Invisibility

[xhacker]

I find it interesting that all the worlds major religions have invisisble gods, I wonder why invisibility seems to be what they all have in common ..

[IBelieveInChrishna]

Are they invisible, or do they exist outside of the physical world within which we have the capacity to see?

It has been said that they make themselves seen from time to time, though; Jesus, Krishna, and Buddha to name a few.

Welcome to the forum as well, I'm excited to see more posts from you!

[spongebob]

Are they invisible, or do they exist outside of the physical world within which we have the capacity to see?

What's the difference?

[IBelieveInChrishna]

To say that something is invisible implies that this "something" exists within our universe of time and space, but which simply can't be seen. I'm not necessarily stating my own opinion here, but it can be said that God resides on a different ontological level that isn't framed by those two dimensions. While Christian doctrine may or may not agree, it has been said that God is unchanging ("timeless") and immaterial (not occupying space).

[Mr. Sluagh]

To say that something is invisible implies that this "something" exists within our universe of time and space, but which simply can't be seen. I'm not necessarily stating my own opinion here, but it can be said that God resides on a different ontological level that isn't framed by those two dimensions. While Christian doctrine may or may not agree, it has been said that God is unchanging ("timeless") and immaterial (not occupying space).

Does that makes sense or should I try to explain it more clearly?

They're both entirely speculative, ad hoc excuses to explain why the existence of gods is not supported by any meaningful evidence.

"Well, actually, the invisible, incorporeal pink unicorn isn't invisible and incorporeal per se, it just exists on a different reality frequency so you can only perceive it if you adjust your psychic vibrations. Lessons start at $50 an hour..."

[IBelieveInChrishna]

...ad hoc excuses to explain why the existence of gods is not supported by any meaningful evidence.

I guess you could take what I posted as an excuse if you thought that my intent was to subvert some sort of atheistic claim.

I don't think Aristotle was concerned with that when he developed those ideas though.

[spongebob]

To say that something is invisible implies that this "something" exists within our universe of time and space, but which simply can't be seen. I'm not necessarily stating my own opinion here, but it can be said that God resides on a different ontological level that isn't framed by those two dimensions. While Christian doctrine may or may not agree, it has been said that God is unchanging ("timeless") and immaterial (not occupying space).

I get all that; it's well known rhetoric. But what's the functional difference between an invisible god that does nothing and a god of another plane that does nothing? The "does nothing" is the only part remotely testable. Seems like a purely philosophical argument.

[IBelieveInChrishna]

If neither the invisible God nor the ontologically different God do anything, then they would be irrelevant. Just because either isn't visible doesn't mean they have done nothing, however. Aristotle believed that such a God was necessary as an efficient (beginning) and final cause for the universe.

[Mr. Sluagh]

If neither the invisible God nor the ontologically different God do anything, then they would be irrelevant. Just because either isn't visible doesn't mean they have done nothing, however. Aristotle believed that such a God was necessary as an efficient (beginning) and final cause for the universe.

I've made my case against deism in other threads. It's still suspicious that any system of theology must account for and reinforce the elusiveness of gods. Why do gods have to be invisible, or incorporeal, or in another dimension? Why not suppose that they live on the bottom of the ocean or beneath the surface of Mars? At the moment, no one can prove that the gods don't live in either of those places, any more than they can disprove that the gods live in the realm of ideals. But why go for the gap that's hardest to close?

[Richard]

xhacker,
An invisible God is infinitly malleable by her followers which gives great survival value to the idea. Seems the best explanation, for me.

IBelieveInChrishna,
I find your argument interesting. I think it's best to split the problem in two:
The evidence based argument: Let's say we agree that beliefs (truth) has to be determined by evidence and we can't find evidence to separate an invisible God from a non-existing God. This is enough to make me an agnostic atheist, and I can leave it at that.
The philosophical argument: Any argument that is based on the contingency of the reality (universe) we live in (i.e. first-cause argument, existence of natural laws, mathematics, logic etc.) seems meaningless in a debate about theism. All the argument proves is that we need something non-contingent for reality to be logically consistent (I call it "the framework of reality"). This is not an argument for theism as it fails to establish that "the framework of reality" equals God.

[IBelieveInChrishna]

...Why do gods have to be invisible, or incorporeal, or in another dimension? Why not suppose that they live on the bottom of the ocean or beneath the surface of Mars?

Aristotle's reasoning was that the universe's creator had to be of a superior ontological nature to its creations (i.e. A physical being can't simply create another physical being, whatever creates that being has to be superior to it). It wouldn't make much sense, therefore, for God to be a "material" being in the sense that we know it. That's why, he would say, God wouldn't live on the bottom of the ocean, and why God would have to be incorporeal.

Additionally (and this is me speaking here), if we are to suppose that a creator must exist, and that it has a physical form, that physical form is made subordinate to our perceptions and any illusions we might be under. A human can be dreaming, can be under the influence of an illusion, etc., so if a God is to exist its verifiability can never be subject to anything empirical (of the senses).

Don't take this as me employing any "elusiveness of God" scapegoat tactic. That's where this thread got its sarcastic beginning, but I'm not advocating any side here.

The philosophical argument: Any argument that is based on the contingency of the reality (universe) we live in (i.e. first-cause argument, existence of natural laws, mathematics, logic etc.) seems meaningless in a debate about theism. All the argument proves is that we need something non-contingent for reality to be logically consistent (I call it "the framework of reality"). This is not an argument for theism as it fails to establish that "the framework of reality" equals God.

I agree completely. I think that in my case, I simply refer to that "framework" as God. When I refer to it as such, I don't mean to implicitly attach any further traits to that "framework" (i.e. all-loving, living in the sky, bearded).

[Mr. Sluagh]

...Why do gods have to be invisible, or incorporeal, or in another dimension? Why not suppose that they live on the bottom of the ocean or beneath the surface of Mars?

Aristotle's reasoning was that the universe's creator had to be of a superior ontological nature to its creations (i.e. A physical being can't simply create another physical being, whatever creates that being has to be superior to it). It wouldn't make much sense, therefore, for God to be a "material" being in the sense that we know it. That's why, he would say, God wouldn't live on the bottom of the ocean, and why God would have to be incorporeal.

Additionally (and this is me speaking here), if we are to suppose that a creator must exist, and that it has a physical form, that physical form is made subordinate to our perceptions and any illusions we might be under. A human can be dreaming, can be under the influence of an illusion, etc., so if a God is to exist its verifiability can never be subject to anything empirical (of the senses).

Don't take this as me employing any "elusiveness of God" scapegoat tactic. That's where this thread got its sarcastic beginning, but I'm not advocating any side here.

The philosophical argument: Any argument that is based on the contingency of the reality (universe) we live in (i.e. first-cause argument, existence of natural laws, mathematics, logic etc.) seems meaningless in a debate about theism. All the argument proves is that we need something non-contingent for reality to be logically consistent (I call it "the framework of reality"). This is not an argument for theism as it fails to establish that "the framework of reality" equals God.

I agree completely. I think that in my case, I simply refer to that "framework" as God. When I refer to it as such, I don't mean to implicitly attach any further traits to that "framework" (i.e. all-loving, living in the sky, bearded).

Okay, so we're essentially back to this thread. Do you have any problem my arguments there and the accord that JustJim and I reached?

[IBelieveInChrishna]

That was a fantastic thread. I don't think I have any problem with the idea you two introduced there, as you said, the idea arrived at here is nearly identical. I think I just find myself a little more "hopeful" in terms of restoring those fabled traits to God / "the framework".