The Wisdom of Understanding Non-existing Gods

I am not a proponent of the idea that the unexplained should be left alone. But I also don't want to go around in circles explaining something that is unexplainable. I try to adopt a philosophical way of thinking that we inevitably have to accept because in some cases we find something inexplicable. Let's say, God.

In philoshophical tradition, there are a nominal and a real definition. A nominal definition is a definition of a word, a real definition is a definition of a thing. This concept of definition of things is kind of old-fashioned and aristotelian and some naturalistic types are skeptical. But not all naturalistic types are skeptical of it. 

I think we need it to make sense of certain kind of scientific inquiry, my kind of favorit example is that physicists know what the words dark matter mean, the nominal definition. But as of this writing no one knows what dark matter is. So they have the definition of the word but not the definition of thing.

However, not everything that has not been explained must be accepted with a nominal explanation. This difference must be emphasized, that something which has not been explained does not mean it cannot be explained, but rather requires time to explain it.

Anything related to the usefulness and justice of worldly life must be attempted to be explained. For anything that is private and its usefulness is very subjective, it is okay to explain it with a nominal explanation.

For universal benefit and justice, for example in a case of violation of the law, we must know which ones are truly violations accompanied by real evidence and which ones are not. This does not mean that we have to arbitrarily say that someone committed a violation even though there is no evidence of his/her guilt, only opinions, let's say. This is very unfair among creatures which created with thought.

On the other hand, there is something that is private and personal, say God, here there are no objective opinions regarding God and there is also no concrete evidence, so if we define it nominally, just an explanation of those opinions, it doesn't matter, because this not bound by universal justice and usefulness, each group has its own definition.

However, if a subjective definition where its existence is tied to the existence of a group is then imposed on another group, this is what becomes a disease. However, the definition has never been universally accepted.

If a group believes in it, please just believe in it, without forcing something that is not universal to be accepted by the universal group. I can give a simple example below.

For example, in a class, say class A, there are those who think there are ghosts, one class may believe that there are ghosts in that class, and it might be true that some of them saw the ghost.

However, news about ghosts should not be forced on other classes, say class B, for example there is a child from class A who goes to class B and forces class B to believe that there are ghosts.

Regardless of whether ghosts exist or not, and indeed there is not enough evidence except just opinions, as long as the belief in the existence of ghosts only has to live in class A. Cannot be forced into class B.

The existence or absence of this ghost also has no effect whatsoever on class, nor does it have any effect on deprivation of rights and injustice. So whether it exists or not is a matter of faith for each class.

So distinguish between something that has a direct impact on us (objectively), and something that exists or does not exist is a personal and private matter, has no effect objectively. There are only subjective opinions.

 16:43