Rev. Father A. Maximiadis
The above illustration, including its question, regarding the ‘sun’s actual existence’ within the context of the “difference between” [sic] God, and the sun argument are a gross contradiction. Both the illustration and argument has unmistakable, identifying features of the broad New Age Movement; and atheism (αθεϊσμός). The following refutation, of their argument, will question the atheistic ‘difference between’ argument, suggesting ‘God does not exist,’ by reason of: “the sun actually exists” [sic]. Serious discussions of God’s ‘existence’ is usually spoken, or written, about in the disciplines of theology, philosophy, academic metaphysics, or psychology. The sun is usually discussed within solar physics, a sub-branch of astrophysics. Both these discussions are in their respective fields (or orientations), diametrically opposite; notwithstanding the ‘difference between’ argument. God’s supernatural existence, which is quintessentially spiritual, beyond the limited known (and unknown) material universe.
Whether the sun exists is open to interpretation. For example, from the geocentric model of the solar system, i.e., the earth-centred perspective, the ‘existent’ sun from the terrestrial vantage point, ascends on the apparent eastern horizon. Moreover, travels longitudinally across the ecliptic to where it descends, on the apparent, western horizon, only by virtue of sensory-based observation; without which the sun’s phenomenon would be non-existent. Furthermore, according to the observational evidence, of the obscuration of the sun, predicated between the sunset and sunrise cycle, demonstrates the ‘sun’s actual non-existence’. Moreover, would the sun’s nonexistence, to sensory-based observation, between sunset and sunrise; not exist? Furthermore, from the heliocentric model of the solar system, i.e., the sun centred perspective, the sun, contrary to sensory-based observations, does not orbit around the earth. However, rather the earth rotates [366.26 times per orbital period, on its axis, counter-clockwise from west to east] around the sun; producing a sidereal year or 365.26 solar days. Therefore, the sun’s actual existence rather depends on interpretations, of sensory-based observations [based on contemporary laws of physics]; from various vantage points of the mechanical world. From there, it is impossible to substantiate the realm of the spiritual with measurable empirical evidence. The difference argument is antithetical to the spiritual and temporal. Firstly, the temporal (temporalis) is dependent on the ontological theory of physicalism (or atheism) suggesting ‘nothing is above the single stuff’ universe (monism). Secondly, the spiritual is understood to mean ‘above the laws of physics’. That is to say, an ontological view suggesting either the ‘dual stuff’ (dualism); or “multi stuff” (pluralism) theory.
“Difference” either way is dependent on faith.
Both physicalism and atheism have failed to provide a cognitive construct for ‘meaning,’ of “the physical,” from the perspective of conceptual and formal semantics; free of editorialising. Moreover, furthermore, provide a rationale for ‘non-physical attributes and qualities’ that are ‘nothing over and above’ the physical. Discussions, of the temporal, in principle, involve ‘faith’ (πίστη), confidently believing with (or without) empirical evidence. Examples being, ‘faith’ in pure science, which is theoretical, absent of prior reference to mathematical or logical applications. Moreover, ‘faith’ in scientific technology, is reliant on pre-existing scientific technology. Both physicalism and atheism, are undeniably faith-orientated in their complete trust, and confidence, with respect to their demands of ‘faith’ in the doctrines (or teachings) of empirical science.
Worshipping God? [sic]
The monotheistic religions are quintessentially identical which believe in the oneness of God. Or faith in a personal, transcendent God, which is monotheistic; and diametrically opposite of polytheism (Hinduism) and pantheism (Taoism). For example, the Abrahamic traditions: viz: 1.) Judaism, which has no explicit definition of faith’s existence, but believe YHWH (יהוה) is the ultimate cause of all that exists. 2.) The Christian traditions that have differences, but agree that faith (πίστη) is Christ-centred, and in the belief in the concept of Godhead revealed as the Holy Trinity. 3.) Muhammadism, which is faith-based, i.e., al-īmān (الإيمان), an austere, and rigid form of monotheism. “Worshiping God,” and ‘faith’ is trusting beyond the transitory, sensory-based ‘proof’ that is reliant on conclusions deduced from the physical world. Facilitated through the processes [of receptor neurones (the windows) of the visual, auditory, olfactory, tactile and gustatory, by way of the neuronal afferent fibres] to the cognitive faculties of the mind.
Not all is verifiable by the empirical.
The ontological thesis of physicalism is a single ultimate reality, i.e., a “one-stuff” universe (monism). Without the two opposing separate realities, namely the “two-stuff” (dualism) and “many-stuff” (pluralism). The ‘physical’ is left undefined, with no heed paid to a rationale, for the substance of ‘nothingness above the physical’. Furthermore, physicalism is dependent upon Aristotelian logic, i.e., data that is verifiable by empirical and measurable evidence. Although prima facie case seems feasible, however, on closer examination, this view can, in some circumstances, be fraught with ambiguities. For example, in the field of neuroscience. Neuroscience has made no progress towards understanding the connectivity of the central nervous system (CNS) including the brain (εγκέφαλος) and spinal cord. Moreover, the qualitative, subjective conscious phenomenon, i.e., the mind (μένος). Atheistic arguments are denying God’s existence, by standards of empirical science, while not applying the same standards to the non-physical cognitive faculties. For example, consciousness, identification and interpretation of sensory data, intellectual functions, concept-formations, symbolic processing, memory, and conclusions (or judgements). Atheistic arguments based on abstract concepts of ‘mind’ et cetera, is incongruous and anti-intellectual. The earth was believed to be flat in the pre-Columbian period (circa 1492). Moreover, believed to be the centre of the solar system, prior to the Copernican Revolution (circa 1543). Subsequently, both these beliefs, or paradigms, underwent fundamental changes, in the established canons of science. The flat earth becomes viewed as an oblate sphere shape, and its geocentric earth-centred orientation was superceded by the heliocentric schema of the sun at the centre of the solar system.
In conclusion, notwithstanding many of the advances made in the various branches of sciences, there remain the infinitely enormous unknowns. For example, neuroscience has not rationalised the totality of the hypothesised, abstract mind, and the complex physical brain. The abstract mind is as semantically incommensurable; as the argument of “the difference between worshiping God and worshiping the sun” [sic]. Atheists deny God’s existence, by standards of empirical science, while not applying the same standards to the non-physical (abstract) mind; is not de rigueur