1

If someone said to Moses, "Would you like to ride in my Rolls-Royce"? And if Moses replied, "No". Moses might not be rejecting going in a "Rolls-Royce" but rejecting something he did not understand.

If God is ultimate reality and someone says that they reject God, have they rejected God, or have they just not met with ultimate reality?

10
  • I can perfectly well reject something I do not (fully) understand. Do you go by plane? Others reject it. Probably, both they and you do not fully understand the physics of planes' flight or how the turbines work or their secondary systems and communications. Also, that is a BIG if there. Not many subscribe to a Spinozian understanding of God like that.
    – Philip Klöcking
    Feb 18 '20 at 20:41
  • 1
    Defining God as something that can not be rejected reminds me of Anselm defining him as something that must exist. Regardless of faith, this is not a good idea.
    – Conifold
    Feb 18 '20 at 21:39
  • I believe that Meister Eckhart said something to similar effect: «If I knew anything about God, he would not be a God worth having» (And that was Meister Eckhart 😆) Feb 19 '20 at 4:26
  • 1
    The question is somewhat tricky, it seems you push a definition of God as an ultimate reality (maybe in a spinozian twist ?), but you can well imagine placing a great many deal of people under the umbrella of atheism even though they hold for an ultimate reality which they do not understand. The point being: many accept reality can be overwhelming while having no need equate Nature to God, they'd maybe rather hold for Nature. I'd really wish to see how you tackle the definition of God, it should clarify your question.
    – Gloserio
    Feb 19 '20 at 11:05
  • 1
    @C.Stroud: if God is the reason of existence and ultimate reality, how come it feels so removed to some people? I take the point of your analogy which seems to be the following: people cannot conceive of God as Moses could not conceive of Rolls-Royce, hence their "No" is that of ignorance; however, by the same token, a "Yes" could only arise from ignorance, at least in as far as those who reject God are a in similar position of a Moses who never saw a Rolce-Royce. This should at least suggest that a "Yes"/"No" framing is not proper for this question, agnostics could be genuine.
    – Gloserio
    Feb 19 '20 at 20:05
2

I accept the definition(s) of God, just like I accept Newtonian mechanics as a very effective model of motion.

What is accepting or rejecting though? At what level of proof?

Direct observational evidence? If a table was in front of you, and you 'rejected' it, I'd call you mad, or in need of a rest!

But God is One, and the scientific method of observation/measurement requires a duality of observer and observed.

From a scientific point of view, God cannot be rejected or accepted - there simply can't be an experiment designed to reject any null hypothesis with respect to the Absolute.

For any level of proof below direct observation - inference, scripture, prophecy etc - anything is possible.

God is a materialistic objectification of All, the Absolute object. The path of the scientific method, from Coperincan relativity, to Gallilean, to special relativity, general relativity, and (Rovelli's) relational quantum mechanics, denies the observational validity of Absolutes, and shows that the fewer Absolutes, the more accurate the model!

Can you reject the above paragraph? Sure, conceptually, but if you examine the world directly, then - so long as you are honest - your conceptions will have to bend to what is in front of your eyes, which is sunyata for metaphysics - an experience which is only approximately described by Absolutes (like Newtonian mechanics is less explicative as compared to general relativity because of the assumption of Absolute Time and Absolute Space, but, importantly - it is still a decent model!) .

1

Your example is inconsistent with your question. Moses is not rejecting the Rolls-Royce, Moses is rejecting the action of going for a ride. Whereas the question, involves rejecting a noun that one may not know the definition of.

But to answer the question, you don't know that god is ultimate reality. It's more of a proposition. How could you possibly know all of reality to know that god is it? There's a famous saying "That which is asserting without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." In other words, I can reject something without fully understanding it in the same way that you accepted it.

People don't have to work harder to deny every statement that others make, that would be the burden of proof fallacy.

1
  • But isn’t God an absolute by definition? God and absolute are just synonyms same as, say, car and vehicle. So, the question itself is asking: can vehicle be rejected as a car? It’s seems self contradictory nonsense. Feb 19 '20 at 14:54
0

The Christian god is either almighty or non-existent. I assume the latter. In the first case you can only reject god if and as long as she exists. In the latter case there is nothing to reject.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.