I think that that is certainly true currently, and I believe it always will be. I call it “not having a full understanding of reality” or “the existence of forces beyond our understanding”. I don’t know that the terminology “absolute ground state” fits. I don’t know that it would be absolute or a ground or even a state. I mean “beyond our understanding” in the most literal sense.
Maybe it would have no cause. But I don’t know. The very problem we seek to address seems to be that we do not understand the cause of our universe and greater reality. Suggesting that there is something without a cause behind it takes us no closer to understanding. I no more understand how there could be a God or other forces without a cause than I can understand how there could be a universe or reality without a cause.
So while I don’t want to echo any insulting tones, I do think Marvin has a point.
No one has a problem with having a point, I hope. But insulting people’s intellect is insulting.
Many denials of God these days do sound more like denials of Santa Claus’ big brother.
I can’t say I’ve noticed. Do you have any examples?
And as such, it does show a failure to even reach the Christian understanding, much less marshal any argument against it.
I don’t think I misunderstand the Christian understanding, or even totally reject the possibility. It just seems to me that it does not have any explanatory power with regards to the existence of reality or the universe.
we are “obliged” to either accept that such an ultimate “ground of all existence” is there, or on the other hand, we just can’t know about any such thing and we’ll just stick with what we can see and perhaps know something about here and now. This latter is (I suspect) where you solidly end up
I’d say so. We don’t know. We can try to understand it by various means, but my belief is that it is beyond our understanding–which is to say, no one understands it better than I do–and likely always will be. Our frame of reference on reality is infinitesimal, and we have no idea how infinitesimal. Science has made amazing strides in increasing our understanding, but I don’t see that we’re even scratching the surface of the ultimate underpinnings of our reality.
but as such it also prevents you from having any compelling argument you can make against those who do accept it. All you can do is shuffle off the burden of proof to them and declare that you’ll withhold judgment until they produce it; which only circles you back into your own lack of understanding of what they were talking about in the first place.
I guess my argument is simply as I lay out above. It seems to me that one may have beliefs about such matters (as I have outlined my own beliefs above) which should ideally be supported by various types of evidence and reasoning, in some way. I think that’s fine, as long as people recognize the limits of their concrete knowledge. I don’t think I substantially lack understanding about such beliefs in general, but I’m always willing to listen and potentially be proven wrong about that. As far as the burden of proof, this really only comes into play when you’re making an assertion (that I should believe your beliefs, or that your beliefs qualify as knowledge, for example.)