Is the idea of God(s) the only non-empirical schema we can have?

Question

What I mean is that everything we can think of is given to us by our 5 senses except for self-creating, transcendental deities. Can you think of an exception to this? The idea of a God (at least certain Gods) that is a self-sufficient 'prime mover' cannot be empirical as there is nothing in our world, even at a quantum level, that is self-creating.

I am aware that mathematical axioms etc are considered a priori, but that's a different thing as all numbers can be considered 'units' of something and therefore empirical.

Do you know what i mean? I would be interested to get your opinions

Thanks, but is the idea of God the ONLY non empirical schema we can have?

Thanks again, but even atheists can have the IDEA of a transcendental power that is non empirical.

yes Michael, i understand, but you have received information about these phenomena empirically (gravitons, electrons, evolution is reasoning from one empirical state to the next, planets are certainly empirical etc).

But we have no empirical evidence of a self contained transcendental entity with which to bestow attributes on to something else. The bible is a book, and therefore empirical.

Cheers Larry, the 'Monadology' is also a construct of empirical bits. Just pieced together by the excellent rational mind of Leibniz.

Answer 1

At least one possible exception to this might be Leibniz's Monads.I mean off-hand this is all that immediately comes to mind.I was thinking of the early Greek Atomisms but then I thought at base that too is Empirical.I would like to know if you believe Kant ever succeeded in finding a synthetic a priori statement.Or moreso did he ever show them to be possible.About the only other notion close to what I think you are seeking would be Spinoza putting Cartesian Philosophy into a Geometric Method,i.e.sets of axioms,etc.But then you covered that too.I'm afraid in Western Philosophy we are at an Empirical standstill.I think if we did some research into Eastern Philosophy we might have a better chance to arrive at an answer.In any event I am going to look into it and get back to you.Well now don't forget Jonathan Edward's "Sense of the Heart" LOL

Answer 2

1) Why do you think God is non-empirical? This is right, if we consider we have only 5 senses and these 5 senses indeed, by being of material nature, can't perceive God, that is of spiritual nature..

2) Horewer, above the five senses, we have the mind and above the mind we have the intelligence, both also material, but subtle and above them we have the spirit soul.
.
3) Therefore, if we are to perceive God, it has to be on the spiritual platform, in our inner self as a spiritual soul.

4) And yes, as you had conclude, there is many exception beyond the empirical limited world of the 5 senses. The paranormal phenomenon of mediums and yogis, the ghosts (non-physical body creatures embodied by the subtle body, mind), and with the intelligence alone, there is the capacity of realised the formless aspect of God (with devotion and surrender soul, one can realised God's personality).

Answer 3

It's possible to be an atheist Buddhist. There does not need to be an all-powerful deity when everything is linked in a metaphysical way.

There is also a speculative branch of physics that deals with the possible implications of a pre-universe state. It's not exactly non-empirical, but empiricists might wince at some of the theories.

Answer 4

Empirical means physical, or phenomenal. Essences are phenomena of the mind, a means of identifying what is primary about something.
However, Kant placed them outside the realm of phenomena by making them something different: "noumena." He said we cannot know noumena, therefore only the subject "noumena" is a phenemon of the mind. The noumena themselves must be outside the mind, yet he clearly states they are not phenomenal. So they must be non-empirical yet outside of us.
That is why I find the idea of noumena to be contradictory to reason, but whether you believe in it or not, it represents a non-empirical "schema."
Since no one else seems to be able to offer an answer, perhaps Kant invented the only non-empirical schema since the concept of God. That would be an astonishing achievement, so it is unfortunate that his achievement is irrational.

Answer 5

The problem with so many people is that you can only use logic to convince someone that uses logic. I suppose everyone uses logic to some extent, but there aren't enough of us that can carry logic to a higher level of abstraction.

We believe many things that we can't detect directly through our five senses. I've never directly sensed gravity, electro-magnetism, the strong force, extra-solar planets, evolution, or insects being born. I've never directly experienced any of these things, but I believe in all of them because either I have experienced their effects, or I believe in other people that have experienced their effects.

This leads to the question about the effects of God. Many people would say that the bible, life, and answers to prayers are all effects of God.

Answer 6

Success would never be as gratifying without the possibility of failure. If you know when you set out on a venture that it is bound to work out well, where's the challenge? I feel I need to be careful how much I tell you, even though I have nothing but good news to share. Still, though, if you hear it and believe it, where will be your motivation? And, how will you live without the dramatic tension of uncertainty? Don't be too eager to dispel all doubt this weekend. A little mystery may yet give rise to a lot of magic.

$V$V$V$V$V$

Answer 7

What makes you think that the idea of God is a non-empirical schema? It arises from the same mechanisms as all our thoughts and feelings and so is empirical. Unless of course you think that anything arising from our thoughts is non-empirical, in which case , I vote for Gandalf!

Answer 8

I agree with what is said above. Additionally, you could read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, an eminent biologist. It's a bit hard-reading -esp. for the non-native English speaker that I am- but it is really worth it. Dawkins explains a.o. how religion became a need for humans ... by a Darwinian reasoning and by his deep knowledge, plus his talent to explain in simple words, of genes and nemes (the duplicators for instinct etc.).

Answer 9

If we look at some physical object, like a car, we can imagine that object in our mind. This object in our mind doesn't have a physical existence like that of the real car. Yet it must exist in some way for it to be in our imagination. It has to be a non-physical existence. And we can change and manipulate it at will. Change exhaust, color, size,…etc.

How do we discern between a real car and one in our imagination? The faculty of judgement. We judge whether an object has a real physical existence or is just in our mind.

Answer 10

Numbers can be defined without reference to the physical world. Mathematicians define numbers in terms of sets, rather in terms of physical things. In fact it is difficult to know how you would give "3" (or "4") a physical definition.

The really intriguing thing about mathematics is the way it can be made to model the physical universe.