God versus Gravity

[Hatuey]

Gravity is obvious and yet completely unexplained and mysterious.
Assuming god exists and it matters to humans in some way, why does he hide more than gravity?

Gravity proves that god could make his existence obvious to all while maintaining absolute secrecy concerning any interactions or their mechanics.

[Divine Insight]

Gravity is obvious and yet completely unexplained and mysterious.

I personally wouldn't throw my support behind the above statement. I think that General Relativity explains gravity pretty well. Granted there may be other concepts associated with this explanation that are themselves not easy to grasp. But I think the concept of gravity has been sufficiently explained.

As far as comparing a God with Gravity, that comparison makes no sense anyway. Unlike Gravity, there is no measurable evidence that any God exists.

In short, there is no need to explain something that doesn't even have any measurable attributes to begin with.

[Hatuey]

I personally wouldn't throw my support behind the above statement. I think that General Relativity explains gravity pretty well. Granted there may be other concepts associated with this explanation that are themselves not easy to grasp. But I think the concept of gravity has been sufficiently explained.

We only understand what gravity does, not how it works. (Similar to Dark Matter and Dark Energy) See the standard model of physics.

As far as comparing a God with Gravity, that comparison makes no sense anyway. Unlike Gravity, there is no measurable evidence that any God exists.

My point is that god could maintain all the mystery he wants about how he works and yet be as obvious and irrefutable as gravity; therefore, his choosing to be completely undetectable and irrelevant is his decision.

Believers often say that if god was provable there wouldn't be a need for activating faith. My retort is that god could be as obvious and yet as mysterious as gravity.

In short, there is no need to explain something that doesn't even have any measurable attributes to begin with.

Indeed, but we have other threads to discuss god's irrelevance.

[Divine Insight]

Believers often say that if god was provable there wouldn't be a need for activating faith.

Have you ever asked them why faith should be important? What does faith have to do with morality?

Also doesn't the very claim that a person needs to have faith prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that said person could not have possible "rejected" this God previously. A person would need to have faith that the God exist before they could even be said to reject it.

All that a belief based on blind faith does is prove the gullibility of the person who has faith. Does this God demand that people must be gullible? It that the idea?

They would need to explain to me why faith is important before even bringing the topic up.

Gravity requires no faith at all.

[Mithrae]

Gravity is obvious...

Only if you define it solely in terms of effect. The idea that objects consciously want to be near each other as much as possible could hardly be identified with gravity as we conceive it, yet there's no obvious observational distinction between the two.

If we lived in a world in which reported sightings of 'supernatural' occurances were common (even more common than they already are, that is) and confirmable, they would merely cease to be considered supernatural. They wouldn't make the existence of a deity obvious.

Seems to me if anything were to make the existence of a God obvious - meaning that the ultimate nature behind all reality is sentient and intelligent - surely it would have to be a universe in which (a) sentience/intelligence can be recognised, and conceptually distinguished from an alternative in such a way that (b) the presence of sentience/intelligence is itself otherwise unexplainable or impossible.

It could be argued that this accurately describes the universe as we perceive it. We do recognise sentience/intelligence, and we cannot explain it beyond somewhat vague appeals to emergence. (Actually to be precise the unexplained gap here would be consciousness or subjective experience, not more advanced sentience or intelligence.)

But we're back to the same problem as gravity there: The 'effect' of this hypothetical 'God' may well be obvious, but there really isn't any way to completely rule out alternative explanations for that effect. So short of defining the contentious term solely in reference to its effects, it can't really be said to be obvious. At most, it might be the simplest and most broadly-applicable theory available.

[Ancient of Years]

Gravity is obvious...

Only if you define it solely in terms of effect. The idea that objects consciously want to be near each other as much as possible could hardly be identified with gravity as we conceive it, yet there's no obvious observational distinction between the two.

How would one go about seeking evidence for a hypothesis like that? To consciously want something is suggestive of human behavior. In humans it is generally the case that the further one is from having something, the more one wants it. If a person is starving they (*) will go great distances to find food. Yet two objects who are alleged to want to be close will be much less attracted to each other the further apart they are. This is not comparable to the kind of behavior expected of humans.

The idea that objects “consciously want to be near each other� runs contrary to observations of the analogous behavior in humans. There is a clear observational distinction between this and the gravitational theories normally used.

(*) I am a fan of the indefinite gender third person singular, in which the nominally plural ‘they’ and ‘them’ are used in a singular sense. There is precedent for this type of change: the nominally plural ‘you’ replaced the singular ‘thee’ and ‘thou’.

If we lived in a world in which reported sightings of 'supernatural' occurrences were common (even more common than they already are, that is) and confirmable, they would merely cease to be considered supernatural. They wouldn't make the existence of a deity obvious.

The point of presenting alleged supernatural occurrences is to demonstrate that there is something beyond the natural world. It is exactly the rare and special nature of the alleged events, that they are not natural, that is intended to make that point. But not surprisingly, confirmable ‘supernatural’ events do not seem to be available for examination. To serve their purpose they would need to be definitely and undeniably not natural.

Seems to me if anything were to make the existence of a God obvious - meaning that the ultimate nature behind all reality is sentient and intelligent - surely it would have to be a universe in which (a) sentience/intelligence can be recognised, and conceptually distinguished from an alternative in such a way that (b) the presence of sentience/intelligence is itself otherwise unexplainable or impossible.

It could be argued that this accurately describes the universe as we perceive it. We do recognise sentience/intelligence, and we cannot explain it beyond somewhat vague appeals to emergence. (Actually to be precise the unexplained gap here would be consciousness or subjective experience, not more advanced sentience or intelligence.)

But we're back to the same problem as gravity there: The 'effect' of this hypothetical 'God' may well be obvious, but there really isn't any way to completely rule out alternative explanations for that effect. So short of defining the contentious term solely in reference to its effects, it can't really be said to be obvious. At most, it might be the simplest and most broadly-applicable theory available.

Einstein, who has been getting a workout around here lately, was of the opinion that the universe embodied deliberate intelligent design but that there was no deity who cared how we behaved. This is the God of Spinoza, as Einstein himself explicitly referenced. Scriptures (Jewish scriptures in his case) were just stories. To Einstein the existence of a ‘God’ was obvious but had nothing to do with religion.

[ttruscott]

Gravity is obvious and yet completely unexplained and mysterious.
Assuming god exists and it matters to humans in some way, why does he hide more than gravity?

Gravity proves that god could make his existence obvious to all while maintaining absolute secrecy concerning any interactions or their mechanics.

The fact that some people are so antagonistic to HIS being or presence that they will re-interpret every and anything to keep their denial of HIS self revelations strong,

and is NOT proof that HE cannot or does not give those revelations. Luke 16:31 "He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'"

And, imco, the reason HE does not override this stubbornness by absolute proof is that HIS sinful church must return to HIM by faith, not proof...it is by faith we are saved, not seeing a proof.

Peace, Ted

[Hatuey]

Gravity is obvious and yet completely unexplained and mysterious.
Assuming god exists and it matters to humans in some way, why does he hide more than gravity?

Gravity proves that god could make his existence obvious to all while maintaining absolute secrecy concerning any interactions or their mechanics.

The fact that some people are so antagonistic to HIS being or presence that they will re-interpret every and anything to keep their denial of HIS self revelations strong,

and is NOT proof that HE cannot or does not give those revelations. Luke 16:31 "He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'"

And, imco, the reason HE does not override this stubbornness by absolute proof is that HIS sinful church must return to HIM by faith, not proof...it is by faith we are saved, not seeing a proof.

Peace, Ted

So, no answer to why (very mysterious) gravity is obvious to ALL, but (very mysterious) god isn't? Why post?

[Mithrae]

Gravity is obvious...

Only if you define it solely in terms of effect. The idea that objects consciously want to be near each other as much as possible could hardly be identified with gravity as we conceive it, yet there's no obvious observational distinction between the two.

How would one go about seeking evidence for a hypothesis like that? To consciously want something is suggestive of human behavior. In humans it is generally the case that the further one is from having something, the more one wants it. If a person is starving they (*) will go great distances to find food.

Hi Ancient, and welcome to the forum. I only just wandered back for a quick glance last night, but I've already noticed some of your interesting and well-informed posts

I don't think you could make anything even remotely approaching a universal rule with this. Even your starving person might be expected to start running or struggling harder against any obstacles once his meal is actually in sight. Destitute people in the third world are much less likely to want a Ferrari than a first world business executive. I'm much more likely to want a cute girl who catches my bus than a cute girl in Japan. A valiant effort, but I don't think it works.

The point of presenting alleged supernatural occurrences is to demonstrate that there is something beyond the natural world. It is exactly the rare and special nature of the alleged events, that they are not natural, that is intended to make that point. But not surprisingly, confirmable ‘supernatural’ events do not seem to be available for examination. To serve their purpose they would need to be definitely and undeniably not natural.

Like many sceptics I'd suggest that if something actually occurs, it's proven by that very fact to be part of the nature of reality, even if it's an extremely unusual event. The question is whether it's best explained by speculating unseen intelligent agency/s behind it, or by speculating that there are simply some deterministic laws behind it which we haven't understood yet. Neither is a very compelling assumption really, and even the former wouldn't necessarily indicate a deity. I think that at most, 'supernatural' events might suggest problems with naturalism and/or physicalism as they're currently understood; they don't prove theism.

But we're back to the same problem as gravity there: The 'effect' of this hypothetical 'God' may well be obvious, but there really isn't any way to completely rule out alternative explanations for that effect. So short of defining the contentious term solely in reference to its effects, it can't really be said to be obvious. At most, it might be the simplest and most broadly-applicable theory available.

Einstein, who has been getting a workout around here lately, was of the opinion that the universe embodied deliberate intelligent design but that there was no deity who cared how we behaved. This is the God of Spinoza, as Einstein himself explicitly referenced. Scriptures (Jewish scriptures in his case) were just stories. To Einstein the existence of a ‘God’ was obvious but had nothing to do with religion.

Yet others can look at all the same information as Einstein and not think that a deity is obvious at all. And if we lived in a society in which animism was still prevalent, we might have the same kind of uncertainty about gravity.

I share Spinoza's panentheistic way of imagining 'God' (though I scarcely think there's any grounds for knowing what interests or motivations It does or doesn't have), but it is, at most, the best available explanation for what we observe. That's all anything can ever be - it's only the scarcity of alternative, non-naturalist explanations for stuff like gravity which makes us forget that.

[instantc]

Like many sceptics I'd suggest that if something actually occurs, it's proven by that very fact to be part of the nature of reality, even if it's an extremely unusual event.

Then every event is a natural event by definition, rendering supernatural not only a myth but also superfluous as a term.

I suggest that there is a more purposeful way to define these terms. The world seems to follow certain laws and patterns. If something could break these laws and patterns at will or in an unpredictable non-patterned manner, then it would make sense to call that something supernatural, as it would seemingly transcend the otherwise consistent patterns.

Thus, for something to be supernatural, both of the abovementioned elements would have to be present. Neither one alone should hardly be labeled as supernatural.