quote it back to you with some slight differences to illustrate my point:
I don't fault or look down on anyone, including yourself, for not drawing the same conclusions I have. I would hope you feel the same way towards people who believe that 1+1=5. We have had different experiences in life, different thought processes and biases and have drawn different conclusions. I think we are all doing the best we can with the abilities we have. We both have the freedom to believe our own math.

Hi Dangerous Talk,

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my latest points.

The point I'm trying to make (apparently not very well) is that I believe God is revealing himself in a way that leaves room for faith. There is no "slam dunk" or "smoking gun" evidence for God's existence. If there was, there would be no such thing as faith, only objective facts. I think there is circumstantial evidence where one can reason out to a certain degree that God exists, but in the end, some faith is required.

Science studies physical things, and therefore cannot determine whether there are spiritual beings - it's the wrong tool for the job, so to speak. Philosophy is the tool to use, but unfortunately, is not deterministic (something that leads to a clear, repeatable answer) like science. The answers in philosophy are not black and white like science and carry with it a degree of uncertainty.

How did the first single celled organism assemble itself? Science has no answer. Where did the vast universe come from? Science speculates, but can't say with certainty. These are points where science can point one in a direction where they can ponder and wonder. I'm not anti-science (I am pro-science), nor am am I picking on anyone who exclusively operates in this domain. I'm also not saying this proves God did it, but I would like to point out that science has it's limitations with no guarantee it will one day explain everything.

I don't fault or look down on anyone, including yourself, for not drawing the same conclusions I have. I would hope you feel the same way towards people who believe in a higher power. We have had different experiences in life, different thought processes and biases and have drawn different conclusions. I think we are all doing the best we can with the abilities we have. We both have the freedom to be who we are.

Peace.

1. That is a fail because Jesus hasn't revealed himself to me or any one else currently on this planet. So if Jesus is God's way of revealing himself fully, then it is fully a failure. Again, if God is all-powerful, then he should be able to fully reveal himself to people in a fully meaningful way.

2. I already addressed this. You are just restating the problem. I don't need faith to believe in Kim Jong Un, but people in North Korea do have faith (misguided as it maybe) in his power. If God's existence was a "no doubter" then there would still be a need to either have faith in his power and goodness or not. His existence does nothing for the faith argument one way or the other. To restate, Kim Jong Un's existence is a "no doubter," and yet I still don't believe he is moral and I still would not and am not a follower of him. My point is again, that God's mere existence does nothing for the faith argument. So why is God hiding?... or maybe he just doesn't exist.

Reason.

1. If God were perfect, he would be able to reveal himself to us fully without being "too overwhelming." This goes back to the problem that Christians have, making their deity too perfect for their own elaborate narrative.

Jesus is God's way of revealing himself fully in a way that is not overwhelming. He left room to choose or not, through what is called faith.

2. As stated below, revealing himself fully does nothing for or against faith.

If God's existance was a no doubter, than there would be no need for faith. I believe God fully revealed himself in the person of Jesus Christ, but even then, he left room for faith.

Peace.

The Church has never claimed that the change in the Eucharistic should be detectable by physical measurement. So you would expect people with celiac disease to react to the Eucharist.